EDITORIAL WRITINGS
FROM
THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST
Beginning with 1896
By Elder C. H. Cayce
Volume 1
Elder Harold Hunt
P O Box 5356
Maryville TN 37802
To
My Beloved Wife
who labors with me so untiringly in my feeble efforts
in the Masters Vineyard, and
To
My Dear Children
who are so attentive to their poor old father, and
To
My Dear Brethren and Sisters
who have been so kind and good to poor me all these years
along the rough and rugged pathway of life
This Volume is Lovingly Dedicated
PREFACE
We will make this apology short. You know it is customary to write an apology, and call it a preface, when a person publishes a book. We will make this one as short as possible.
For some time we have felt a desire to publish in book form the writings which we have done during the years past since we have been trying to edit and publish THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. The articles in the following pages will show the principles we have contended for during all these years.
We were ordained to the work of the ministry on December 6th, 1896. The presbytery was composed of Elders W. W. Sammons, K. M. Myatt and S. F. Cayce, and Deacons T. P. Rawls and W. I. Tucker. We thought it not out of place to begin the following pages with an account of the meeting and the ordination, as written by our father and published in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of Dec. 24, 1896. We have also included a few articles written by us in 1904 and 1905, before the death of our father. He passed away the fourth Sunday in August, 1905. He fell in the pulpit while preaching the closing discourse at the Collins River Association, in East Tennessee. After his death the work of editing THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST fell upon the writer.
Our dear companion, who labors with us in sending out THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, urged us to undertake this work which we have here begun. May the good Lord bless the same to the comfort, benefit, consolation and instruction of many of His dear children, and to the good of our beloved Zion, is the humble and sincere prayer of the author:
Thornton, Ark.,
April 29, 1935.
OUR MEETING AT RALSTON
December 24, 1896
We had a pleasant meeting indeed with our home church, at Ralston, Tenn., on the first Sunday and Saturday before, in this month (Dec. 5 and 6). Elders K. M. Myatt and W. W. Sammons were with us, and preached both days.
After the brethren had preached on Saturday the church went into conference, and after attending to all other business coming before the church, agreed to postpone the ordination of Brother C. H. Cayce until next day (Sunday). It was also agreed that we have services at our homes every night (up to the next Friday night) during the week.
Sunday Elders Myatt and Sammons both preached. Then the writer made a few remarks and gave an opportunity for the reception of members, when Sister Mattie Blacknall came forward and was received into the fellowship of the church as a candidate for baptism. We then gave a few minutes intermission, after which the church came together, and, during the singing of a song, the congregation re-assembled. Next, proceeded to ordain Brother C. H. Cayce (my son) to the work of the gospel ministry, as follows:
MINUTE OF PRESBYTERY
The Primitive Baptist Church of Christ at Ralston having requested, or called upon Elders W. W. Sammons and K. M. Myatt, and they, in answer to that call, having met with said church at the time of their regular meeting in December, 1896, together with Elder S. F. Cayce and Deacons W. I. Tucker and T. P. Rawls, all formed themselves into a presbytery and proceeded with said ordination as follows:
The Moderator called upon the church for one of her members to act as spokesman, when Brother T. P. Rawls was appointed to so act.
1st. Examination of the candidate by Elder Sammons.
2nd. Prayer by Elder Myatt.
3rd. Charge delivered by Elder Cayce.
4th. Laying on of hands by the presbytery.
5th. Hand of fellowship extended by the church.
W. W. Sammons, Moderator.
S. F. Cayce, Clerk.
As stated above, the meeting was a very pleasant one indeed; the brethren both preached with good liberty and greatly to the comfort, seemingly, of all our brethren and sisters. Not only did we enjoy their preaching, but the writer felt greatly encouraged because of the fact that they both endorsed our views, or believe just as we do, on the question of Christian obedience, time or “common” salvation. Brother Sammons stated that he had never heard me advance a single idea or express any sentiment whatever that he did not fully endorse. This was very encouraging indeed. So much so, that [pg 8] I could but let our brethren know (after he was done preaching) that he had heard me at his own (the Mississippi River) association, in October upon the very points, and in expression of the same ideas for which I have recently been denounced as an Arminian. I know that when I first became identified with the Baptists in this country (in 1866) they ALL believed that our eternal salvation is wholly unconditional, altogether the work of God, but that the time salvation, or Christian enjoyment, of the children of God (those already born of God) in this life depends greatly upon their obedience, and that it (their timely salvation) is in that sense conditional. And I know that this is what I believed and tried to preach when I first began to speak in public. Hence it is very encouraging to have such brethren as Elders Myatt and Sammons visit us and preach to our brethren at home just what we try to preach wherever we go.
The brethren both preached at my residence Saturday night, and Brother Myatt preached Sunday night at the Presbyterian church house in Martin. They had good liberty also at these meetings, as well as at our church house. Elder Sammons bade us farewell and boarded train for home at 3 o’clock Monday morning, and Elder Myatt left that day at noon. We feel to hope these dear brethren will visit us again soon, and can assure them that our brethren and sisters of Ralston church would be glad to have them come at any time.
According to agreement, on Saturday, we (self and wife, and after Monday night Claud also) visited brethren through the week and held services at their homes “from house to house” as follows: Monday night at Brother W. I. Tucker’s; Tuesday night at Brother Doc Staulcup’s; Wednesday at 3 o’clock p. m. at Brother John Lewis’; Wednesday night at Linn Staulcup’s; Thursday night at Brother Haywood Ellis. An opportunity was given every time for the reception of members, and on Wednesday night Brother Polk Fields came forward and related a reason of his hope in Christ and was received into the fellowship of the church as a candidate for baptism. And on Thursday at 2 o’clock p. m. we met at Mr. Clint Moore’s pond (near where Brother Ellis lives) where the writer baptized the two candidates (Sister Blacknall, who was received on Sunday, and Brother Fields, who was received Wednesday night).
Friday night the writer filled an appointment at Brother J. W. Stanfield’s house where we had no Baptists to hear us except Brother and Sister Stanfield and Brother Polk Fields, who conveyed me next morning to Sandy Branch. This closed our weeks meeting with the brethren and sisters of Ralston Church, and it was, indeed, a glorious time with the unworthy writer. To the Lord be all the glory. C.
[pg 9]
QUESTIONS
February 1. 1897
1. Does God will the eternal salvation of all mankind?
2. Will all mankind be saved eternally?
3. If not, is it true that God does all His pleasure?
A. Hardshell
ANSWER
1. We answer emphatically, Yes. 2nd Peter 3:9, “Not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” All who come to repentance will be eternally saved, therefore it is the will of God to save all.
2. No! All mankind will not be saved. “And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”— Rev. 20:15.
Yes, it is true that God does all His pleasure. “But it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” You see the pleasure of our Lord is to save those only who believe in His Son through the preaching of the gospel.
Why can’t God will to save the race through faith in His Son, and yet do His pleasure in saving only those who believe, and condemning those who live and die impenitent?
Provisions were made in the death of Christ sufficient to save all Adam’s race, but all will not accept offered mercy and hence must be lost. “He was made under law to redeem them that were under the law,” but not whether or no. “He came to seek and to save that which was lost.” All men were lost, hence He came to save all through His own appointments. Man must accept or be eternally lost.
Baptists can answer any question pertaining to their faith without contradicting themselves. Do you see?
The above appeared in the Baptist Reaper of December 17, 1896, a Softshell paper published in Martin. I have been requested to pay some respect to the same, and according to promise will proceed to “make it pleasant for Tommy” for a little while.
lst. Elder Moore says “yes,” and quotes a part of 2nd Peter 3:9. Here is the whole verse as it reads in the Bible: “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” Then he says, “all who come to repentance will be eternally saved, therefore it is the will of God to save all.” Let us quote Romans 3:4: “Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?” Elder Moore says God does all His pleasure, and tries to prove that it is God’s will that all the race repent. We have shown that God leads those to repentance who do repent. If God does all His pleasure, and His pleasure is that all the race come to repentance, it follows that He will lead all of them to repentance; and according to Elder Moore’s position, Universalism would be the truth. That is not all. Peter says God is not slack concerning His promise. Hence, as God leads those to repentance who do repent, it follows, if God’s will is that all come to repentance, [pg 10] He will certainly lead them to repentance.
According to Elder Moore’s position God is very slack. The Elder is not like Peter in his belief. Elder Moore’s position says God is slack. Peter says he is not slack. I guess Peter was correct, and Elder Moore mistaken.
Elder Moore quotes a part of l Cor. 1:21. Here it is as it reads in the Bible: “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” According to Elder Moore’s position it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save the unbeliever. The text shows conclusively that the preaching of the cross is foolishness to the world—to the unbeliever. No man will believe any proposition that is foolish to him. It may be ever so sensible to you, but as long as it is foolishness to him he will never believe it. Hence, according to Elder Moore’s position, no one will ever reach heaven and immortal glory.
The Elder says Baptists can answer any question pertaining to their faith without contradicting themselves. If you can do so, you will have to try it again, for you failed this time. See these two statements:
“Therefore it is the will of God to save all.” “You see the pleasure of our Lord is to save those only who believe in His Son through the preaching of the gospel.” God wills to save all the race, and His pleasure is to save only a part of the race—yet no contradiction!
“He was made under the law to redeem them that were under the law.” If the purpose was to redeem them that were under the law, and He fails to do so, was not the coming of Christ in vain? The text Elder Moore quotes a part of is Gal. 4:4,5, and reads as follows: “But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.” The next verse says: “And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” This shows conclusively that those for whom Christ was made under the law are redeemed from under the law, and that God sends forth the Spirit of His Son into their hearts crying, Abba, Father. Not only so, but it shows that they are all sons—or children—of God, hence heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ. If one of those for whom Christ was made under the law fails to be redeemed from under the law and its curse, then all may fail, and heaven be a blank at last—so far as the redeemed family of our God is concerned.
But Elder Moore quotes another text: “He came to seek and to save that which was lost.” Brother Moore, please tell us why you contradicted this text. You say mercy is offered. This text does not say a word about such a thing as offered mercy. It plainly says He came to seek and to save. [pg 11] If He came to seek and to save, He did not come to offer to save those who would accept. If the salvation of a sinner depends upon his seeking God, then none will be saved, if Paul told the truth, for in Rom, 3:11 he says “there is none that seeketh after God.”
Elder Moore says provisions were made in the death of Christ sufficient for the salvation of all the race, but he failed to tell where the text is in the Bible that says so. He has good reason for not doing it—because it is not there. Jesus says, in John 10:15, “And I lay down my life for the sheep.” In verse 26 He says, “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” This shows conclusively that He did not make provision for the salvation of all the race, as Elder Moore affirms. If He did make provision for the salvation of those who were not His sheep, it was not made by His death, because he did not die for them. He died for the sheep, and did not die for those who were not sheep.
Softshell Baptists cannot answer many questions propounded by “Hardshells” without contradicting themselves and also the Bible. Do you see?
C. H. Cayce,
MY TOUR IN MISSOURI
July 19,1897
I left home on Thursday night, May 27, to visit the churches of the Current River and Cape Girardeau Associations in Missouri, and some other churches in Arkansas. I visited New Hope, Buffalo, Antioch, Ellsinore, and Mt. Zion churches, of the Current River Association, and Macedonia, Little Hope, Bethel, Providence and Harmony, of the Cape Girardeau Association, then Little Flock, Harmony, and Mt. Zion, in the Harmony Association in Arkansas; then El Bethel and Indian Creek, in the Mississippi River Association, in Tennessee. I was away from home thirty-five days; delivered forty-four discourses, and traveled nearly 800 miles. I baptized eleven dear saints on the trip—two sisters into the fellowship of the church at Buffalo, three sisters and three brothers at Ellsinore (dear Brother Pace has already given an account of the meeting there), two sisters at Providence, and one sister at Mt. Zion, near Jonesboro.
At Jonesboro I learned that the church at Memphis had not published the appointment for me there, though I would not have known it had it not been for the kindness of a dear brother who lives in Mississippi. They did not want me, because I do not believe and will not preach that God unconditionally predestinated all things whatsoever come to pass, whether good, bad, [pg 12] or indifferent, and that people cannot help doing the meanness they are guilty of. Just here I want to say that I will not preach such God-dishonoring doctrine as that if every Baptist Church in the universe closes her doors against me. But I have no fear of that, for it is impossible for me to go to all the places where I am requested to go. I do not mention this Memphis matter to wound the feelings of any dear brother or sister, but feel it to be my duty to do so for the sake of other brethren in the ministry.
One circumstance I want to mention about the meeting at Ellsinore which Brother Pace said nothing about. On Saturday evening or Sunday morning when Brother Hill learned that his wife had joined the church, he raised his hand and cursed me and the church. On Monday night before services at Elm Branch he told me about what he had said and done, and told me also that on Sunday when I arose and had been talking only a few moments he was made to see how wrong he had done, and that he then loved me; and he fell on my shoulder and wept like a whipped child and said, “Mr. Cayce, I love you more than any man on earth, and if you can find it in your heart to do so, I beg you to forgive me.” I told him that I would forgive him as freely as I ever did anything in my life. As Brother Pace has already stated, he joined on Thursday following, and I baptized him on Friday morning. I thought of the language of one of old, “This is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes. “The sister I baptized at Jonesboro was only 14 years old. I feel to hope that the dear Lord was surely with me on that tour; and I feel amply repaid for all of the toil and suffering I endured to make the trip. It is no use for one to tell me that there is no such thing as reward in the service of God. As certain as I am, indeed, a servant of God, that certain it is that He rewarded me on this tour. Such reward as I felt to realize is worth more to me than all the combined salary of the Arminian preachers of the universe for twelve months. I would rather know that I am a called minister of God, and that I had been of benefit, and that even the least of the Lord’s humble poor had been comforted by my weak and feeble efforts in trying to preach, than to be president of the United States. When I have the evidence that one of the dear saints of God is benefitted by my weak efforts, it is enough to pay me for the toil and pain and afflictions that I endure in trying to preach Jesus and Him crucified.
I met many dear brethren and sisters on this tour, and their kindness to me shall never be forgotten. May our dear Redeemer abundantly bless each of them. And I want all of them who see this to just consider this as a personal letter to them.
In conclusion, I desire to ask an interest in the prayers of all God’s dear people. James says, “The fervent effectual prayer of a righteous man [pg 13] availeth much.” It would do me good to know that the least one of God’s humble poor was sending up a petition to the throne of God’s rich grace in my behalf.
Yours in humble hope of a home where there is no more toil, pain, sickness, sorrow, sin nor death. C. H. Cayce
Note:—The church in Memphis, Tenn., in the foregoing article is not the Morris Memorial Primitive Baptist Church now in Memphis, of which Elder James Duncan is at present the pastor. The above incident occurred before the Morris Memorial Church was constituted.
HOW GLARING!
May 1, 1899
I have thought all along since the trouble has been up among the Baptists that I would keep out of print— that is, I would not write on the questions that are causing strife and confusion. All are aware that so far I have written but little, if anything, on these questions. Many times I have had a deep desire to put in a “little mite,” but have resisted until now. I believe I could resist longer, but don’t think I will. I see some statements that are so glaringly contradictory in themselves, and some that are so foreign to truth, that I want to say a few things.
In the first place, I want to say that I have before me a copy of a paper called “The Standard of Truth,” vol. 2, No. 8, published by Elder Wm. R Welborn, Mecca, N. C. If the “editor and proprietor” would change the name of his sheet, and call it “The Standard of Untruth,” the title would not then be so misleading. Yet the name may—and does— signify the disposition of those who believe the doctrine advocated. If anyone fails to drink in and advocate the doctrines held to by them—that God absolutely and unconditionally predestinated all things that come to pass, and that man is an irresponsible machine, and no matter what meanness he does, he can’t help it—he is at once branded as an Arminian, or some other epithet is thrust at him, and they at once declare non-fellowship for him. This simply means that whatever their opinion is, it is the standard, and all must come up to the standard, or be left out.
But I want to show the inconsistencies of some expressions over the signature of the editor of the aforenamed sheet. On page 13, volume and number mentioned, under the head, “Two Salvations,” he says:
Some of the brethren claim that there are two kinds of salvation taught in the Scriptures; and they charge me with teaching that there is but one salvation taught in the Bible, which is not true. 1 have always tried to teach just what the Holy Scripture teaches, and that is that [pg 14] God is an unchangeable God. That salvation is of the Lord from first to finish. That is not of him that willeth, nor him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy, i. e., that all of God’s blessings bestowed upon us are purely by grace. That God has delivered and will yet deliver us; not because of righteousness that we have done, but because of His mercy and grace. That God is but one, and besides Him there is none other, and has but one salvation, and that is salvation by grace.
Now there are different salvations spoken of in the Bible, but only one, as touching the salvation of God’s people, whether in time or eternity. W. R. W.
Now, notice this expression: “And they charge me with teaching that there is but one salvation taught in the Bible, which is not true.” Now look at this: “I have always tried to teach”— what have you always tried to teach? Among other things, you say you have tried to teach “that God is but one, and besides Him there is none other, and has but ONE salvation!” It “is not true” when they charge you with teaching there is but one salvation, yet you say you have always TRIED to teach it! We can only conclude that if they had charged you with trying to teach that there is but one salvation taught in the Bible, then their charge would have been true. Will you please tell us how we are to know when to believe what you say?
Now look at this expression: “There are different salvations spoken of in the Bible, but only one, as touching the salvation of God’s people, whether in time or eternity.” If there is only one salvation spoken of in the Bib!e as to God’s people, and yet there is more than one salvation spoken of in the Bible, then there must be a salvation of others than God’s people spoken of. Will Elder W. please tell us who are embraced in the “different salvations” spoken of? If you say God’s people, we will not think you believe it, for you have said there is “only one, as touching the salvation of God’s people,” or you did not believe this last expression when you wrote it. According to what the Elder says, he does not believe Timothy was a child of God. Paul said to him, l Tim. 4:16, “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them; for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.” Paul says he shall save himself and them that hear him. Elder W. says there is only one salvation spoken of, as touching the salvation of God’s people. Hence, Timothy was not a child of God, and those that hear him were not children of God either!
I believe if I could not get up a better pet theory than this thing you brethren have gone into, I would quit. It would be a long ways better for you just to own up that you are wrong, and quit advocating such heresy, for when one is in such a “pinch” that he has to contradict himself as Elder Welborn has in the above, he is bound to know he is wrong, and not contending for the right way.
C H. Cayce
[pg 15]
DEBATE AT PERKINS
January 15, 1900
Debate began at Perkins’ Mill, twelve miles east of here, August 21st, and continued four days; subject, “Identity of the Church;” each affirming two days; W. D. Craig, of the Church of Christ, Bibby, Miss., and C. H. Cayce, of the Primitive Baptist Church, Martin, Tenn.
Principal points discussed: Origin or Establishment of the Kingdom or Church; Conditionality of Salvation; Possibility of Apostasy; and Close Communion.
Brother Cayce is a strong man and a very rapid speaker; a year communion and foot washing; but these points he would not try to defend. Elder Cayce was very indefinite as to the origin of the church, and was at times very rough towards Brother Craig, calling him names, “Campbellite,” “Little Pope,” “Godfather,” “Ain’t he a pretty-looking thing,” etc. This was not argument, but sounded ugly. Let us hope that he will not indulge again in such methods. Elder Cayce is a strong man and a very rapid speaker.
Brother Craig spoke in an earnest manner and with telling effect. He compared Baptist teaching with Bible teaching, and tried to get Elder Cayce to harmonize the two. Elder Cayce’s failure to do so, I think, placed the cause of Christ in the front. I think the debate will do a great deal of good. One lady made the confession at the close of the debate.
Tillatoba, Miss, Sept. 21, 1899
J H Harrison
REMARKS
The above “item” was copied from the Christian Standard of Oct. 7th, 1899, published at Cincinnati. 0., and sent to me. I am not surprised nor astonished. I don’t know how the gentleman learned that I was “a year communion and foot washing,” unless he learned it from Mr. Craig, his godfather, for I never said so. The people who were present know that I did defend our practice of feet washing, and that Mr. Craig did not refute the argument. He only made one very weak objection to its being a church ordinance. Mr. Harrison knows—as well as all persons present—that I showed from the Scriptures just when and where the church was organized, and how many and who were the members, and traced the church on down to the present time by history. But what hurt so badly, was, I showed by an abundance of testimony that Mr. Craig’s church was set up by Alexander Campbell, at Brush Run, Washington County, Pa., in May, 1811, with thirty members. Hence Mr. Craig is a Campbellite. Poor boy! he is ashamed of his father. If the father was living today, I believe he would be ashamed of his child. I did not use the term, “Little Pope” during the discussion, but I did call him by names that he assumed in his own arguments and assertions. Of course the whole thing “sounded ugly” to Mr. Harrison and some others of the Campbellite persuasion when I was talking; but it would not “sound ugly” for Mr. Craig to say, “It’s none of your business!” and other like expressions, in answer to decent and pertinent questions! No; God bless his little sweet soul— he couldn’t do ugly—no, no! not for the memory of his mother! Dear me, I wonder what he could do if it was not for remembering her!
[pg16] Yes; Elder Craig spoke with telling effect—and the effect was that the unbiased and unprejudiced persons present could, and did, plainly see the fallacy and rottenness of Campbellism, as championed by Mr. Craig.
“Elder Cayce” harmonized Baptist doctrine with the Bible; but be was not required to harmonize everything with the Bible that Elder Craig might be pleased to call Baptist doctrine; and I would be a fool if I should undertake such a job, for he has very little idea of what Baptist doctrine is. And he was so bewildered in that discussion that when I would tell him, he did not seem to remember it long enough to make one speech. Yes; I think, too, that the cause of Christ was placed in the front, which is unmistakable evidence that the cause of Campbellism (which was championed by Mr. Craig) was left in the rear, Glad Mr. Harrison was honest enough to acknowledge it. So did Mr. Craig’s moderator acknowledge his defeat. I took the train at Coffeeville for home. While I was there waiting for the train, I was in a store belonging to one Mr. Hall. Mr. Craig’s moderator entered the room and began a conversation with me. In the conversation I asked him: “Now, be right honest with yourself and with me; are you not bound to acknowledge that your brother was not equal to the task?” He replied that he was bound to admit it— that Mr. Craig was not equal to the task. I have witnesses that he made this admission.
Yes; one lady “made the confession” at the close of the debate. I had heard of the lady before the last day of the debate—so I was not surprised. But she was certainly mad when she “made the confession,” for her countenance betrayed her feelings. I have heard that she was not baptized for some time after the debate; and it may be that she has not yet been immersed. Poor woman! according to Elder Craig’s theory, if she dies without being immersed, she will go to hell after all! If Campbellism is true, Talmage was correct, sure enough, when he said, “Procrastination is hell’s deception.” Are you not glad that Campbellism is not true? I am. I, too, think the debate did good. I remained there for four days following the close, and held meeting each day. During the meeting seven were received into the fellowship of the church, and I had the privilege of baptizing them while there. Some of them said they were fully convinced during the debate that the doctrine believed by the Primitive Baptist’s was the doctrine of God our Saviour —the doctrine taught in the Bible. I learn that the Campbellites, had been rather expecting one of the seven to join them, and they were very much disappointed and chagrined when they heard what had taken place.
The reason the Campbellites were so badly defeated is simply this—they have no solid ground (or rock) upon which to stand. They can’t stand on [pg 17] water. One must have a stronger and more solid foundation— the eternal Rock of Ages, the Lord Jesus Christ—and that’s what Old Baptists have.
Mr. Craig doesn’t want any more of it. He had thirty minutes time for his last speech, in closing the discussion. When he had been speaking about fifteen or twenty minutes, he said: “Well, I believe I am done; and, so far as I am concerned, the debate is over with!” I don’t blame him. If I had been in his position it would have been over sooner than that, I think, for every day’s work only made it worse for him and his theory. I actually felt sorry for him sometimes—and so did others. If the Campbellites want more, perhaps we can find some one to “pass the ham” for them again. C. H. Cayce
FASHION
January 27, 1902
“Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.”— Jer. 6:16.
Did the Lord command these Israelites to “walk therein,” and also “absolutely predestinate” that they should not do so?
Did the Lord command them to “walk therein,” and promise them rest as a result of doing so, and “absolutely predestinate” that they should say, “We will not walk therein?”
If God “absolutely predestinated” that they should not “walk therein,” was it possible for them to do so?
If it was not possible for them to “walk therein,” why did God command them to do so?
Is any doctrine true which is not in harmony with all the divine attributes of Jehovah?
Is not Jehovah a God of justice, and is not justice one of His attributes?
“Hear, 0 earth; behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it.”—Jer. 6:19.
Those Israelites did not “walk therein.” If God had “absolutely predestinated” that they should not, then they could not.
Where is the justice in commanding them to “walk therein,” at the same time having “absolutely predestinated” that they should not, and bringing evil upon them for not doing so?
[pg 18] Is not such what would be called “double dealing?” And, does God deal that way?
How old is the term “absolute predestination of all things?” Was not Elder Gilbert Beebe the author of it?
Was that term ever heard of before Elder Beebe invented it?
If Elder Beebe is the author of the term “absolute predestination of all things,” and the inventor of it, is it any older than Elder Beebe?
If it is no older than Elder Beebe, is it not a “new way,” or a “new path?” Should we be “for the perpetuation” of the new path? Or, should we “ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein?”
Is it not a fact that in the division between the Baptists and the Missionaries, the Missionaries went to an extreme on the one hand, and those who advocate the doctrine of the “absolute predestination of all things,” and use the term without any qualification, went to an extreme on the other?
As both are extremes, are they not both wrong?
Would we not do well to “ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein,” and find rest to our souls, and let both these extremes alone? Yours for the “good old way,” C. H. Cayce
“OH, CONSISTENCY,” ETC.
April 26, 1904
In the Signs of the Times of April 15th, 1904, is a communication signed by J. B. & Lavinia Dawson. The following are some extracts from the communication:
I am not a member of the visible church, but my wife has been for many years, and my parents were. members. I believe in the predestination of all things, and the Signs has always been the firm advocate of that doctrine.
It is plain to me that God has a purpose in everything, both good and bad. It has pleased the Father to reveal to His children as much as He wants them to know.
Moses, when told by the Lord that he must go and bring Israel out of the land of Egypt, did not feel equal to the task, but desired to be excused. Finally the Lord asked of him, “Who hath made man’s mouth?” But you know all these things better than I can speak of them. There are many, yes, very many, such proofs that God rules all things, that He never fails to make His people willing in the day of His power.
The foregoing has been written because I could not help it; it is in the providence of the Almighty if it be right; if it be wrong, it is of the evil one, over whom we know God rules according to His will and to His own glory. I have no apology to make for writing this.
[pg 19] To the writer of the letter from which the above extracts are taken there is a short admonition given, which is signed “Ed.” “We see no good reason why the dear aged friend who wrote the above good letter should not become a member of the church. They that gladly received the word were baptized on the day of Pentecost, we are told. In the New Testament we read of no delay in any case when one had come to believe in Jesus as the Saviour of their souls.”
There are a few things in the foregoing extracts I want to notice. I do not wish to appear conspicuous; neither do I wish to be out of place. I trust I sincerely have in mind the fact of the advanced age of all the writers in the foregoing, and I have all due respect for them from that standpoint. But I have more respect for the teaching of God’s word than I have for any man or set of men. Hence, the remarks I wish to make are, I trust, made with all due respect.
The writer says it is plain to him that God has a purpose in everything, both good and bad, meaning, we suppose, that God wants everything to take place just as it does. If it is so plain to him, I wish he would tell us what God’s purpose was in the assassination of Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley. Was Giteau right when he argued that he could not help killing Garfield, that he was doing God’s will; that God predestinated from all eternity that he should do this very thing, and that he could not have done otherwise? What is God’s purpose in the many instances of murder, crime, theft and robbery, that are being committed all through our country from Maine to California? Where is the Scripture that says God has a purpose in everything, both good and bad? If there is no Scripture that plainly says this, how can it be plain to the writer that it is true? If the Scriptures do not say it, and it is plain to him, did God make it known to him by a direct revelation? Where is the Scripture that says God makes all these things known by direct revelation? If the Scriptures do not say this, shall we believe such a revelation comes from God? If God reveals this to some of His children and does not reveal it to others, I suppose He tells some things to some of His children that He will not tell to others. So, He is better to some of His children than He is to others.
If it has pleased the Father to reveal as much to His children as He wants them to know, why does the Saviour say (John v. 39), “Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me?” And why did Paul say (2nd Tim. 2:15), “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth?” And why did the Saviour say (Matt. 28:19). “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations?” Who can tell why these things [pg20] were said? If God reveals as much to His children as He wants them to know, then no one can teach them any more, unless they are taught more than God wants them to learn. What purpose does God have in a man being taught more than He wants him to know?
Again, in regard to God making His people willing in the day of His power. Am I to understand by the argument made that as long as Moses was unwilling to lead the children of Israel it was not the day of God’s power? Is not that the inevitable conclusion of the argument? If it was not the day of God’s power, pray tell whose power? Is not every day the day of His power? If not, why not? Are not God’s people given a righteous will in regeneration? If so, is not that a manifestation of the power of God? And is not that “the day of His power?”
The writer says the foregoing has been written because he could not help it, and that he has no apology to make for writing it. If he could not help it, we do not ask for any apology. There is no apology needed or required of anyone for doing that which they cannot help. According to this argument, or statement, rather, Giteau was correct in saying he could not help murdering Garfield. Now, I am going to take your own sword and say, according to your own statement, the whole foregoing is a conglomerated mess of contradictions and inconsistencies, and I have written this “because I could not help it.” Will you take your own medicine? If not, for the sake of consistency, if for nothing else, do not try to force others to take it.
The editor says be sees no good reason why the writer of that letter should not become a member of the church. Why, dear brother, that is plain enough. As young and as ignorant as I am, I can understand that. According to his own statement in regard to doctrine, and which he says has been the doctrine of the Signs, it is because God has predestinated that he should not join. The day of God’s power has not yet come. God has a purpose in his staying out of the church. He could not join the church. He can’t even try to become a member. When the day of God’s power rolls round in the annals of time, if it ever does,.then he will do as the Pentecostians did, be baptized. When God no longer has a purpose in his staying out of the church, then he will become a member. Dear brother, don’t you see why he doesn’t become a member? It seems to me your and his doctrine settles the matter as to why everything takes place just as it does. And your brother, Elder R. H. Boaz, swore that a man could not do or will to do a sinful act unless God predestinated that he should do it. Don’t you think it would be more honoring to God to abandon such doctrine and such expressions, and be consistent in admonishing God’s people to duty? Don’t you think it would be better to tell them that God has no pleasure in wickedness, than to tell them that God has purposed it, [pg 21] and that it is His will? Do you not think it would be better to tell them that God was not well pleased with many of the children of Israel on account of their disobedience, and that He is not pleased with the disobedience of His children now, than to tell them that God has a purpose and is pleased with all these things? Don’t you think it is better to advocate a doctrine that is consistent with itself and with the Scriptures, than to advocate the doctrine expressed in the extracts above?
I have written the foregoing—not because I could not help it—because I hope I love the truth, and because the inconsistencies were so glaring I felt a desire to notice them. I do wish God’s people would wake up and study the Scriptures, and thus come to a knowledge of the truth. May the Lord grant to bless us all with wisdom, and then may we improve what God has blessed us with, and get knowledge. C. H. C.
MEETING AT MOUNT TABOR
August 30, 1904
For some time I had a desire to visit Mount Tabor Church once more, where Elder W. W. Sammons held membership at the time of his death. Elder J. C. (Clark) Sammons is the pastor of the church. I have visited this church frequently in years gone by, as well as other churches in the same section of the country. I left home on Friday afternoon before the first Sunday in July and went to Toone, Tenn., and on Saturday morning went with A. S. Anderson and his wife, Sister Anderson, to Mount Tabor Church, about eighteen or twenty miles. This was their regular meeting time, and they were not aware of any intention of mine to be there until they arrived at the church and found me present. I tried to preach on both days, and we had a very enjoyable meeting and a most pleasant time, especially on Sunday. I tried to preach the same doctrine there that I have been trying to preach ever since I first began, and which I have believed all the time since I have had membership among the Baptists, and which I used to preach when I visited those churches so often. I tried to show by the plain teaching of the Scriptures, as well as by the Christian experience, that our eternal salvation is all of the Lord—it is all by the work of the Lord for us and in our hearts, and that we are blessed in obedience. I tried to show that the child of God receives blessings in obedience which cannot be realized or enjoyed by those who live in disobedience. The brethren all endorsed what I advocated, and Brother Sammons stated that it was the doctrine he believed. He also said he [pg 22] had heard many things about what I preached, but that he could endorse all I had said there. etc. I hope the brethren will see that it is a great mistake to condemn anyone before they are heard on any point. We should never do this. I do feel to hope that some good may come of this meeting. I was glad to be there, and they all expressed themselves as being glad also, and insisted that I visit them again, which I hope to do at some time. I believe these are good brethren, and I trust the Lord may bless them and they may be guided aright in all they do.
MISSIONARIES SEVENTY YEARS OLD
March 28, 1905
Brother Pigue expresses his ignorance in saying that the Missionary Baptists are but seventy years old. The records of history contradict him, and the records of God’s Word utterly overthrow his bald assertions— Baptist Flag, March 3, 1905.
Brother Pigue did not miss it so much after all. You Softshells held your one-hundredth anniversary meeting in 1893. The minute of one of your associations that year said “This is our centennial year.” Brother Pigue did not miss the truth as far you do in claiming to be the church of Christ. You miss the truth on that claim by about 1900 years. The Hall is too small to hold the Pig(ue). C.H.C.
GOING TOO FAST
March 28, 1905
But in our judgment we need some one to put on brakes and check us up, we are going too fast. In a short time we will land in the main thoroughfare f Rome, unless such men as Millard are stopped.— Baptist Flag, Fulton Ky., March 23, 1905
That’s what we have thought for a long time. We had little idea that Parson Hall would “own up,” but he has. We don’t think you are very far from that main thoroughfare now. Don’t be uneasy; the trip is not such a long one but what it can be made quickly without traveling so fast as to take your breath.
C.H.C.
[pg 23]
MASONRY SUPERIOR TO SOFTSHELLISM
April 4, 1905
Some of the brethren in their write-ups, claim that they do not believe in Masonry. Brother, how do you know? It does not require much qualification to disbelieve any sort of proposition. Unbelief is only negative in its character. Masonry does not claim to save people, neither does it claim to be a church, but it is far superior to many so-called churches—J.K.P. Williams, under “News and Views,” in American Baptist Flag.
“But it is superior to many so-called churches”— yes, superior to all Softshell Baptist churches. Masonry does not claim to save people. Softshell Baptists do. Masonry does not propose to do what Christ alone can do and has done; Softshell Baptists do. I think I would quit the Softshell mess, and if I could do no better would be a Mason. I am not a Mason, and do not want to be; but I would rather be that than to be a Softshell—so-called Baptist. C.H.C.
WHAT ARMINIANS PREACH
June 13, 1905
Dr. Cayce says Arminians do really believe and preach some things that are true. That shows that debates do good, for Penick has learned our Hardshell brother that there are some other folks in the earth besides Hardshells,—Baptist Flag, June 8, 1905
Yes, some Arminians do really preach some things that are true—but some them are like Parson J. N. Hall—they will contradict it afterwards. We knew there were Softshell tree-frogs before we ever saw Elder Penick. Say, Parson, isn’t your hat too small?
C.H.C.
CAYCE-TUCKER
July 25, 1905
They sure had a bantam fight of it when Claud Cayce (Hardshell) and W.G. Tucker (Campbellite) met in debate. Each disputant should have been furnished with a rattle and a rubber ring to harden the gums,—Baptist Flag, July 20, 1905.
Claud Cayce—Hardshell, as you call him—doesn’t need to have his gums hardened to chew the stuffin” out of your Softshell bombastic hallucination.
C.H.C.
[pg 24]
OCCUPYING THE SAME GROUND
July 25, 1905
When all the Hardshell Baptists get back to the Missionaries, from whence they started, we wonder what little trundle bed we can get for our little Bro. Claud Cayce? He is a sweet little fellow.—Baptist Flag, Juy 20, 1905.
“When all the Hardshell Baptists get back to the Missionaries”!!! Who ever did hear of such a thing as one getting back to a place they have never been? The Primitive Baptists stand just where we did before the division, which was brought about by the organization of a missionary board by Fuller and Cary in October, 1792; and we have been occupying the same ground all the while. Your own people did the starting from primitive grounds, and you have gone so far after the starting, that you said, yourself, “We need some one to put on the rakes and check us up, we are going too fast. In a short time we will land in the main thoroughfare of Rome,” etc. You’ll never need your trundle bed, parson, for little Claud. He is going to stay where he is. The Lord has reserved to Himself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal, and there is yet a remnant according to the election of grace. We don’t know whether Parson Hall is sweet or not. We have never tried Softshell eggs.
C.H.C.
OUR FATHER IS DEAD
September 5, 1905
Our father is dead! Oh, how solemn, how heart-rending are those words! It seems to me I can hardly bear the great trial! Many of you never had the sweet pleasure of being associated personally with him, but you have read his able and humble writings, and thereby you learned to love him. He was just as kind and tender in his home and in his office and in every place as he was in his writings—he manifested the same kind and humble spirit everywhere.
In the death of Elder S. F. Cayce we have sustained a loss that cannot be estimated. My own loss in giving him up is more than I have ever endured heretofore, and it is hard for me to be reconciled to it. While it is true that father has given but little attention to the financial matters connected with The Primitive Baptist, or with our business, for several years, yet we who had these to attend to always had his safe and conservative advice and counsel. We could always go to him and ask him what to do, or what would be best, and his kind advice and loving admonitions, I believe, were always right.
Mother has lost one of the best—if not the best—of husbands. He was [pg 25] kind, considerate and affectionate. We children have lost as good a father as ever lived. Is it out of place for me to thus say so much about my dear sainted father? If so, please pardon my weakness. I cannot say as much as I would say, for words fail me. He was kind to all with whom he came in contact, and was generous to a fault. I do not believe any poor, destitute one ever asked him for help and for pity that was sent empty away. He was always ready to administer to those who were in need.
His loving admonitions and kind advice will be missed by us, his children; we have no father now to advise us as to what is, or is not, best for us to do. Oh, how lonely and sad we feel! We can only put our trust and confidence in Jesus, the blessed Saviour, and hope He will heal our broken hearts and give us to be perfectly reconciled to our lot, and enable us to say with our whole hearts, “Not our will, O Lord, but thine be done.” Lord, help us.
The Primitive Baptist was founded by Elder S. F. Cayce at Fulton, Ky., on January 1, 1886. In the latter part of August of that same year he moved to Martin, Tenn., with his family, and bought an interest in the printing office here, which was owned by J. B. Gilbert. Mr Gilbert was owner and editor of the Martin Mail, a county newspaper which was published in the office. Mr. Gilbert and my father continued their partnership in the office for some time—I do not remember how long—until my father bought Mr. Gilbert’s remaining interest. On the first day of September, 1886, I did my first work in the office, and ever since that time I have been closely connected with my father in the work and business of the office. It is true that for a short while at one or two different times since then I was not connected with the business on account of poor health, but even during that time I was informed as to how his affairs were progressing. All this being true, I feel that the Lord has wonderfully and abundantly blessed me with his sweet company, kind and loving advice, and godly examples for so many years.
His whole heart and life were devoted to the service of the Lord, his blessed Master. His whole desire was for the welfare of the Old Baptist cause, and it was such an earnest desire of his heart that The Primitive Baptist be conducted in a way to be of the greatest benefit and comfort to them. He expressed to me at different times his wishes that I should continue to conduct the paper as he had tried to do when he should pass away. I do now feel so much and so forcibly my inability to take his place. I feel that no man on earth can fill his place, much less a poor, weak sinner like I am. I promised him the day he left home that I would do the best I could, and I can only try to conduct the paper like he did conduct it. Oh, I feel so weak and so imperfect , and that I am altogether inadequate to the task. Dear readers, will you please pray that the dear Saviour my father serve so faithfully will help [pg 26] me to continue editing and publishing the paper in such a way as that it may still be a great blessing to the dear Old Baptist cause? Pray that the Lord may direct me in wisdom’s ways, and bless me with strength and holy boldness that I may have the same undaunted courage of my father to always contend for the true principles of the glorious gospel of Christ and for the ancient landmarks and principles that have always identified our people as separate and distinct from the world. Lord help me to fight a good fight and keep the faith.
Dear brethren and friends, father spent his precious life serving you. He was never daunted by hardships; it was never too hot or too cold; he was gone away from home when some of his family were afflicted, for no other purpose than to serve you. He always answered your calls when it was possible for him to do so, either to proclaim to you the glad news of salvation through the merits of a crucified and risen Redeemer, or to defend the cause we love so well in face to face combat with those who would oppose the truth he and you loved. It is sad to know he can answer no more of your calls. He died in our service.
As to his finances, I want to say that he died in debt. His home was not paid for, besides the office is in debt. We, his children, are proposing to assume every debt he owed, and we are going to do our very best to pay it all. So, dear brethren, we need your help and assistance in this way too. Mother has spent many a lonely hour at home while father was away from her, preaching to your comfort and joy, and we pray you may remember her now, and that you will help us by renewing your subscription and sending us all the new subscribers you can. We want to pay all he owed and we will do so as soon as possible, and we humbly ask your help in this way.
Once more I want to say that a great responsibility has fallen on the unworthy writer, and no one but Jesus can enable me to bear it. I know that I am not able to bear it alone, and I do feel to have a longing desire to live in such a way as to never bring reproach on the blessed cause of our heavenly Master, and never cause strife and discord or confusion among the dear Old Baptists. May God grant that there may never such a thing among Baptists as a Cayce party. And may the blessed Saviour help me to conduct The Primitive Baptist in such a way as to be a comfort and benefit to His dear people, and to continue it in the way marked out by my precious sainted father, so that the standard to which it has attained may never be lowered, and that the blood-stained banner of King Immanuel may still be upheld in its columns. Dear Readers, pray for us to this end.
In much sorrow, yet with a sweet trusting in Jesus, I am your poor unworthy writer. C. H. C.
[pg 27]
OUR WORK ENDORSED
October 10, 1905
We are much gratified to be able to say that at the present time we can state to our readers that many dear and able brethren, many churches, besides union meetings and associations, have directly and indirectly endorsed the action of our union meeting held in Martin on Friday, Saturday, and fifth Sunday in July, in dropping Fulton Church from our union. We have already published letters in our columns from a number of brethren, and in our issue of September 26, we published the proceedings of a union meeting in the West Tennessee Association endorsing our act. We also have letters from several able brethren endorsing the same act, which will yet be published. Our association, the Greenfield-Philesic, corresponds with the Big Sandy, Forked Deer, Obion, Predestinarian, and Soldier Creek Associations. At the time we are writing this editorial all the associations named, except Soldier Creek, have met, and this one is to meet before this issue of The Primitive Baptist is sent out.
The Big Sandy Association was held with the church at Mud Creek, Carroll, Tenn., beginning on Friday before the first Sunday in September, 1905. Elder E. B. Simmons was chosen moderator and J. S. Browning clerk, both of Huntingdon, Tenn. The following appears in their minutes on the eighth item of their proceedings on Friday.
Unanimously agreed that we heartily endorse the action of the union meeting of the Greenfield-Philesic Association in dropping Fulton Church from their union while in session with the church at Martin Friday and Saturday before the fifth Sunday in July 1905, and we request that this endorsement be published in The Primitive Baptist and that other papers of same faith and order please copy.
The Forked Deer Association met with the church at Flowers Chapel, near Rutherford, Gibson County, Tenn., on Friday before the second Sunday in September, 1905. Elder John Grist, of Friendship, Tenn., was moderator, and L. J. Law, Trenton, Tenn., was clerk. The following appears in their minutes as the third and fourth items of their business on Saturday:
By motion and second, agreed that we adopt as the sense of the association the action the action of five of our churches as expressed in their letters, that we declare non-fellowship for the idea of a federal form of government, that the commission was given to the church and not to the apostles or ministry, that it is the duty of the ministry to admonish the alien sinner to repent and believe the gospel, and against affiliation in and with secret institutions.
The messengers from Mt. Moriah and Shady Grove churches withdrew from the association and called for their letters and contribution. The money was given them by their request, but we retained the letters.
By motion and second, we agreed to admonish Mt. Moriah and Shady Grove churches to rid themselves of their disorderly pastor, Elder J. V. Kirkland.
[pg 28] The Predestinarian Association met with the church at Turman’s Creek, Decatur County, Tenn., on Saturday before the fourth Sunday in September, 1905. Elder W. M. Weaver, Sardis, Tenn., was moderator, and W. B. Williams, Beech Bluff, Tenn., was clerk. On Saturday, Elder S. E. Reed, Henderson, Tenn., and J. M. Malone, Mifflin, Tenn., were appointed as a committee to draft suitable resolutions for the consideration of the association on Monday. The following appears in their minutes in Monday’s proceedings:
Called on the committee on resolutions. They reported the following resolution, which was unanimously adopted:
Whereas, Information has reached us, the truth of which we have no reason whatever to doubt, that certain ministers of the church at Fulton, Ky., within the bounds of the Greenfield-Philesic Association, viz., Eld J. V. Kirkland, and Elder R. S. Kirkland, are, and have been, introducing new doctrines and practices among the Primitive Baptists, which are contrary to the time-honored principles of the fathers, and is destructive to the peace of the Baptists, to wit: “federal government of the churches,” “that the commission was given to the church,” “affiliation with, and membership in, secret organizations.” Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the Predestinarian Association, now in session, that we consider all the above things unauthorized by the word of God, contrary to the principles held by the Primitive Baptists for hundreds of years, and is a complete surrender of the principles for which the church has contended since its organization, and we heartily endorse the course of the union meeting held at Martin Church of the Greenfield-Philesic Association in withdrawing fellowship from Fulton Church for holding to and endorsing the principles and practices set out above; and we make this declaration that all our correspondents, and the Primitive Baptists in general, may know where we stand on this question, and further, that we do not desire these things advocated in the churches composing this association.
Resolved, further, that it is the wish of this body that a copy of these resolutions be published in The Primitive Baptist that our brethren everywhere may know at once where we stand on these questions.
Respectfully submitted,
Elder S. E. Reed
J. M. Malone,
Committee.
The Obion Association was held with the church at Nelson’s Creek, Henry County, Tenn., on Friday, Saturday, and fourth Sunday in September. In another column of this paper is a letter from the clerk of that association, in which he states that they heartily endorse the action of our union meeting.
This includes all our corresponding associations except Soldiers Creek, which has not yet met.
The writer attended the West Tennessee Association at Burns, Tenn., on Saturday and third Sunday in September and Monday after. They showed very plainly that they recognized the action of our union, by their appointing and not appointing ministers to preach during the meeting, besides the statement was plainly made in the beginning by one of their ministers who is now [pg 29] an old father in Israel, and who stands high as a minister, and was moderator of the association several years, that Fulton was in disorder.
In another place in this paper will be found a general corresponding letter from the Salem Association in Indiana. It can readily be seen that they are with us. The letter speaks for itself. We think, just as they do, that those who are not satisfied to be plain Old Baptists, and who are wanting to introduce new measures among us, should go to a people who are practicing those things and leave the Old Baptists in peace. In fact, we think it much more honorable to do as Elders Todd, Hackleman, and Strickland—leave the Old Baptists and unite with the Missionaries— than to try to remain with us and advocate new measures to the destruction of the peace and the confusion of the brotherhood.
If the time should ever come that we are not satisfied to be an Old Baptist, of the same kind they were when we became a member sixteen years ago, and of the same kind Elder S. F. Cayce was when he established this paper in January, 1886, and as he was when he baptized the unworthy writer in September, 1889, and as he was when he was called to his blessed eternal home on Aug. 27, 1905,— we say if that time should ever come, we will leave the Old Baptists in peace, and not try to “make the division larger on our side.” We want to be a plain Old Baptist as long as we live in this world, for it is the visible, organized kingdom which Christ set up or established while He was on earth; and it is today organically the same that it was in the days of the apostles, although “of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” Let us be meek and humble followers of Jesus, and not followers of men, and then we will have peace. May the Lord help us so to do, is our prayer. C. H. C.
REMARKS TO J. E. CRON
October 10, 1905
Such letters as the above are a great encouragement to us. They give us courage to press onward, following our dear sainted father, as he was “also a follower of Christ.” Yes, by the help of our Lord, we are determined to press onward in his footsteps as much as we can. We feel that although the Lord has promised to never leave Himself without a witness, yet no one can ever fill our dear father’s place. Again we ask you all to pray the Lord to enable us to conduct The Primitive Baptist in such as that the standard it has attained to be maintained and that it may continue to be a [pg 30] comfort and benefit to the dear Old Baptists and all lovers of truth who may read its columns. We desire to always be found doing as the Lord commands, “Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.”—Jer. 6:16. Our dear father preached the introductory discourse in our union meeting in Martin in July, using that language as his text. This was his last discourse in our little church at home. May the Lord help us to continue in the good old way until we, too, are called away. Brethren, pray for us. C.H.C.
OUR ASSOCIATION
October 17, 1905
Our association met with the church at Little Zion last Friday, according to announcement
and agreement. Elder Hopper, of the Obion Association (we do not remember his initials or Post Office), Elders J. W. Lomax, J. L. Butler, J. M. Johnson and J. K. Stephens were with us. The preaching was all a unit, from first to last, and there was a season of rejoicing, although there was a feeling of sadness on account of some being called away since the last association. There was also a feeling of sadness because of the new measures that have lately been advocated by some brethren in our association.
In accordance with the action of the union meeting which was held at Martin beginning on Friday before the fifth Sunday in July, 1905, and in accordance with the action of our churches, the following motion was adopted:
By motion and second agreed that we drop Fulton Church from our association, as they have withdrawn from us, and until they put themselves in order, because we do not think the Baptists should have a federal form of government; neither do we think the commission was given to the church, but to the apostles or ministry; neither do we think it the duty of the ministry to admonish the alien sinner to repent and believe the gospel, which things are being advocated by the ministry of Fulton Church; neither do we think it to be good order for Baptists to hold membership in and affiliate with secret institutions, which some of their members are doing. We beg them to cease advocating and practicing these things, and to come back to us without them.
We think all of our churches, except Little Zion, are almost, if not altogether, a unit, and will continue to stand firm against these measures. We publish this so that Baptists everywhere may know where we stand. C.H.C.
[pg 31]
WHO ARE THE PRIMITIVE BAPTISTS?
November 7, 1905
In July, 1887, a debate was held at Fulton, Ky., between Elder W.P. Throgmorton and Elder Lemuel Potter, the question being, “Who are the Primitive Baptists?” Elder Throgmorton represented the Missionary Baptists and Elder Potter represented the “Regular Old School Baptists.” The debate began on Tuesday, July 12, and continued four days and two nights. Elder J. V. Kirkland, then of Farmington, Ky., now of Fulton, Ky., was moderator for Elder Potter. In the committee on the publication of the debate the “Regular Old School Baptists were represented by Dr. H. C. Roberts and Elder S. F. Cayce. We know that Elder Potter was recognized as being a representative man among our people then, and we yet consider that he was. Elder J. V. Kirkland certainly recognized him then as such. There a few things in that debate that we wish to give our readers the benefit of, and we feel that all our brethren everywhere would do well to take heed to them at the present time. First we give a statement, as it appears on page 18, in Elder Potter’s first speech in the debate, while Elder Throgmorton was affirming that the Missionaries are the Primitive Baptists:
Brother Throgmorton, in his speech, has represented the Missionary Baptists as very liberal. I want to show you some of his liberality, according to his speech. However, I wish to make this statement, and I want him to understand that I shall have use for it (and if he does not agree with me, I want him to say so); I claim that if an organization of any kind be rent by the introduction of new rules, regulations or doctrines, that the innovators, and not the party that adheres to the old rules, regulations and doctrines, are the seceding party. That is my position. It occurs to me that it is sound doctrine. I apprehend that he will have no objection to that. I am going to take it for granted that he agrees to it.
Please notice that he speaks of Elder Throgmorton’s “liberality.” This refers to the “liberality” of the Missionary Baptists in tolerating and fellowshiping so many different kinds of doctrines and practices. By reading Elder Throgmorton’s speeches you will observe that he claimed his people were the Primitive Baptists because they had no bars of fellowship. Now observe that Elder Potter said, “I claim that if an organization of any kind be rent by the introduction of new rules, regulations or doctrines, that the innovators, and not the party that adheres to the old rules, regulations and doctrines are the seceding party.” From this it is evident that the party who introduces the new measures is the party that departs from the original ground and not the party who puts up a bar to the new measures. The party who puts up a bar against the innovations, new rules, doctrines or practices, is the party standing on the original platform or order of things in [pg 32] the organization. Elder Kirkland accepted Elder Potter’s position then as being a correct and true one. We accept it now.
When new measures were introduced among the Baptists that finally brought about the division between our people and the Missionaries, those who introduced the new measures plead for “liberality” on those things, and Elder Throgmorton gives us to understand that they yet have the “liberality.” So it is at this time— those brethren who have introduced the new measures that are causing distress in our beloved Zion are pleading forbearance and “liberality.” But it is now as it was then—“the innovators, and not the party that adheres to the old rules, regulations and doctrines, are the seceding party.” The innovators claimed then that “liberty” should be allowed on those things, as they were not sufficient to cause a division. So, the brethren who are now advocating the measures causing the distress in the church say liberty should be allowed; as the things are not sufficient to cause a division and are not fundamental, but are minor points. We would ask, in all candor, if they are minor points, and are not fundamental, why not cease advocating and contending for them? And if they are minor points, if they are not fundamental, then why does the minute of the St. Louis meeting say they are vital points? The word vital means, “Being the seat of life or that on which life depends; contributing to life; essential to or supporting life; necessary to existence or continuance.” If they are vital; if they are the seat of life of the church of Christ; if they are that upon which the life of the church depends; if they are essential; if they are necessary to the existence or continuance of the Old Baptist church, then are they minor points? — are they not fundamental: if they are necessary to all these things, why say they are not fundamental? If they were vital one year ago, are they not vital now? If not, why not. If they were vital one year ago, were they not vital from 1792 to 1832? (Remember that some of these things were involved in that period.) If not, why not? Do principles ever change? If they were vital one year ago, they were vital in 1832; and if they were vital in 1832, then the Missionaries were right in the division, and are now the original Baptist Church, or else the points are unscriptural. One of these two things are bound to be true—there is no escape. If we believed the points to be Scriptural, we would also necessarily conclude that the Missionaries are the original order of Baptists; and if we believed that, we would certainly leave the Old Baptists in peace and unite with the Missionaries. But we do not believe they are Scriptural; so we must conclude that the “Regular Old School Baptists” are the original or Primitive Baptists.
How did Elder Potter stand in the debate above mentioned? On Thursday, July 14, 1887, Elder Potter began in the forenoon in affirming that our [pg 33] people are the Primitive Baptists. We quote from Elder Potter’s first affirmative speech, beginning on page 179 of the Throgmorton-Potter debate:
I am happy to have the opportunity of standing before you today, in order to set forth the principle features of what I deem to be the gospel truths of Christianity. As a matter of course, from the position in which I stand, you will expect me especially to set forth what is known by the people throughout this country as the features of the “Hardshell” Baptists. When I am through, whatever you may think of my claims to the church of Christ must be optional with you. I feel thankful to God that we have the liberty of exercising our own judgment upon these important things; that there is no law to govern us religiously, outside the Bible, except our own conscience. You have been listening to the discussion for a few days in which my friend has affirmed that his denomination, or the Missionary Baptists, are the Primitive Baptists. I am now to affirm that the Regular, or Old School Baptists, commonly known and universally called by my opponent, “Hardshells,” are the Primitive Baptists. I hope that you will pay respect both to the speakers and the arguments that may be introduced, the application of evidence and the general conduct of the discussion.
In the first place, I will state that I believe that God has a church in the world;— that He is the author of it Himself, through His Son;— that it was predicted by the Prophet Daniel, in the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, when he said, “And in the days of these kings shall the God heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed. And the kingdom shall never be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever,”—Daniel 2:44. I believe that all Bible scholars that I have any knowledge of, on this passage of Scripture, agree that Daniel, in the Scripture, had allusion to the gospel church; and the time he alluded to was in the days of the Roman powers. Even Pedo Baptist scholars admit that this is the proper interpretation of that Scripture. I presume there will be no controversy between us as to the date of the origin of the church of God; also that we agree that it has stood from the time it was first established until now. There is one more feature that we Baptists claim, that from the time of its organization on earth, it has stood distinct and visible, until the present time. The reason we claim that is, because the prophet says it shall never destroyed. It was said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Any statement that may be made by any person, coming from any quarter, that would have the tendency to make the impression that the church died for a while or went entirely out, contradicts God’s word. Another feature of this church is, that Jesus Christ was its only law-giver. I want all parties to pay particular attention to that feature, that Jesus Christ was its only law-giver, so that no person is to be held under obligation by the church to observe any ordinances or perform any religious services, for which there can be found no warrant in the word of God. It does not matter how great that service may seem to other people; it matters not how popular that service may be, nor how zealously its claims may be urged by its advocates as great means in the hands of the Lord to facilitate the salvation of men, if there is no intimation of such a thing in God’s word, it occurs to me that a Christian might conscientiously leave it entirely outside of all the catalog of religious duties or services. We stand upon that platform. We contend that the Bible teaches all that we ought to know, believe and do religiously.
We limit our knowledge of the will of God to what the Bible requires. We believe in nothing, religiously, that we cannot find a warrant for in God’s word. We believe that Jesus Christ Himself instituted the church; that it was perfect at the start, suitably adapted in its organization to every age of the [pg 34] world, to every state and condition of mankind, without any changes or alterations to suit the times, customs, situations and localities.
We claim that a great many things change, but principles never change, that when the revelation of God was closed, that we have no right to make any demands upon the people, religiously, that are not found therein.
I predicate the arguments I have just made upon the commission, recorded by Matt. 28:19,20. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” Now remember that there is commission given by the Saviour, directly, to the apostles. While a great many people seem to notice the grand scope of this commission, and it occurs to me from what I see here, that there are men that fail to see that limitation; that the minister is required to go and preach, I do not question, neither do “Hardshells,” as we are called. That is charged upon us by my opponent and we deny the charge. We think it is our duty to preach everywhere. We contend that it is our duty to go; both to saint and sinner.
And we think it is the duty of the minister who has been called of God to the holy work, to make this his first calling, paramount to everything else pertaining to life. It is his business to preach. Now, then, as he goes forth to teach all nations and baptize them, in addition to teaching in accordance with ? “All things whatsoever I have commanded you.”
I wish to make a statement here. That is, it is even charged that we do not believe in good works. I stand here to speak for my people. I am going to make a proposition now, and will have opportunity perhaps to be corrected in this matter. I claim that our people do every good work, as a people, that is enjoined upon the people of God in the New Testament. If we do not, if there is anything we have overlooked, we will do it if it is pointed out to us. Brethren, are you all willing to do that?
Voices in the audience; Yes, sir; yes, sir! Point it out.
Mr. Throgmorton: You have proved it, Brother Potter.
Mr. Potter: Brother Throgmorton is learning. Perhaps our brethren are as willing to do everything that the Bible says do, as any people in the world. I make this remark in order to show that the charge against us, that we do not believe in good works, is a false charge; that we do everything that the New Testament enjoins upon us as Christians to do; that we do not oppose good works. If we do not, let him show us wherein we do not and we will go at it. The brethren have pledged themselves to do so. While we make this proposition, I wish to quote also another text of Scripture upon which we base this principle, which will be found in Timothy somewhere. I will vouch for the quotation if it is questioned: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” We take it for granted that all good works are to be found in the Scriptures. All the catalogue of good works are there, and if so, then those works, that are deemed to be good works, that are not found in the Scriptures, are entirely outside of the catalogue of good works; and we leave them entirely undone, with as clear a conscience as any other people on earth do them.
[pg 35] I will make a statement of our religious principles. That is this, our faith is this, that if the church and minister will teach exclusively what the Bible teaches, and practice just precisely what it requires, that all the good results that God intended to accomplish by the means will be brought about. That is our position. We are not uneasy for fear that the Lord will leave something back that is essential to the salvation of the people or the glory of His name.
I presume that my opponent will not deny that the church continued until the days of Constantine, or even until now. I want to show you some of its distinguishing features. You have heard a great deal said upon foreign mission work. I wish to travel out on that road and give you some of our views on that subject. Because I wish to set ourselves right before this people, on the subject of the ministry. I have objections to the foreign missionary work. Not because I think it is likely to spread the gospel. That is not it. My friend urges that as our position on the foreign missionary work; that is not it. We object to it because of the plea for it. As I have clearly shown during this discussion, that it is indirectly preaching the doctrine of the universal damnation of all people that do not hear the gospel. I object to foreign mission on that plea. I would not contribute to that sort of doctrine. I think this doctrine is unscriptural and unwarranted; that God is going to damn the majority of the race of men, because they do not hear the gospel. That is the very foundation of the foreign mission work, as I intend to prove before the close of this discussion.
I object to it on another ground. I do not believe it is warranted in God’s word. Because in order to find even a shadow of authority for it in the Scriptures its advocates say that the great commission was given to the church, instead of the apostles and ministers. Remember the position that I am here to prove is that the Missionary Baptists believe that doctrine, and that the advocates of modern missions say that the great commission was given to the church, instead of the apostles and ministers. To prove that they do put forth that claim I wish to quote from the “Great Commission and its Fulfillment by the Church,” by Mr. Carpenter. He says, in speaking of the great commission:
“All forms of evangelistic work and enterprise are based upon these words. [That is, the words of the great commission.] Not ministers only but all Christians, ordained or unordained, male and female, old and young, are bound by them. Some can go further than others, but all are to go on this errand of mercy; some are to give more than others, but all are to give, according to their ability, the means requisite for saving the lost; some are to preach officially and more regularly than others, but all are to preach in the sense of communicating saving truth to those in spiritual darkness; and all are to contribute to the great, unceasing volume of earnest prayer which has only to become general and tenderly importunate to secure the salvation of a great multitude of God’s elect who are now wandering unsaved on the mountains of sin in every land.”
A missionary document says that the commission is assigned not only to the ordained but the unordained, male or female; that all are bound by the words of the great commission, all are to go. Some may go further than others, for the commission is given to the church, and that is the meaning of the commission, that the church must send ministers abroad, in obedience to the commission. The Savior said in the commission, “Go ye into all the world.” He did not say “send.” It would have been proper to say “send” if it was given to the church. But he said, “Go ye into all the world,” talking directly to the apostles. They understood it that way and preached it that way. Turn to Matt. 28:19,20:
“Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw Him the worshiped Him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. [pg 36] Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”
To whom did he speak this language? To the eleven, not to the church, but to the eleven, so says the text itself. Let us also notice Mark 16:16-16. “Afterward He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after he was risen. And He said unto them. Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and if baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” To whom was this commission given by this text? To the eleven, not for the church. The church was not included there. But he gave it to the eleven, to the apostles, to the ministry. It belongs to them. And the command of Jesus comes to the minister and tells him to go; it does not come to the church and tell them to send.
Elder Potter went on to show how that the apostles went in obedience to the command, but we have not space to give more along that line. This is abundance of proof that we are occupying the same ground on this point that the Baptists occupied then. But we wish to give another extract from this same speech. We find the following language on pages 194 and 195:
Acts 13:1,2,3, “Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teacher; as Barnabas and Simeon, that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the Tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them” to school? No, not to school, “sent them away.” The Lord had called them. He called upon the brethren of the ministry and they laid their hands on then and sent them away. He said, “Separate me Barnabas and Paul for the work whereunto I have called them” That is, they ordained them, if I understand it. If I am not correct in thinking that they were ordained, let my brother correct me. I claim they were to be ordained, and set apart to the work—that is, to the full functions of a gospel minister, because God had called them to it. “And when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.” I know that sometimes the Missionaries claim that text.
In the next place I will ask my opponent, if he has anything to say about it, if he thinks that the whole membership of the church laid their hands on the apostles and sent the away, or was it a presbytery of ministers whose work it was to ordain them and set them apart for the work of the ministry. If not the whole church it does not suit his cause very well. The Lord called them to the work, and instructed the brethren to separate them from the world, and “they laid their hands on them and sent them away.” Was this a mission board? Is not this the way our brethren do, when the Lord calls one of our brethren to the work of the ministry? If he gives proof of his ministry among us, we believe that we are authorized by the same Spirit to ordain him and send him away. We pray and lay our hands on them, and send them away, and implore the blessings of God upon them and upon their labors. We send them to where ever God in his providence may cast their lot. They did not send Paul to any particular place. They had no mission board, if they did travel extensively. He preached at Antioch for a long while, he labored at Antioch, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus and [pg 37] other place. Still, if these brethren who laid their hands on them and sent them away, designated any particular place on God’s earth where they should go, the record fails to give us any account of it.
As already stated, these extracts are abundantly sufficient to show that we are occupying the same ground now we were then. We are sorry our brethren will not continue in these same principles; but by the help of the Lord we expect to remain there while our mortal life lasts. The Baptists occupied that ground when we united with them sixteen years ago, and we do not believe all of them will ever forsake those principles. The Lord has promised to never leave Himself without a witness.
Let us all try to “let brotherly love continue” by standing firm on time-honored principles given to us by the one great King and Lawgiver, for which many of our fathers have hazarded and given their lives, sealing them with their blood. And let us also be kind and gentle, and forbearing, where and as long as forbearance is required by our King.
Brethren, pray that the Lord may sustain us and enable us to hold up the blood-stained banner of Prince Immanuel.
CUT THEM OFF
November 21, 1905
The following was written as a private letter, but since writing it we have decided to publish the same. So much has been said lately about scriptural authority for “cutting off” that we thought perhaps it might do no harm to call attention to this one place as pretty good authority. Many other places in God’s word the same idea is taught, we think. It is true that it is painful when we cannot reclaim, or “convert” or “save” a brother from the error of his way; but when we cannot do so, there is only one thing left for us to do, if we obey the teaching of our Master, and that is to “cut off,” or “withdraw.” If the brother is a great man—a “hand” or “foot,” or “eye,”—that does not release us from the duty. May the Lord guide and direct us aright, and sustain us, and help us to contend earnestly, yet humbly, for the right way.
THE LETTER
Elder W. W. Polk,
Dear Brother—your question propounded to my father, Elder S. F. Cayce, in your letter mailed Aug. 5, did not reach his hands until just a few days before his death.
[pg 38] For myself I would say, I think the Scripture referred to (Matt 18: 8-14) teaches, first, that we should try to save our erring brethren from the error they may be in; and that if we fail to save them, or convert them (James 5:19, 20), then to “cut them off,” or cast them from us. It is better to be without them, no matter how much they may be esteemed, or how important they may seem to be, than for the whole cause to be allowed to suffer on their account. It is better to lose a member who is highly esteemed by the church, than for the whole church to be led astray. Much could be written along this line, and many other passages, I think, teach the same lesson. But as the question was asked my father, I will offer only these thoughts, trusting the same may be blessed of the Lord to our benefit. Your brother in hope, C. H. C.
EDUCATED AFRICAN TURNED TO HEATHENISM
November 21, 1905
The following account of the education of a heathen and making a missionary of him and his “falling away,” was clipped from the Indianapolis (Ind.) News.
This is only one more instance, out of many, which shows the utter failure of the modern mission system to Christianize the world. The return of Wilberforce to heathenism only proves again that it is impossible for men to “bring souls to Christ.” The question naturally arises, was he really regenerated? If so, did he apostatize, and go to hell? Or was he really regenerated and a backslider? Men-made Christians often return to their former ways. But comment is unnecessary. The following is what appeared in the Indianapolis News, Aug. 12, as a special from Huntington, Ind.:
A message received in this city from Rev. A. F. Stolts, a missionary in Freetown, West Africa, says that Daniel Flickinger Wilberforce, the educated African, whose escapades have interested the religious world, is dead. For years Wilberforce was one of the powers in the missionary field and was attached to the United Brethren Church. After long service as a missionary he became a backslider and returned to heathen customs, indulging in plural marriages and other vices of heathen Africans.
His is a strange story. Nearly forty-five years ago Dr Daniel Flickinger was secretary to the board of missions of the United Brethren church. He was a frequent visitor to the mission fields of Africa, and one day, while in the interior, learned that a baby had been born in one of the tribes. He was asked to name the baby. He christened it Daniel Flickinger Wilberforce.
[pg 39] Twelve years after the christening Dr. Flickinger was in New York packing some goods to be shipped to Africa. He was at the office of the missionary society and asked for a boy to assist him. A black youngster came forth and Dr. Flickinger asked his name.
“Daniel Flickinger Wilberforce,” answered the youth.
The incident of twelve years before was recalled. The boy had come to America as a servant in a missionary’s family. He had been promised an education, but his friend, the missionary, died shortly after arriving in this country. Wilberforce was adopted by the missionary society of the United Brethren church and given an education. He did much lecturing in America and accomplished a great deal of good for the cause of missions. He was sent to his native land to preach to his people. But he fell from grace. As soon as he became associated with his countrymen and their customs again he began to recede from Christian ways, and finally became a heathen and a backslider from the Christian faith. He was removed as a missionary, and the United Brethren church finally swept his name from its roster. After that he became a devil worshiper and was made a chief of one of the native tribes. He adopted every heathen custom and became thoroughly bad.
Wilberforce has two sons in this country at the present time. They are being educated at Otterbein University, Westerville, O. It is not known whether they have received word of the death of their father or not.
SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST
November 23, 1905
Brother C. H. Nicholas, of Arkansas, has requested us to give our views on “sinning against the Holy Ghost.” A great deal has been written on this subject. Our father, Elder S. F. Cayce, wrote some editorials on the subject which appeared in our columns some time ago, and we do not feel like writing much now on that line. We know too, that there is some difference of opinion among the brethren as to who it is that sins against the Holy Ghost. Some brethren have argued that the child of God is in possession of the Holy Spirit, and that, therefore, the child of God, only, can sin against the Holy Ghost; that the unregenerate (or those who are finally lost) are not in possession of the Holy Spirit, and therefore cannot sin against the Holy Ghost. We do not think this position is correct. We might give more than one reason why we do not think so. We do not think it is correct because all the sins of all God’s people were laid on Christ, and He bore their sins in His own body on the tree and put them away by the sacrifice of Himself. See Isaiah 53:, 1 Pet. 1:24, and Hebrews 9:26. Hence every sin they commit was laid on Christ, and He bore every one of them; so their sins are all against the Son, or the second person in the Trinity, and all shall be forgiven, on account of what he has done for them.
[pg 40] Again, there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. A mediator is one who interposes between parties who are at variance in order to reconcile them. Christ, the second person in the Trinity, interposed or came in between His people and the Father to reconcile them. He stands between them and the Father. Hence, as he interposed or came between them, and stands between them as a mediator, all their sins fall to His account, and are not against the Holy Ghost.
Again, the Saviour said, in Mark 3:29, “But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.” Not one of those people whose iniquities were laid on Christ is in danger of eternal damnation because He put their sins away and their sins are all forgiven because of what He has done for them. Every sin not atoned for by the blood of Christ is directly against the Holy Ghost, it not being charged to the account of Christ, and the person who commits the sin is in danger of receiving the just punishment for his sins, which is eternal damnation, or everlasting banishment from the peaceful presence of God.
The foregoing are some of our thoughts on the subject. We do not write to call forth controversy. Neither do we give them as infallible. We realize our weakness and know very well our liability to do wrong. We have given these few thoughts for no other reason than that the brother asked for our views. May the Lord bless the same to the benefit of our readers.
We desire here to ask all to write on the things that may be a comfort and benefit and instruction to the dear children of God, and for the advancement and up building of the cause, and the unifying of the brotherhood on the principles of the gospel, that there may be a oneness in the faith; and let us not strive about words to no profit. Let us all strive to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” by writing and talking on those things that make for peace, and that will have a tendency to bring the Lord’s people together in love and fellowship. Preaching the gospel will not have a tendency to divide them and destroy their fellowship. It is the preaching of something else, beside the gospel that does that.
May the Lord help us all to write and speak such things as will be for the benefit and comfort of His people. Brethren and sisters, pray for us. C. H. C.
[pg 41]
LUKE 13:34
December 5, 1905
Brother S. M. Hayes, of Ramsey, Ill., requests our views on the above passage of Scripture. It reads as follows: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not.”
This is the language of the Saviour, and was spoken to Jerusalem, or to national Israel. They were God’s chosen people as a nation. It was not said to any of the Gentile nations around. We know this language is often quoted and applied to the alien sinner, and the argument made that Christ would save him, but the sinner “would not.” A friend once quoted this text in conversation with us to prove that the sinner had something to do. We asked if he thought the text had a universal application or was applicable to all the race. He said he thought it was to all the race. We then asked if he had ever stoned or killed a prophet, or a preacher. He promptly denied have ever been guilty of doing such a thing. We then assured him we had already found one to whom the language was not addressed. It says, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee.” The language is plainly addressed to Jerusalem, and they had killed and stoned the prophets. Elijah certainly realized that they had done this. Read 1 Kings 19:10, “And he said, I have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts; for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.” The 14th verse reads the same way.
It is very clear that the Savior was talking to the people who were guilty of killing and stoning the prophets, and that people were Israel. The oracles of God (the law and the prophets) were committed unto the Jews, God’s chosen nation. They often failed to keep the law, and the result was the curses of the law fell upon them, and they perished by the sword. Many times they killed the prophets the Lord had given and sent unto them, and they were slain by their enemies. But now one has come in the name of the Lord, who is greater than any of the prophets. That one is Christ. Just as many of them had rejected the prophets and had stoned and killed them, even so they rejected Christ, rejected his teachings, and sought to slay Him. They had been seeking his life from His birth. To this same people the Saviour said, in Matthew 23:34, 35, 36, “Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some of them ye shall kill and [pg 42] crucify, and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city; that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily, I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation. Then Matthew records the same expression of the Saviour as is found in Luke 13:34, in nearly the same words, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”—verse 37. The Saviour here tells these people that all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from that of Abel unto Zachariah, shall come upon them, for they were doing just as their fathers had done. In the 38th and 39th verses of this same chapter, Matt 23, He says, “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” Luke 13:35 gives the same expression. All the righteous blood shed upon the earth shall come upon these people, that generation to whom the Saviour was talking at that time; and now their house is left unto them desolate. They and their fathers had continued to kill and stone the prophets the Lord had sent unto them, and now their house is left desolate, on account of their rebellion and disobedience. They had refused to obey the Lord and to keep His commandments, and now they are to receive chastisement for their sins. The prophets foretold some of the misery and desolation of this same people. The Saviour refers to the prophecy of Daniel concerning these things in Matt 24:15. All this was literally fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem before that generation had passed away. Such abominations and such desolations had never been seen in all the world as were seen at the destruction of Jerusalem. Their house was left desolate in the utter destruction and entire ruin of the city of Jerusalem.
It is true, we think, that there may be an application made of the language now to the church of Christ. “Thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee. We think a church may sometimes now kill or stone the minister the Lord sends to her. We do not mean that they take his natural life, or that they stone him physically; but they may not regard him and esteem him as God’s gift to them, as they should. They may cast him aside, instead of showing appreciation of him. And we think the Lord sometimes “removes the candlestick,” because they “stone” His ministers. Their house is left desolate. Just as the prophets were given by the Lord to His people, the Jews, as a nation, so the true minister of the gospel is a gift of the Lord now to His church. See Ephesians 4:11, 12, 13. The true minister [pg 43] is humble, and he will refrain from advocating things that destroy the peace of the brotherhood, and that confuse and divide the church. We should love and esteem all such ministers as this, as God’s gift to us. We should not worship them, but we should love and care for them and thank God for His having given them to us. A true minister, one given by the Lord, is not given as a ruler, or to be a ruler. He is a servant, and not a ruler. We should all try to remember this fact, as well as the other. It is not the business of the minister to make laws and regulations to govern the church. There is only one lawgiver. The same one who has given the laws to govern the church, also gives ministers to them to be His and their servants. To be a servant of Christ and His church is the highest calling on earth.
On the other hand, we think it is very shameful for a minister to manifest a spirit of rule or ruin, for him to appear to have a desire to be a ruler and not a servant. When one manifests such a spirit as this, and is advocating things that are causing confusion, and will not cease doing so, the church does not violate the law or commandment of her only law-giver in rejecting that man.
In fact, the Scriptures just as plainly and positively teach us that we should reject one who does this (see Gal 1:6-10), as they teach that we should esteem that one as the gift of God, who is truly occupying the place of a servant.
Let us all, who profess to be the ministers of Christ, manifest that spirit of humility which we feel in our hearts and let us always try to advocate those things, and those only, that make for peace. If we are advocating something that the brethren will not receive, and what is causing division among them, let us cease advocating those things. Let us remember that the Lord has said, Jeremiah 3:1, “Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” Let us also remember to love and esteem, but not worship, the true humble cross-bearing minister, who manifests a desire to be a servant and not a ruler, who is willing to risk his cause in the hands of his brethren. May the Lord help us to remember and to consider well all these things.
The above thoughts are given to Brother Hayes, and to our readers, with the humble prayer that they may be blessed of the Lord to our good. We do not give them as being infallible, for we are as liable to err as our brethren.
Since writing the above, we notice that Brother Hayes requested that we or some of the other brethren give our views on the text. We do not desire that what we have said keep other brethren from writing on the subject. If other brethren feel like writing, we want you to be at liberty to do so.
Again we wish to ask an interest in the prayers of our readers, that the Lord may guide and direct us aright, and uphold us in contending for his truth.
C. H. C.
[pg 44]
A DEBATE
December 5, 1905
One year ago Elder S. F. Cayce and Elder A. Malone had agreed to debate the following propositions in the vicinity of Day’s Cross Roads. Since the death of our father, the brethren in that section have requested the writer to meet Elder Malone in the proposed debate. We have agreed to do so, and the discussion is to be held at Bethany Church, we think about fifteen miles from La Fayette, Tenn., and will (D. V.) On Tuesday, Dec. 12. The following are the propositions:
Prop. 1. The Scriptures teach that sinners are regenerated, born of God, by the direct or immediate work of the Holy Spirit, independently of, or without, the written or preached word as a means in order to that end, and that any agency on their part.
C. H. Cayce Affirms
A. Malone Denies.
Prop. 2. The Scriptures teach that regeneration is effected by the Holy Spirit through the instrumentality of the gospel.
A. Malone Affirms
C. H. Cayce Denies
Prop. 3. The Scriptures teach that all for whom Christ died will be saved in heaven.
C. H. Cayce Affirms
A. Malone Denies
Prop. 4. The Scriptures teach that in the death of Christ provision was made for the salvation of all the race of Adam.
A. Malone Affirms
C. H. Cayce Denies
MODE OF BAPTISM
December 12, 1905
Elder Cayce—Please give through the columns of The Primitive Baptist your views on Matthew 3:11, and 12:43, 44, 45. Do the words, “baptize you with water,” mean that the element used was applied to the subject baptized, or the subject baptized applied to the element?
The above request was on a postal card addressed to our father, Elder S. F. Cayce, and was received only a short time before his death. So we will try to comply with the request by writing a few thoughts on the mode of baptism, for it is clear that what the writer of the card wishes to know is, did John baptize by immersion, or by pouring? The text he refers to reads, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and fire.” Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, and John 1:26, [pg 45] all have the same expression, “baptize with water.” If one of them means that the water was applied to the subject, they all mean that. If the expression in Matthew does not mean that the water was applied to the subject, then the others do not. The expression in Matthew must of necessity mean the same as the expression in Mark, for both refer to the same thing. In Mark 1:8, John says, “I have baptized you with water. The fifth verse says, “And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.” In the original (Greek) the same word which is translated “with” in the eighth verse—with water—is translated “in” in the fifth verse—in the river Jordan. If the expression “with water” in the eighth verse means that he applied the water to them, or that he poured or sprinkled the water on them, then the fifth verse should read, “and were all baptized with the river Jordan,” because the word “with” in the eighth verse and the word “in” in the fifth verse are both from precisely the same Greek word. John baptized them with the river of Jordan! How ridiculous! But it is not ridiculous if he applied the water to the subject. John baptized those people in water, for he baptized them in the river of Jordan—not with the river of Jordan, in the sense of applying the river to them. John immersed these people in Jordan. He immersed them in water. When he immersed them, they were buried and were completely covered with water. One does not have to apply the water to the subject to bury or immerse the candidate. The word “with” does not necessarily mean that the element is applied to the subject. Let us prove that. Take your knife now, and lay it down, with the blade open. Now strike the edge of the blade with your finger—that is, apply your finger to the blade with force. Now what you done? Cut your finger? Yes. What did you cut your finger with: the knife? Certainly; but you did not apply the knife to your finger. So, the expression “with water” does not necessarily mean that the water is applied to the subject.
John 3:23 says, “And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there.” If baptism may be performed by pouring or sprinkling a little water on a person’s head, why the necessity for “much water?” A small pitcher full of water would be an ample supply to pour or sprinkle a little on the head of a great many persons. But pouring or sprinkling is not baptism; therefore “John was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there. More than a pitcher full was needed for John to administer baptism, because he did not baptize by pouring [pg 46] or sprinkling. Hence he did not apply the water to the subject. He was baptizing where there was much water. He was immersing the people in the pools that were in Aenon near to Salem.
The word “baptize” is a Greek word, the word simply being transposed into English by changing the Greek to the English letters, the last letter being changed from the Greek “o” to the English “e.” hence the word is Greek “baptizo,” which is from “bapto,” and this means “to dip, plunge, or immerse,” so these people were “dipped,” or “plunged” or “immersed” by John in the river of Jordan, or were baptized of him in Jordan.
We do no violence to language if we take a word out of a sentence and put another word in its place that means the same thing as the word taken out. If we do this we are doing no violence, and are not changing the meaning of the sentence. The word sprinkle means “to sprinkle” means “to scatter in drops or small particles.” Now let us try the language, “And were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan.” The sentence reads all right that way, and is found in Mark 1:5. Remember, we do no violence by removing or taking a word out, and placing the true meaning of the word in the sentence in the place of it. So, “And were all immersed of him in the river of Jordan.” It is alright yet. “And were all scattered in drops or small particles of him in the river of Jordan.” The sentence is all wrong now. Why? Because baptism is not sprinkling; it is dipping, immersing. Read the account of the baptism of the eunuch in the eighth chapter of Acts and apply the same rule, and you will have it that Philip scattered the eunuch about in drops or small particles. He did not do this, but “they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch,” and Philip “baptized him,” dipped him, immersed him.
Suppose some of your dear friends or near relatives were to die, and some person should carry their body to the cemetery and pour or sprinkle a little dirt on their head, and then say we have buried your relative or friend. Would you consider the people to be your friends who would do this? No; you would consider them as your enemies. Now read Romans vi.4: “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.” The apostle here plainly says we are “buried with Him in baptism—it must be an immersion. Anything short of a burial, therefore, is not baptism, for we are buried by it. Then as baptism is a burial, how can we claim to be Christ’s friends when we say we baptize His friends who are dead to sin by sprinkling or pouring a little water on their heads? Let us prove our faith by our works. We have faith that [pg 47] Christ died, was buried, and rose again. Let us show that faith by being buried with Him by baptism, and arising to walk in newness of life.
Much more might be written on the subject, but lack of time forbids us writing more now. May the Lord bless these thoughts to the good of our readers, is our prayer.
CLOSE OF VOLUME TWENTY
December 26, 1905
With this issue of The Primitive Baptist another year of its publication closes. Twenty years ago the first issue of The Primitive Baptist made its appearance at Fulton, Ky., with Elder S. F. Cayce as editor. Since then time has brought many changes. Many of the dear brethren and sisters who were readers of the paper and who wrote for its columns during that year have passed to their reward. Even during the year just now drawing to a close there have been many changes. One year ago our dear father, Elder S. F. Cayce wrote the editorial , “Close of Volume Nineteen,” but now his hands are still, and he writes no more for our comfort and encouragement. Others, too, have been called to their reward during the past year, who have written for our paper, and whose writings were able and comforting, and whose names will be missed from the pages of our paper for perhaps years to come. We wish here to give an extract from the pen of our father in his editorial one year ago, in the close of volume nineteen:
Another year with all its sorrows, disappointments, mournings of soul and bleedings of heart, as well as its joys, pleasures, gladness of heart and rejoicing of soul, has past and gone, and the year 1904 will have passed before another issue of The Primitive Baptist reaches your homes. Not only so, but we are all, both editors and publisher, and readers, one year nearer the end of our pilgrimage on earth. As the year 1904 has passed and all the occurrences and happenings of same are, or soon will be, numbered with the things of the past, so also will we all soon be numbered with the dead; the times and places that know us now, will soon know us no more forever. Many who wrote for the columns of The Primitive Baptist during the first year of its publication, 1886, and many dear brethren and sisters who were readers of our first volume have stepped off the stage of action, and been called to try the realities of a world unknown to us; their souls being present with the Lord and their bodies being asleep in Jesus. Every year only brings us that much nearer the end of our journey, or stay, in this world. How careful, therefore, we all ought to be, to make good use of our time and talents while life lasts.
Little did we realize one year ago, that our father was so near the end of his journey, and that we should soon be deprived of reading his able writings, and of hearing his sweet preaching, and having his able service in defending the blessed cause of our heavenly Master. But the Lord has called him to Himself, [pg 48] and he is now resting from his labors, and much of the great burden has fallen on us, and our humble desire is to fight a good fight and to keep the faith. The faith that was once delivered to the saints still remains the same, and we believe The Primitive Baptist has contended for that faith all of the past twenty years, and it is our humble desire that if the writer lives and continues to edit the paper for the next twenty years that it may still be said that the paper is the same in doctrine as it was at the first. In regard to the principles and doctrine, we wish to give another extract from the same editorial by Elder S. F. Cayce, as published last year:
The doctrine of God our Saviour is the same now that it was then, and we love, have tried to preach, defend and publish the same doctrine—“on all parts of the ground”— during our eighteenth volume (now nineteenth) that we did during our first volume, or that we did eighteen (now nineteen) years ago. But while this is true, “as true as gospel,” so to speak, and while it is also true that the doctrine which we try to preach, and are publishing abroad, the doctrine believed and advocated by all true Primitive Baptists, the doctrine of God our Saviour—we might say—will stand as unsullied truths “amidst the wreck of worlds and the crush of nature,” yea, stand untarnished after everything else, as we humbly believe, has failed, yet we feel that we will soon be done battling for these blessed truths, that we will soon have to “lay our armor by,” that our race is almost run, that we will soon reach the end of our journey, that all our labors will soon be numbered with the things of the past, for we have reached and passed over the top of the hill of life, and are fast going down, as it were, on the other side. Besides our physical frame and constitution has been greatly impaired by the ravages of disease, having passed through three or four very long spells, or attacks of sickness. Hence we desire to be faithful in the discharge of our duties what little time remains for us to spend in the service of God, and in trying to serve His people.
We humbly ask the prayers of all our readers that the Lord may enable us to continue to contend earnestly for the holy principles of the doctrine of God our Saviour, and never bring reproach on the cause of our heavenly Master.
Our father lived to see The Primitive Baptist established on a firm basis, although he was not out of debt, and we can say that the financial condition of the paper is better at the close of this year than it has been for many years—at least we think it is, and we trust the brethren will continue to lend us their patronage and support.
We will certainly appreciate it for any of our brethren to send as many new subscribers for the paper as possible. And we also hope the brethren will renew promptly.
There are a great many of our subscribers whose time expires with this issue, and we trust you will all renew promptly. Again we ask an interest in your prayers, and ask you all who feel impressed to do so to write for the paper on such things as will have a tendency to make for peace. C. H. C.
[pg 49]
INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME
TWENTY-ONE
January 9, 1906
It is with a deep-felt sense of our insufficiency for the task that we enter the present year in editing and publishing THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. We feel our inability to even write a proper introductory to the present volume. With this issue of the paper it enters the twenty-first volume. For twenty years the paper has been published and sent to its readers, and it now enters its twenty-first year. Many joys and pleasures, as well as many trials and sorrows, have been passed through during these twenty years. It was with a feeling of great comfort and satisfaction in his heart when the first issue of the paper was sent out twenty years ago by our dear father, Elder S. F. Cayce. From that time until his death on the 27th of last August he was the editor of the paper. In all those years he earnestly and fearlessly contended for the everlasting principles of the faith that was once for all delivered unto the saints. He feared no man. He unflinchingly contended for what he believed to be right, with the single aim to be obedient and faithful to his heavenly Master. The following extract is taken from the introduction to volume twenty, which he wrote one year ago:
Our custom is to give an editorial Introductory with the beginning of each volume, and we suppose our readers will expect it with the beginning of this, the twentieth, volume, or year, of our publication. We began editing and publishing THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST Jan. 1, 1886, nineteen years ago; hence we begin, with this issue, our twentieth volume; but, though this be true, we feel our weakness and inability, and the great responsibility resting upon us, as editor of a religious periodical, as forcibly, perhaps, as we ever have in life. An old adage, as we all know, is that practice makes perfect. But this does not seem true with us in editing and publishing an Old Baptist paper. No more so than in preaching. It seems that we feel, with regard to preaching the gospel or editing a religious paper, like David, Psa 139:6, that, “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it” But, while we feel inadequate to the task— altogether incompetent—so far as our own power or ability is concerned—to either preach the gospel—orally—or to edit and publish a Baptist periodical, yet we feel impressed to try, in our weakness, to do both, and feel also that, if not deceived, our impressions are of the Lord. Not only so, but we look to Him—to Him who is the giver of every good and perfect gift, the author and finisher of our faith, the upholder, protector and preserver of His people—to strengthen, guide and direct us in our efforts. And, in this connection, we do most sincerely ask and request all our readers—all our dear brethren and sisters in the Lord—to pray for us. Will you, dear kindred in Christ, pray the good Lord to be with us, not only in the introduction, or beginning, of this year’s work, but through the entire year? Pray Him to so strengthen and guide us by His Spirit, that we may be enabled not only to preach the gospel of Christ to the comfort, instruction, development and upbuilding of His dear children; but that we may also be enabled to edit and publish THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST through the year 1905—if indeed our life should be spared—in such a manner that it will prove a greater blessing to the people of God than ever before.
[pg 50] If Elder S. F. Cayce felt his weakness and inability to properly edit and conduct THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, it is no wonder we realize our insufficiency for the task. We realize the great responsibility, especially in these perilous times, that rests upon us in editing THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, as well as in preaching. It is a grave responsibility that rests upon an editor and upon a minister of the gospel. He is responsible to God, the Creator of all this vast universe, not only for what he teaches, but also for the way he teaches. We realize that we are under obligation to God to earnestly contend for the truth, the doctrine of God our Saviour, and that we are as much required to contend in meekness as we are required to contend for the truth. “In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves,” is the instruction given by the inspired apostle. We humbly ask all our readers to pray the Lord to guide and direct us by the sweet influence of His Holy Spirit, so that we may be enabled to heed this admonition of the apostle, and that we may be kept humble, with a desire to live at the feet of our brethren.
Just here we want to say that a number of years ago we thought the Old Baptist Church was so far beneath us that we could never condescend to go down to where it was and live with its members. But a change was wrought. There was no change wrought in or with the church. The Old Baptist Church stands now on the same high plane it has ever occupied. The blessed King and only Law-Giver established His kingdom in the top of the mountains, far above all the kingdoms of this world, and the promise of Jehovah was that it should not be left to another people, and that it should not be broken or destroyed. It has continued to occupy the same high position all along the line. The change was wrought with us, and then we realized that the church was so far above us as to cause us to feel that we would never be able to climb up to where it was and ask for a home there. Never, since then, have we felt that we have been sufficiently exalted as to be able to elevate the church. But we do feel a great desire that the brethren would reach down to where we are and lift us up high enough for us to be at their feet, and let us live there while our stay on earth lasts. Dear brethren, will you please hold us up in your prayers, and help us live in such a way as to honor and glorify our heavenly Master?
No doubt we will make mistakes. We know we are weak and liable to err. If we do err and make mistakes, please do not be hurt or wounded, but throw the mantle of charity over our imperfections and watch over us for good. If you see a mistake in us, please do not take it to others, but come to us with it and show us our wrong, and we will do our best to correct it and make amends for it.
It is our desire that THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST be a comfort and benefit to [pg 51] every lover of truth, and to that end we desire to contend for the ancient landmarks. We do not wish to introduce anything new among God’s people, and thereby cause strife, confusion and discord in the church. God forbid that we should ever do so. “Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” is the sentence pronounced on such by the God of the whole earth.
We desire to publish only such things as will have a tendency to bind the brethren together in love and fellowship on the true principles of the gospel. “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.” There is nothing more pleasant than for brethren to dwell together in unity; and there is nothing more unpleasant and disagreeable than for brethren to dwell together in strife and confusion. It is unpleasant for people to dwell together where there is not unity. If the time ever comes that we cannot dwell in the Old Baptist Church in unity with them, we will not stay with them and destroy their peace and happiness— at least we do not now think we would do so. With these desires and intentions before us we enter upon the arduous task before us in editing and publishing the twenty-first volume of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, and again ask an interest in the prayers of all our readers.
C. H. C.
THE BLACK ROCK ADDRESS
January 6, 1906
For some time we have noticed that some of the brethren who are advocating the idea that the commission was given to the church seem to take great delight in quoting a part of a sentence from the address of the Black Rock convention of 1832. For this reason we thought it might be profitable to give space in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST for the entire address. We earnestly request all our readers to study the address carefully, and see for yourselves what those brethren believed.
The sentence, or part of the sentence, that some brethren have been quoting so much of late is, “The Lord has manifestly established the order, that His ministers should be sent forth by the churches.” Now, this expression, taken alone, would make it appear that the brethren believed the obligation of the commission rested on the church, when they believed no such thing. That they did not believe it is very apparent from this expression contained in the address: “We will now call your attention to the subject of missions. Previous to stating our objections to the mission plans, we will meet some of the false charges brought against us relative to this subject, by a simple and [pg 52] unequivocal declaration, that we do regard as of the first importance the command given of Christ, primarily to His apostles, and through them to His ministers in every age, to “Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature, and do feel an earnest desire to be found acting in obedience thereunto, as the providence of God directs our way, and opens a door of utterance for us.” Please study the address carefully. It is directly opposed to the very thing these brethren are now teaching who argue that the commission was given to the church, and that the church should send the gospel. Note, also, that they say, “Formerly not only did preachers feel themselves bound to devote a part of their time to traveling and preaching among the destitute, but the people also among whom they came dispensing the word of life, felt themselves bound to contribute something to meet their expenses. These were the days when Christian affections flowed freely.” This was “formerly”— before the mission spirit was among them— before the idea sprang up among them of sending the gospel. Christian affections flowed freely then. So would they flow freely now if brethren would leave off advocating such things.
Please also study that part of the address relative to making associations a kind of legislative body. Read it over two or three times, and see now that corresponds with the federal government idea suggested, and which was advocated in St. Louis, and which is now advocated in a paper at Fulton, Ky. The Black Rock brethren positively and fully condemn such a move, and let us know they have no fellowship for it.
Another point some have been saying a great deal about is bars to fellowship. It is plainly seen that in this address these brethren have put up a strong bar to fellowship against some of the very things being advocated now. How can the brethren who are advocating those departures, and are raising such a cry against “bars” claim to be in line with those Black Rock brethren? The claim is absurd, as any unprejudiced person can readily see if they will study the matter carefully.
Again, we would ask the question, “Who are the Primitive Baptists?” If those brethren assembled at Black Rock were Primitive Baptists, so are we who propose to do as they did—withdraw from those who are advocating and teaching such things as are contrary to the things they taught.
May the Lord help us all to stand firmly on primitive grounds, and to be humble and faithful, and to be honest in all our dealings, is our prayer.
C. H. C.
[pg 53]
WHY WE BAPTIZE THEM
January 16, 1906
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Sir and Brother—Why do we baptize Missionaries and Methodists, and what Scripture have we, as Primitive Baptists, to do such things? Please answer me through THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST or by letter. Yours truly,
Elder I B. Barree
321 Windelkin St., Dallas, Texas.
In answer to the above question we would say, first, that baptism is administered by the servant of Christ, or minister of the gospel, who has been called of God and set apart by the authority of the church of Christ, or come under the imposition of hands of a presbytery. Baptism must be administered by one who has been set apart by the church to the work whereunto God has called him, if it be gospel baptism. “As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus,”Acts 13:2-4. Here we have the called ministers of Christ set apart by the church for the work whereunto the Lord had called them. It is a part of the work of the ministry to administer the ordinances. Those who are commanded to teach, as ministers of the gospel, are the same who are to baptize. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Matthew 28:19,20. In this text the same persons who are commanded to go teach are also commanded to baptize. It is the work of the ministry to go teach the things concerning the kingdom of Christ, and it is the work of those who teach these things to baptize those who are taught. The Primitive Baptists are the only people, in our judgment, who are teaching as Christ commanded. They are teaching the true doctrine of God our Saviour. Those who are teaching that doctrine are commanded to baptize. Hence, the Primitive Baptist ministers are the persons who are authorized by the Saviour to administer baptism. Others are not teaching the doctrine of God our Saviour, are not teaching the things commanded by the Saviour, so are not authorized by Him to administer baptism. If they baptize, it is without the authority of Christ. Baptism administered without the authority of Christ is not gospel baptism. This is a good reason why Primitive Baptists do not receive the baptism administered by Methodists, Missionary Baptists, or other people. We do not think the doctrine or principles [pg 54] they hold to and teach are true, and the baptism they administer is no better than the doctrine they teach.
“And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”—Luke 22:29,30. The Saviour has appointed a kingdom for His people here in the world, that they may have a blessed home here on earth, that they may eat and drink at His table in His kingdom. His kingdom is only one. He did not appoint kingdoms, but a kingdom— only one. “There are three-score queens, and four-score concubines, and virgins without number. My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her.”— Solomon’s Song 6:8-9. The church of Christ is but one. There are many institutions, but of all the institutions in the world, only one is the church of Christ. The Saviour has never authorized the queens nor concubines nor the virgins to administer the ordinances of His house. These queens, concubines and virgins represent the many institutions that are in the world. Jesus has never commanded that His ordinances he administered in these institutions. His love, His dove, His undefiled, is but one. That is His church or kingdom, which is but one. He has authorized and commanded that His ordinances be administered in this one kingdom. They cannot be administered elsewhere so that they will be recognized or approved by Him. He does not approve of anything being done in a place where He has not commanded. We think the Primitive Baptist Church is the true church of Christ, the kingdom He set up while He was on earth. If it is, then that is the place where the ordinances are to be administered. This is another reason why we do not accept the baptism administered by other people. If the Primitive Baptist Church is the church of Christ, the others are not. If any of the others are the church of Christ, then the Primitive Baptist Church is not the church of Christ.
“Wherefore, my brethren, ye are also become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God”— Rom. 7:4. Those who are dead to the law are those who have been born again. They are dead to the law, and they should now be married to Christ. In order that they be married to Christ the marriage ceremony must be performed by one who has the proper authority to perform it. If two people desire to marry, in order that they carry out the desire, they must have the ceremony performed by one who is authorized to do so. They may get a good man to pronounce the ceremony for them, but unless he has the proper authority, the marriage would not be legal. It would make no difference how good the man may be who pronounces the ceremony, his goodness and honesty, or sincerity, [pg 55] would not make the marriage legal.
To be married to Christ, the rite must be performed by one authorized to perform it. Baptism is the ceremony, or the rite, by which God’s people are married to Christ. It is the work of the ministry who are set apart by His church to administer baptism, they are the persons who are authorized to administer the ordinance. They are the only persons who can perform the marriage ceremony. Others may go through the form, but it is not recognized by the Saviour.
The form may be all right, but a form without reality or authority is without value. So the baptism administered by others is without authority, hence without value, so for as the true church of Christ is concerned.
These are some of the reasons why we Primitive Baptists do not recognize the baptism administered by other people. Many other reasons and Scriptural proof texts could be given, but want of time and space forbid us writing more at present. We pray that these few thoughts may be blessed of the Lord to the benefit of our readers. This is written while we are at the home of Brother Jackson Denmark, near Groveland, Ga. We left home one week ago today, and have met some good humble brethren here in Georgia.
We find them here who are standing firmly on the time honored principles of the fathers, contending for the ancient landmarks, and who love the good old way, though there are some few in this country, as in our own, who do not seem to be perfectly satisfied with the church as it came to us from the fathers. May the Lord sustain us all, and keep us by His grace, and help us to walk in the good way and find sweet rest to our souls, and thereby let brotherly love continue, and fellowship abound throughout the borders of our beloved Zion. Brethren, pray for us. C. H. C.
BAPTISTS IN GEORGIA
January 23, 1906
At this writing, on Friday, Jan. 12, we are at the home of Brother L. M. Lanier, near Pembroke, Bryan County, Ga. We left our home two weeks ago today, and arrived in Statesboro a little after night on Saturday.
On Sunday we attended a general meeting at Upper Mill Creek Church. It was a three days meeting, and began on Friday. There were quite a number of brethren present on Sunday, but not more than half as many as would have been there had the weather been fair that day. It was a rainy day, and the weather very unfavorable, and a goodly number were present, considering the inclemency of the weather. Since we left the general meeting we have visited [pg 56] eleven other churches. We have found many good humble brethren and sisters who love the doctrine of God our Saviour, and who are contending for the ancient order of the gospel, and who are content to be plain Old Baptists; and they want to hold to the ancient order of the gospel and to the principles that have ever characterized the church of Christ as a people separate from the world. Elder F. H. Sills, of Model, Tenn., was at the general meeting mentioned, and has been with us during these two weeks. We have appreciated his company and association.
The brethren have all been kind and good to us, and we have been heartily received by them. We do pray that the Lord may bless our visit among them, and help us to preach to their comfort and encouragement. We ask an interest in the prayers of our readers. Pray the Lord to bless us in ministering to His people, and pray for our loved ones at home, that the Lord may sustain them and keep them from harm in our absence. C. H. C.
SOME PLAIN FACTS
February 27, 1906
For some time we have been in possession of some plain facts which we felt the brethren everywhere should know, but we have waited quite a while withholding them, in the vain hope that the Elders Kirkland, and those who are with and following them, would abandon or cease advocating the principles they have been teaching, and which are dividing the Baptists; but as it clearly appears that they are determined not to do this, we have decided, after prayerful consideration, that we should make these things known to the brethren generally. We are indeed sorry that circumstances are such as to call forth from us statements concerning these things, but we love the cause of Christ more than we love any man, and we feel under obligation to the Lord to tell our brethren of some things they may not be aware.
As some of our readers know, Elder J. V Kirkland started a paper last fall at Fulton, Ky., called the Apostolic Herald. In this paper he has been defending [pg 58] his positions previously taken, that the Baptists should have a federal form of government, that the commission was given to the church, that it is the duty of the ministry to admonish the alien sinner to repent and believe the gospel, and that the Baptists should tolerate affiliation with the institutions of the day, etc. He has also raised a great cry against bars to fellowship, and has said that we have gone contrary to the advice of the brethren who met at Fulton, Ky., in 1900.
With reference to the question of bars, we will say that Elder J. C. Ross, of Greenfield, Tenn., who was in the meeting at Fulton, has already written an article on that question, and we wish to say only a few words on that matter, but will quote the following language from the general address of that meeting:
We do most solemnly and prayerfully beseech all our churches and people that they raise no bars of fellowship against any Primitive Baptist with whom they are agreed on fundamental principles— such as the eternal salvation of sinners, wholly by grace and entirely unconditional on the sinner’s part, and who are sound and orderly in the ordinances of the church, administering baptism by immersion to penitent believers only by ministers of the gospel clothed with authority by the gospel church, and administering the Lord’s supper to such baptized believers only, and who manifest a willingness to labor for the peace, union and fellowship of the whole body.
Heresy being so positively forbidden by the Scriptures, we deem it important to have a clear, accurate, and concise understanding of what the word implies. We take heresy to mean a departure from the teachings of the Scriptures as explained in our acknowledged Confession of Faith, but not mere differences of opinion upon immaterial points of doctrine and practice upon which the Bible makes no positive statements.
The Bible does not state the day nor the hour upon which members shall be received in the church, nor the Lord’s supper administered. It mentions neither hymn books, associations, formal letter correspondence, nor general hand shaking. So upon all such matters liberty should be allowed, provided that everything is done in decency and in order, and the books used are sound in sentiment.
No doctrine or practice that violates neither the Scriptures nor acknowledged confession should be construed as heresy. The treatment of heresy requires but little comment. The Bible plainly states that a heretic, after the first and second admonition, shall be rejected, Tit 3:10, but let it be fully known that an action or doctrine is heresy before action is taken against it. We deem it unsafe to deal with a man as a heretic unless he avows the heresy.
In the first paragraph quoted above we are asked to not declare non-fellowship for any who contend for certain principles, “And who manifest a willingness to labor for the peace, union, and fellowship of the whole body.” This is manifestly one thing Elder Kirkland has not done. Instead of manifesting a willingness to labor for peace, he has all along stoutly continued to advocate measures and principles that were causing confusion and discord among the churches and brethren. He has done this, too, when brethren were lovingly and humbly begging him to cease advocating those things. A certain person, [pg 59] whose name we can give if necessary, and who is very close to Elder J. V Kirkland, said in Martin, while at the home of the writer, concerning some of the things Elder Kirkland is advocating: “He has not been a month or a year getting this up, he has been studying it for years; and you need not think he will quit advocating it, for he will not do it. He always has had followers, and he will have them this time.” The person who said this was then, and is yet, in a position to know. This all shows he was not laboring for peace, but for followers.
As to heresy, the address, as quoted above, says, “We take heresy to mean a departure from the teachings of the Scriptures as explained in our acknowledged Confession of Faith,” etc. Elder Kirkland’s teaching is “a departure from the teaching of the Scripture as explained in our acknowledged Confession of Faith,” so it must be heresy. He has repeatedly expressly avowed those principles. So we took the advice of the general address, as quoted above, “The Bible plainly states that a heretic, after the first and second admonition, shall be rejected.”
Before Elder Kirkland began the publication of the Apostolic Herald he sent out a circular letter, a copy of which was sent to us by Elder P. E. Whitwell, of Bennett, Mo. The following is a copy of said circular letter:
Dear Brother—You doubtless have noticed that the union meeting at Martin, Tenn., has dropped the church at Fulton, Ky., from the union for reasons, as they stated them, which are trifling and foolish, and in open violation of what we all agreed upon in the National Convention at Fulton, Ky., in 1900.
After asking me to not agitate the question discussed at the St. Louis meeting, but to let everything get quiet and save a division of our people, and I had held up in hope of saving a division, they have gone right on with all the opposition against us, and by private manipulations have induced the churches to drop us and break our fellowship, which shows clearly that they were not aiming to avoid the division, but trying to make it small on our side.
Now, I am fully decided to begin the publication of a paper, not through revenge at all, but in defense of our cause against these awful abuses, and, if possible, avert this dreadful combination, which seems bent on the destruction of a number of ministers in our denomination who are full of light and piety, and on whom much of the success of our cause depends. If they are allowed to take them, one at a time, and can keep the rest quiet, they can, and no doubt will, continue to, in some way, drive them from our Zion, and destroy their usefulness to our blessed cause. They cannot now say that I will cause a division by starting a paper, since they have forced the division, while we were all laying quietly and begging for peace. It will not only tend to stop the division, and if that is impossible, it will unite all of us who are for peace on fundamental principles, and make our side of the division larger. I am sure if something is not done to avert this destructive influence, that it will completely discourage our people, and bring us to desolation. I have received letters from brethren in all directions since the union meeting at Martin, expressing sympathy for us, and stating that they will not recognize the action of that union meeting.
[pg 60] At a union meeting in the Forked Deer Association, which convened with a church that I am pastor of, and where the pastor of the church where the union is held is the moderator of the union there was a persistent effort made to knock me out of the moderatorship of the union. Elder Cayce and four other preachers, who took part in the union at Martin, were present, and used their influence against me, but they made a complete failure; and their effort initiated in my favor and against them. The church unanimously voted for me to start a paper at once to defend the cause against those dreadful abuses, and they voted a donation of $17.35 to help in starting the paper, and almost every family represented in the church subscribed for the paper. I received a letter from a brother in Mississippi last evening, who said that he would subscribe $100.00 for the support of the paper, and named four more members of his church that would give $25.00 each. I believe that our people are ready for the paper, and will lend a helping hand, and sustain it. I feel assured in my soul that God will bless it to the good of our afflicted cause and the glory of His matchless name.
I think I will call the paper the Apostolic Herald. I aim to start it at once. The price will be $1.00 per annum. You will please do all you can for it, and send me as large a list of subscribers as possible. Yours in hope, J. V KIRKLAND.
We have already shown that our dropping Fulton church from our union was not a violation of the advice or agreement of the Fulton meeting.
It will be noticed in the above that Elder Kirkland says he had held up in hope of saving a division. To this we would say he had not held up. He has all the while since the St. Louis meeting been defending and contending for those same principles, by private correspondence, and would not agree to cease advocating them. Elder J. N. Wallace, of Providence, Ky., and others wrote him a number of letters begging him to just say he would quit advocating those things, and he would not agree to do so. Again he says they “were all laying quietly and begging for peace.” As Elder Kirkland said in the pulpit in our church here in Martin, “I would not be afraid to have my cause plead before intelligence; if it were, I am sure it would be sustained, but if it were plead before ignorance and superstition I am sure it would be rejected.” We will not assume to criticize his grammar, but will simply say he surely knows that the brethren who oppose those measures he has been advocating were the ones who did the begging, and he has positively been deaf to their pleadings. Then as to their being quiet, will say he was quiet so far as the columns of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST were concerned, for the simple reason that our father, Elder S. F. Cayce, who was editing the paper, refused to publish more in defense of those principles. At the time the discussion was stopped through our paper Elder Kirkland had no right to complain, as some brethren were deprived of the opportunity of replying to some things he had said, yet he sent us one or two more long articles in defense of his position, one of the articles having fifty-four pages of note paper, closely written. So it is clear that he was not “holding up” because he was desiring peace, but because we [pg 61] wanted peace, and would no longer give space in our columns for the things that were destroying peace.
Note again that he urges in this circular letter that the starting of his paper “will unite all of us who are for peace on fundamental principles, and make our side of the division larger.” This clearly shows again his determination to have followers— make his side of the division larger. How can a man truthfully say he loves peace, and wants peace, and desires no division, and at the same time begin the publication of a paper with the avowed purpose of making a division larger? We leave the question for our readers to answer for themselves. As to uniting those who are for peace on fundamental principles, we suppose the fundamental principles are the “vital” measures advocated and proposed at St. Louis, as the purpose of the paper is to make the division larger.
With reference to the union meeting in the Forked Deer Association, we will say that Elder J. B. Halbrook, of Greenfield, Tenn., was moderator of that meeting. The circular letter, it is plainly seen, conveys the idea that Elder Kirkland moderated, which is a wrong impression. The union accomplished all they desired— that some one other than Elder Kirkland be put in the moderator’s seat, and that was done.
On Friday before the second Sunday in October we were at the Soldier Creek Association in Kentucky. Elder J. V. Kirkland was there. At our association the year before Elder Kirkland agreed to bear our correspondence to the Soldier Creek at the above time. Then before he went to the Soldier Creek Association his church had been dropped from our union meeting on Friday before the fifth Sunday in July. Not only so, but his church had by her own act withdrawn from our union and association. Yet, notwithstanding all this, when they called for the correspondence from our association, Elder Kirkland promptly arose and read our letter, which was printed in our minutes, and had his name enrolled on their minutes as a messenger from our association. Now, you may draw your own conclusion as to an action of this kind.
On our way home from this association we were thrown in company with Elder J. N. Hall, who was editor of the Baptist Flag, and who lived in Fulton, Ky. We remembered having read an editorial in the Flag with reference to the Elders Kirkland, so we determined to question Elder Hall. We asked him if he had held any conferences with them, and if it was no secret we would like to know if he knew anything about their intentions. He very promptly told us that he had several conferences with them, and that so far as he was concerned it was no secret; that they had told him they felt that they should be engaged in preaching the gospel to the lost, but that they could get no [pg 62] hearing among our people (the Primitive Baptists) and could have no cooperation among them in that work; and that they felt that they would like to be represented where they could have a hearing and cooperation in that work. Elder Hall stated that he and they were agreed in being opposed to the board system. He also said that it had been his expectation that they would represent in their meeting in the fall at Texarkana, which was an anti-board Missionary meeting; but that he did not know Elder Kirkland’s intention since he had started his paper; that he might conclude he could be heard sufficiently through that. All of this plainly shows the movement which has been on foot— to unite the Primitive Baptists with the anti-board faction of the Missionaries. It would be a blessing to the cause of Christ if those who are advocating those departures would leave the Old Baptists in peace and go on to the Missionaries where they belong. Now, in support of what we say Elder Hall told us, we here give the editorial from the Flag of Aug. 24, 1905:
In Hardshell circles we are having some interesting developments. It is known pretty generally that Elders J. V and R. S. Kirkland are about the most active and able preachers of that denomination in the South, if not in the whole country. These two brethren have fully reached the conclusion that their people are not doing their duty in refusing to send the gospel to lost sinners, and they are not willing to sit down and whine over the doctrine of unconditional election and predestination while sinners are going to hell. This has enraged a big portion of the “Can’t-help-its” until they are determined to kick the Kirklands and their followers entirety out. But the Kirklands are not losing much sleep over the situation, for they know they are merely aiming to do the will of the Lord. God bless them in this noble purpose.
This editorial from the Flag very clearly establishes our statement, and has never been denied by Elders Kirkland. We have patiently looked for a denial from them, but have never seen it.
Now, these are plain statements of facts. We do not publish these things to persecute anyone. It is not persecution to tell the truth on anyone. We feel that the cause demands that the brotherhood know these things. It is not pleasant to be engaged in affairs of this kind, and we hope it will not be necessary for us to take the matter up again.
May the Lord give us all grace and courage and Christian fortitude to enable us to stand firmly against all innovations and to expose all error, from whatever source it may come, and may the Lord deliver us from ever introducing things among His people to the destruction of their peace and fellowship.
We are now in Southwest Georgia. We have been from home now seven weeks in this state, and have met many good, humble and faithful brethren who are standing firmly with us on the time honored principles of the Baptists. We feel greatly encouraged. May the Lord be praised, and may He help us to continue in the path our fathers trod. Brethren, pray for us. C. H. C.
[pg 63]
JOHN 10:12
March 13, 1906
Brother T. G. Bridges, of Crump, Tenn., asks for our views on this text; he asks, “Does the wolf catch the hireling or the sheep?” The 11th, 12th and 13th verses of the chapter read as follows: “I am the good Shepherd; the good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the Shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.” The hireling sees the wolf coming and he runs away. When the wolf gets there the hireling is not there to be caught. If he was there, the wolf is not after the hireling. The wolf is after the sheep. When the wolf comes, the hireling runs away, and the wolf catches what he wants— sheep. “The wolf catcheth them” The word “them” is a personal pronoun and must have an antecedent, and must agree with its antecedent. “Them” is in the plural number, denoting more than one. “Hireling” is in the singular number; hence it cannot refer to the hireling. If the hireling were caught, the language must read “catcheth him, and scattereth the sheep,” but it says “catcheth them.” The true meaning of the text is that the hireling runs away and leaves the sheep at the mercy of the wolf, and we know the wolf has no mercy, so he catches and scatters the sheep— he “catcheth them (the sheep) and ftlinescattereth (them) the sheep.” C. H. C.
HOME FROM GEORGIA
March 20, 1906
We arrived home from our tour in Georgia on Monday night, March 12, at midnight. We were gone from home on this tour ten and one-half weeks. We missed four appointments in that time on account of bad weather, and traveled about 3,000 miles. We met many good brethren and sisters, who were kind to us, and who tried to make our stay among them pleasant. We shall ever remember their many acts of kindness. We were heartily received, and the brethren generally, so far as we know, endorsed our feeble efforts in trying to preach Jesus as a full and complete Saviour of sinners, and in trying to contend for the sufficiency of His kingdom as He left it here on earth as a home for His humble children while they stay here. We had much to comfort and encourage us on the way. Many of the dear brethren assured us of their [pg 64] endorsement of our positions, and that we should have their hearty cooperation in extending the circulation of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST in that country.
The lists of appointments that were published in our columns for us will show that we were at quite a number of churches. We believe we missed only two or three of the places entirely. We met many dear brethren in the ministry, and were treated kindly by all of them. We had a pleasant tour, and we wish each one we met to accept this as a personal letter to them, and as an expression of our heart-felt thanks for the many kindnesses shown to us while we were among you. The brethren and sisters were all kind and good to us, and we have no complaint to make. We felt to be so unworthy of the love and kindness manifested to us. May the Lord bless every one of you, is our humble prayer. We trust the Lord may open a way for us to visit you all again at some time in the future. But if we meet no more on earth, we hope to meet you where sorrows and trials never come. Remember us in your prayers. C. H. C.
ELDER HASSELL AGAIN
March 20, 1906
From the February issue of the Gospel Messenger we clip the following question, which was asked Elder Hassell, the editor of the Messenger, together with his reply:
Question: Was the commission or commandment of Christ to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature and baptize believers, and teach them to observe all His commandments, given to the church and ministry or to the ministry exclusively, and, if to the ministry to the exclusion of the church, how can we escape receiving alien baptism if we admit that God has called any man to preach who is not a member of the visible church of Christ? From whom does the minister receive his authority to baptize, from the church or from Christ, and, if from the church, is she not in some sense included in the commission? Do you consider it in good order for us to invite into our stands the elders of the church in Fulton, Ky., who maintain that the commission was given to the church?
Answer: To my mind and to the minds of nearly all Primitive Baptists, and I think to all intelligent, candid, and unprejudiced minds, it is not more certain that two and two make four than it is certain that Christ’s command in Matt 28:16-20 and Mark 16:14-16 to go everywhere and preach the gospel and baptize and teach was, according to His plain and simple language, given to the apostles as representing the gospel ministry; certainly He did not command the whole church to go into all the world and preach and baptize believers and teach His commandments. And all the churches in the world cannot now call and qualify one single man to preach the gospel of Christ. We know that this is the work of Christ, as well as we know our own existence. But, when Christ calls and qualifies a man for the work, the church will see the gift and gladly recognize it, and help him on his way, as in the apostolic times.
[pg 65]And if the church can be present, he will certainly prefer for them to be satisfied of the regeneration of an applicant before he baptizes him; and if the church, or men whom she appoints for the purpose, cannot be present, she will be satisfied with the baptism of an applicant by the chosen minister of Christ; but if the minister is not a member of the visible church of God the church will consider the nominal baptism as no real baptism. The authority to baptize comes from Christ in the commission, and the church will always gladly recognize this authority. I think that those who have an opportunity should lovingly labor with the elders of the Fulton church, and try to induce them to abandon their preposterous perversion of Christ’s commission or commandment to His apostles to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature and baptize believers and teach them to observe Christ’s commandments. I cannot understand how any sane mind, that knows anything of the meaning of words, can possibly believe that all His church, male and female, were to do these things. It is impossible for the elders of the Fulton Church to believe it. Unless they abandon this transparent and monstrous perversion of God’s word, I do not see how any church can ask them to preach.
The foregoing from the pen of Elder Hassell needs no comment from us. Suffice it to say that Elder H. E. Pettus, one of the ministers of Fulton church, we are informed, has lately been in the eastern part of our state (Tennessee) preaching for and affiliating with an excluded faction from the Powell’s Valley Association. Their works clearly show that they are determined to divide the Baptists, and to carry as many with them as possible, even if they must get the following from those who are excluded. How any church that is sound and orderly in the faith and practice, and loves order in God’s house, can receive these brethren into her pulpit and preach them until they abandon their present positions and put themselves in order with their brethren at home, is something we cannot understand. For a church to invite them into her pulpit and affiliate with them is to partake of their disorder and encourage them and bid them God-speed in it, which is plainly and positively forbidden in the Scriptures, (see Rom. 16:17-18; 2Thess. 3:6; 2Tim. 3:1-5; Tit. 3:10-11; 2John 1:13,13) and is to disregard order in the house of God. We earnestly request all our readers to take your Bible now and turn to all the above references and read them, and may the Lord give us grace and courage to humbly obey His instructions.
C. H. C.
ELDER WALLACE’S LETTER
March 27, 1906
There are just a few things we want to speak of that are mentioned in Brother Wallace’s letter on another page in this paper. We love Brother Wallace and think he is a good man, and he says the best men may make mistakes. This is true; and we will add that “the man who never made a [pg 66] mistake never made anything.” So, we know we have made many mistakes; we make them every day we live. Knowing and realizing this, we do not desire to kill anyone because they make mistakes. Neither do we desire to kill anyone because of every little wrong they may do. We do not desire to kill Brother Kirkland, either, because of his views, nor because he has made mistakes, as we think. We do not desire to kill him at all, and we are very sorry to see him continue to advocate some principles he is advocating. No, indeed, we do not wish to kill Brother Kirkland, and if he will only say he will stop advocating these things that are causing so much trouble in our beloved Zion, we will gladly give him our hand, and take him into our embrace as a brother, and will walk with him. We are perfectly willing to allow him liberty of conscience to believe the things, but we think it is wrong for him to advocate them, when he surely can see it causes confusion. If Brother Kirkland really thinks the points are not fundamental, then he cannot say it is unreasonable to ask him to not advocate them, as doing so disturbs the peace of the brotherhood. If they are fundamental or vital, as the minutes of the St. Louis meetings say—then we think it is wrong for him to divide the Old Baptists by advocating those things among them. It seems to us that if the points are fundamental, it would be better to advocate them among a people who would receive them and who would not be divided on account of them. So, it seems to us that Brother Kirkland is making a very serious mistake, whether the points are fundamental or not; and we would again beg him, as a brother, to lay these things down— just say he will advocate them no more, and allow us all to walk together to the house of the Lord once more If he cannot do this, then it looks to us like he is trying to force his views on the Baptists. We make this appeal in all good feeling, and we are confident this would settle all the trouble.
Now, we want to say a few words in regard to associations. We are aware that associations conducted as a kind of higher court, to which an appeal must be made to settle or decide troubles, have often been a source of extending troubles, instead of settling them. We think it is right and Scriptural for brethren to meet together for worship and mutual edification, but we do not think it is right that an association be a legislative body. We do not think, either, that it is exactly right to condemn associations as a whole because some of them have been conducted as a kind of higher court or legislative body.
Nine hundred and ninety-nine times out of a thousand, trouble in the Old Baptist Church originates with the preachers, and is agitated and kept up by them. Because this is true is no reason why all preaching or all preachers should be condemned. The wrongs should be condemned, no matter where they are; but it should be done in love and meekness and humility.
[pg 67] We think it is sometimes the case that the preachers are the “bosses.” The churches should remember that the ministers are given them by the Lord as servants and not lords. The true minister is the servant of the church, and is not a ruler, and is and should be amenable to the church.
As to religious papers, would say that our papers are not owned or controlled by the church. The Old Baptist Church does not engage in the publication business. If they did, they would be engaged in something that is unscriptural. All the Old Baptist papers are owned and published by individuals as private enterprises, and it is no more unscriptural for a member of the Old Baptist Church to engage in publishing a periodical in defense of the principles of the church, than it is for another to engage in farming, or any other honorable business for an honest living. The Scriptures do not tell us whether we should make a living by farming, or by running a printing office, or by building houses. We are required to live right, but we are not required to engage in any certain specific occupation. But it is true that a religious periodical may be conducted in such a way as to be a disadvantage to the cause. It will not be a blessing to the cause, and will not tend to unite the Old Baptists, when the columns of the paper are used to disseminate unscriptural doctrine or practice. When the paper is used for such a purpose as this— to promulgate a wrong doctrine or practice— the tendency will be to bring strife, confusion, discord and division in the church. Preaching a false doctrine or practice from the pulpit will do the same thing, and there is where it most always begins. Some preacher introduces a new theory, and some faithful servant raises a warning cry, either through the pulpit or press, after having, perhaps, labored privately, and then the faithful servant is sometimes called “a troubler,” “a kicker,” “a moss-back,” “a sore-head,” “hide-bound,” “old fogy,” “jealous,” “ignorant,” “superstitious,” or some other such name. The one who raises the warning cry is not the one who causes the trouble. The trouble is caused by the introduction of the things the faithful servant raises the warning against. The faithful servant who condemns the wrongs, either from the pulpit or through the press, may be assured that he will be called “a troubler” of Israel by those who introduce the things he condemns. It was true in the case of Ahab and Elijah. The servant who will not raise a warning cry and condemn a wrong doctrine or practice is not faithful, and he will have to give account for his unfaithfulness. We should be kind and gentle, yet firm and faithful. We should regard the feelings and views of our brethren, but we should have more regard for the cause of Christ than for these. We know we have no desire to injure anyone, but if we are not deceived in our own heart, we do desire to be found faithful to our trust, even if we have to condemn some things taught and done by some brethren we have walked with and loved.
[pg 68] We would be glad to see all the dear brethren united once more in love and fellowship, and perfect peace restored and reigning throughout all the borders of our beloved Zion. May the Lord help us all to labor to this end, and help us all to earnestly and faithfully labor for the things that make for peace, is our prayer. C. H. C.
BROTHER VICKERS’ ACKNOWLEDGMENT
April 10, 1906
On another page of this paper is a communication from Elder W. R. Vickers, of Broughton, Ill., in which he makes an acknowledgment to the brethren. We want to say to you, dear brother, that you have our warmest love and fellowship. We are so glad, indeed, to see you make such a full confession. It does us much good, and we pray the Lord to abundantly bless you.
If those brethren would only say they would cease advocating and agitating those
questions, it would settle all the trouble at once. We have said this before, and many have begged them to do so. We do not want to kill those brethren, neither do we want to be idle and say nothing while those things are being advocated.
We feel under obligation to beg our brethren to let those things alone. We think they are a departure from original Baptist principles, and it grieves us to see brethren depart from the original principles of the Baptists. We think, too, that whatever is Baptistic is Scriptural. If it is not, then the Primitive Baptist Church is not the church of Christ. Some may say, sometimes, “I do not care so much about what the Baptists have always believed or practiced; I only want to know what the Bible teaches.” It is true that the Bible is our only divinely authorized rule of faith and practice; yet if the Baptists, as a denomination, have not been occupying Bible ground all the while, then the Baptist Church is not the church of Christ. We believe the Primitive Baptist Church is the church of Christ, and that all that is Baptistic is Scriptural, and that whatever is Scriptural is Baptistic. We must admit this, or we must admit that the Primitive Baptist Church is not the church of Christ. One or the other is bound to be true.
We do humbly trust our dear brethren everywhere will prayerfully study these things, and not be led into them. We trust that many other dear brethren will see the good example of Brother Vickers and do as he has done.
May the Lord help us all to see our errors and wrongs, and give us grace and Christian fortitude to acknowledge them and turn from them, and help us all to labor for peace is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
[pg 69]
FIRST CHURCH
AND ASSOCIATION
April 17, 1906
Brother J. B. Miller, of Shepherd, Ga., has asked us to give the date of the organization of the first Baptist Church and association in the United States. The first Baptist Church constituted in America was at Newport, Rhode Island, in 1638, by Dr. John Clark (a physician) and eleven other persons. The pastors and members of this church were Predestinarian Baptists—like the Primitive Baptists are now— until about the year 1820.
The Welch Tract Church, near Newark, Newcastle county, Delaware, is the oldest Primitive (or Old School) Baptist Church in the United States. It was constituted in the spring of 1701, by sixteen Baptists, in South Wales. They moved, as a church, to the United States, and first settled near Philadelphia, where they remained about a year and a half. Then they purchased a tract of land where the church is now located. They moved there in 1703.
The Philadelphia Association was formed in 1707; the Charleston in 1751; the Sandy Creek in 1758; the Kehukee in 1765. The Kehukee Association stands today upon the ancient order of the gospel, just as they did when constituted. C. H. C.
SECRET ORDERS
April 17, 1906
Some brethren in some portions of the country seem to be under the impression that the whole trouble among the Baptists in this part of the country is on account of secret orders. We wish now to state again, once for all, that this is not the case.
The Baptists here do not believe the commission was given to the church, and this was being preached among us. Neither do we believe it to be the duty of the minister to admonish the alien sinner to repent and believe the gospel, and this was also being advocated among us. These things were causing confusion and trouble in the minds of our brethren before the secret order question was made an issue in our association. The secret order question is not the sole trouble. If those brethren who have lately gone into this were to quit it, and yet continue to advocate the idea that the commission was given to the church, and that it is the duty of the ministry to admonish the alien sinner to repent and believe the gospel, this could not settle the trouble in this country. The Primitive Baptists in this country do not believe in mission boards; neither do they believe in the so-called gospel mission plan.
[pg 70] The brethren have been begged and plead with both publicly and privately to agree not to advocate these things, but so far as we have been able to learn, all these pleadings have been in vain.
As to secret orders, we will just say this, that it has been against the rules of the Baptists of the South to allow their members to affiliate with them— such as Free Masons, Odd Fellows, etc. This is so well known in this country that everyone, who knows anything at all about our people here, knows it is against our rules. To try to “reform” the churches here and press upon them the idea that they should no longer hold to this rule, would simply divide our people and cause a disruption. Perhaps in some places the churches have allowed their members to affiliate with those things. Where this is the case, if one should endeavor to “reform” them, and try to force upon them to withdraw from those institutions, it would cause a disruption in those churches— cause a division among them. To try to force those churches to withdraw from them would cause a division. So, to try to force our churches in this country to tolerate them would do the same thing— cause a division. We would say further that we do not think Baptists should affiliate with those institutions, and we think we have good reasons for thinking as we do, but do not deem it necessary now to state any of our reasons. We think enough has been said on that line for the present, at least, and we humbly suggest to our brethren that we do not write any more on that question for a while.
Let us all try to be patient and humble, and pray the Lord to sustain us. C. H. C.
ACTS 13:3
April 17, 1906
Elder C. H. Cayce: Dear Brother— Will you please give your views on Acts 13:3? What does the word “they” in that verse refer to? Please answer privately or through the paper, and oblige, your sister in hope of eternal life.
Miss Daisy Rusher.
Macoupin, Ill., R. 26.
OUR ANSWER
In order to have a fair understanding of what the word “they” refers to in the third verse it is necessary to read the first and second verses of this chapter. The first verse reads, “Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up [pg 71] with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.” The second verse reads, “As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto. I have called them.” The third verse reads, “And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.”
The word “they” in this third verse are the same persons who are referred to by the term “they” in the second verse. Those referred to in the second verse ministered to the Lord and fasted. These are the same persons referred to in the first verse as prophets and teachers. There were five of them named, three besides Barnabas and Saul. These prophets and teachers “ministered to the Lord, and fasted;” as they did so, “the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.” Then when these prophets and teachers had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on Barnabas and Saul, they (the prophets and teachers — Simeon, Lucius and Manaen) sent them (Barnabas and Saul) away. It was not the church that sent them away— so it seems to us— but these prophets and teachers, for the word “they,” it seems, refers to them in both the second and third verses.
Gill, in his commentary, says, “Now when they had thus prayed for them, and wished them well, they sent them away; to do the work they were called unto; not in an authoritative way, but in a friendly manner they parted with them and bid them farewell.”
The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament renders the third and fourth verses thus, “Then having fasted and prayed, and having laid hands on them, they let them go. They indeed therefore having been sent forth by the Spirit the Holy (or by the Holy Spirit), went down to Seleucia,” etc.
We trust these thoughts may be of some benefit to you, Sister Daisy, and that the Lord may not only bless them to your good, but to the benefit of all our readers. C. H. C.
JOHN 10:12 AGAIN
May 1, 1906
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother in the Lord— I read your views on John 10:12, and your view was the wolf caught the sheep. Does the wolf represent the devil and the sheep God’s people? If so, did the devil catch one of God’s people? Yours in hope,
W. M. Maness.
Montezuma, Tenn.
ANSWER
We will again give the reading of the text referred to: “But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf [pg 72] coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.” Again, we would say that the word “hireling” is in the singular, and the pronoun “them” is in the plural. This being true, it follows that it is impossible for the word “them” to refer to “hireling.”
In answer to the question, Does the wolf represent the devil, and the sheep God’s people, we answer, yes. Then, If so, did the devil catch one of God’s people? We say no, because the Saviour is not a hireling. The Saviour here uses a flock or natural sheep as an illustration. A hireling may be caring for a flock of sheep, and when he sees danger approaching he will flee to escape the danger himself, and will leave the sheep to the mercy of the enemy. We know that in nature this is true. But the true shepherd, who is the owner of the sheep, will not leave the sheep in time of danger, but will stay with them and protect them to the extent of his power and wisdom. The Saviour is the true Shepherd, and owns the sheep, and will not flee when trouble or danger approaches. He is the good Shepherd, and as such laid down His life for the sheep. In nature the hireling will flee when the wolf approaches, and leave the sheep to be caught and scattered by the wolf. The true shepherd, or owner of the sheep, in nature, will not leave the sheep when the wolf comes. The Saviour is teaching the fact that He is the good Shepherd, and not a hireling, and that, therefore, He will not leave them to be devoured by the enemy. If the devil catches one of God’s people it would be because the Saviour is a hireling and flees from them and leaves them to the mercy of the devil. The true shepherd does not leave the sheep, and Jesus is the true Shepherd, the good Shepherd; so He stays with them and protects them from the power of the devil. As the true shepherd in nature, who is the owner of the sheep, will protect the flock to the extent of his power and wisdom, it follows that not one of his sheep would ever be destroyed, or caught by the wolf, if he has power and wisdom to prevent it. Jesus, the good Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, has all power and is perfect in wisdom. So He has power and wisdom sufficient to protect His sheep, His people. All this being true, the lesson taught is that all the Lord’s people are kept safe and secure from the destructive power of their enemy, and will be brought off more than conquerors at last through the power and wisdom of the good Shepherd.
We trust we have made our position sufficiently plain now, and that the Lord may bless these thoughts to the benefit of Brother Maness and all our readers. C. H. C.
[pg 73]
SUNDAY SCHOOL
AFFILIATION
May 1, 1906
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— Will you please say through THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST what you think of the propriety of, or is it orderly for a member and deacon of a Primitive Baptist Church to affiliate with, or act as superintendent of a Sunday School? A Subscriber.
OUR ANSWER
To the question above, propounded by “A Subscriber,” we answer that we do not think it proper for a deacon or any other member of the Primitive Baptist Church to affiliate with modern Arminian Sunday schools. The avowed and expressed object of these schools is to bring children up in such a way as to make Christians of them— to give them such training as that they will accept Christ as their Saviour, and thereby ultimately reach the climes of glory. This object of the Sunday school we know to be an open violation of the teaching of Holy Writ. “All thy children shall be taught of the Lord,” says the prophet. The Lord is the teacher. This teaching is in the work of regeneration, and is by a direct and immediate work of the Holy Spirit. For this reason Primitive Baptists should have nothing to do with them.
It is also claimed that the Sunday school is a nursery or help to the church. The church of Christ has no such helps or nurseries; nor does she need them. If the Sunday school had been needed by the Lord’s kingdom, then the Saviour would have instituted it. The modern Sunday school was instituted by Robert Raikes, of Gloucester, England, in the eighteenth century, and is, therefore, an institution of man. The ancient Waldenses “held in abhorrence all the inventions of men in the affairs of religion as an abomination in the sight of God,” and the Primitive Baptists of today, as a body, do the same thing, and all her members should do so.
The Scriptures teach everything we ought to believe or practice religiously, and a Sunday school is mentioned at no place in the Bible. So we should let it alone. The idea that we are at liberty to practice anything religiously that the Bible says nothing about, we think is erroneous. The Scriptures are given that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished unto all good works, and therefore teach everything we ought to practice religiously. This being true, we should practice nothing religiously which is not commanded in the Bible.
Other reasons could be given why Old Baptists should not affiliate in the modern Sunday schools of today, but we think these are sufficient. We would be glad for all Old Baptists to “touch not, taste not, handle not the doctrines and commandments of men,” and stand aloof from the world in all our [pg 74] religious service, and join not house to house, nor field to field, with the nations around us. It is right and proper for us to be neighborly, friendly and sociable with them in our worldly or secular affairs, but in religious matters we should be a separate people. May the Lord help us to so live as to say by our life that there is a reality in the profession we make, that the Primitive Baptist Church is the true church of Christ, is our humble prayer.
C. H. C.
DOES HE WANT PEACE
May 15, 1906
On the 19th of April we went to Fulton, Ky., to see Elders J. V. and R. S. Kirkland and to confer with them, and to try to draft a basis of agreement for a settlement of the differences, or one upon which we all might agree, so as to settle the existing troubles among the Baptists on the points that have been troubling us so much lately. Although so many have said we were so fond of confusion, yet we felt to be willing to make every possible concession to bring about peace, and to save a division in our beloved Zion, and to reconcile the differences. At the home of Elder R. S. Kirkland, in Fulton, we three, Elders J. V and R. S. Kirkland and the writer, talked and wrote until about midnight, writing the agreement. The article was finally completed, and all three of us signed it. Of course we signed it only as individuals, and there was no church authority in it. We (the editor of this paper, THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST) put our name to it in good faith, with a sincere desire, if we are not deceived, for the good of the cause. This was on April 19th. Since that time we have carefully guarded our columns, trying to keep everything out of the paper containing reference to these things, and trying to keep everything out of the paper reflecting on Elder Kirkland’s position. We here give the first three paragraphs of the basis of agreement:
Whereas, There has been so much written and spoken on the subjects of the “Commission,” “Repentance,” and other things of late, and
Whereas, It seems there has been much misunderstanding, and our denomination has been thrown into a state of confusion in so many places, and
Whereas, We greatly desire to do all in our power that is lawful, or Scriptural, and right in order that peace and harmony be once more restored throughout the borders of our beloved Zion; and after careful and, as we humbly trust, prayerful consideration of all the circumstances and points involved, we have thought it best to submit the following as an explanation of what we all believe on the points involved, and agree to the same as a basis of agreement and settlement of our troubles, and to come together once more in peace, and labor to live together as brethren in the Lord.
[pg 75] Notice carefully the expression in the latter part of the last paragraph quoted above, “we have thought it best to submit the following as an explanation of what we all believe on the points involved, and agree to the same as a basis of agreement and settlement of our troubles, and to come together once more in peace, and labor to live together as brethren in the Lord. “In this, you see, it was agreed that we would “labor to live together as brethren in the Lord.” After this follows a statement on the questions of the commission, federal government, repentance and secret orders. We do not think it is necessary to take up space in the paper to give the statements on these four points, but will here give all that follows these statements in the agreement:
We do sincerely think that these subjects as above explained are not sufficient to destroy our peace and fellowship, and that all should come together upon this and mutually forgive each other and live in peace, and where any churches on either side of any of these issues have made actions interfering with fellowship over these questions that such actions be removed, and all come together in love and fellowship; and we do solemnly and prayerfully beseech all of our dear brethren that they now cease agitating these differences and manifest a tender regard for the feelings of each other, and be guarded in their expressions about each other and not indulge in such language nor manifest such a spirit as to hurt the feelings of others, nor to be so exacting as to make a brother an offender for a word, and endeavor to use such words as will not justly give offence to any.
Trusting that the Lord may bless the foregoing to the sweet peace and good of our beloved Zion, and that union and fellowship among us may be restored, we hereto mutually and cheerfully subscribe our names.
J. V Kirkland.
C. H. Cayce
R. S. Kirkland
Now, notice carefully the expression in the above, “And we do solemnly and prayerfully beseech all of our dear brethren that they now cease agitating these differences and manifest a tender regard for the feelings of each other, and be guarded in their expressions about each other and not indulge in such language nor manifest such a spirit as to hurt the feelings of others, nor to be so exacting as to make a brother an offender for a word, and endeavor to use such words as will not justly give offence to any. If we know our own poor heart, we do desire the peace and welfare of the Old Baptist Church, and we were hopeful that this agreement would be the means of getting the agitation of these questions stopped, and we hoped that the troubles might be thereby settled; but we were altogether disappointed in this, for although we had guarded the columns of our paper, as stated above, to keep out reference to these things, yet the Apostolic Herald contained some very harsh expressions over the initials of J. V Kirkland in the issue of May 1st. So it is very clear that Elder J. V Kirkland has gone contrary to the agreement. Remember that the agreement was signed on April 19th, and the Herald was dated May 1st. We here quote from Elder Kirkland’s remarks to a letter [pg 76] written by Mrs. L. M. Lovelace. Sister Lovelace wrote to Elder Kirkland. He published the letter and made some remarks following it, and the following language was used in said remarks:
This good, kind, faithful letter from dear Sister Lovelace, was a sweet comfort to my wounded heart, and greatly lightened the burden of my weary soul. I feel glad that such true noble saints, who have known me so long, believe me to be true and faithful to God according to my sincere convictions, notwithstanding all the flood of abuse and hard sayings that have been poured out upon me for the last eighteen months, and the great industry and artful efforts employed to represent me as a vile person, and to thereby destroy the confidence of my brethren in me. I know, if I know anything about honesty and sincerity, I have been honest and sincere in all I have done in my religious life. I have always groaned over my weakness and imperfections, but I have been true to my conviction. Oh! how unfeeling and destructive is human tradition, backed by prejudice and jealousy, when it gains hold in the hearts of the people of God. It seems to have no respect for truth, honesty, sincerity, years of faithful service, gray hairs, tears, piety nor learning. Where such is the case all are frequently sacrificed in order to protect some deformity of human creeds, which will not bear the light of investigation.
Now, notice that he says a flood of abuse and hard sayings have been poured out upon him for the last eighteen months. Of course he must mean that this has been done by those who have been opposing him in his views. Then he says, “Oh, how unfeeling and destructive is human tradition.” This must also refer to those who have differed from him; so, according to this, all of us who have differed from Brother Kirkland have been only following human tradition, and are all unfeeling, or without feeling. Not only so, but he must mean that our human tradition has been backed by prejudice and jealousy. Does it not seem that he accuses us, all who have opposed his views during the past eighteen months, of being humanly traditionized, prejudiced and jealous? It seems to us that the language not only has this in it, but that our human tradition, backed by our prejudice and jealousy, “seems to have no respect for truth, honesty, sincerity, years of faithful service, gray hairs, tears, piety nor learning.” If we can understand the meaning of words this certainly means that all of us who have opposed him during the past eighteen months have no respect for truth, honesty, etc. How does that compare with the expression in the agreement, “and we do solemnly and prayerfully beseech all of our dear brethren that they now cease agitating these differences and manifest a tender regard for the feelings of each other, * * * and endeavor to use such words as will not justly give offence to any?” Is it manifesting a tender regard for the feelings of each other to write in such a way as to leave the impression, to say the least of it, that we are actuated by human tradition, backed by prejudice and jealousy, and have no respect for truth, honesty, sincerity, years of faithful service, gray hairs, tears, piety nor learning? We [pg 77] repeat, is this manifesting a tender regard for feelings? Is using such language as this laboring to live together as brethren in the Lord? Is this “endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace?” If it is any of these things we admit that we have not “so learned Christ.” We do not profess to be so wise as many, and we would prefer to be a poor ignorant sinner, saved by the grace of an all wise God, than to boast of our “learning,” if we knew it all. “My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words, which man’s wisdom teacheth.” “For ye see your calling, brethren; how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called; but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise,” etc.
Again, can the use of such language as that of Brother Kirkland “justly give offence to any?”
Perhaps if we were to say he has no respect for truth, honesty, etc., it would justly give offence— or if we were to intimate such a thing perhaps it would justly give offence. But as Elder Kirkland has used the language about those who have differed from him we suppose he thinks it will not justly give offence, and if anyone becomes offended at it, they do not justly do so. If it would justly give him offence for us to use such language with reference to him, why should it not justly give us offence for him to use such language about us? Are all those who differ from Brother Kirkland so utterly insignificant and so unlearned, illiterate, ignorant and worthless that they could not be justly offended at anything he might say?
We are sorry to have seen such a spirit manifested by Elder Kirkland right in the face of the agreement signed on April 19th, but there it is, staring us in the face, and we must admit is there. After seeing the paper we tried to give the matter prayerful thought as to what we should do, and as to what such a course as all this means. We could arrive at no other conclusion than that Brother Kirkland had failed utterly to keep the agreement. We could only conclude that he is not desiring peace— if he is, why should he have written such after signing that agreement? We tried to pray over the matter, and tried to ask the Lord to direct us aright. And being able to come to no other conclusion than that stated above, we wrote a letter to Elder Kirkland on May 9th, of which the following is a copy:
Elder J. V Kirkland:
Dear Brother— Your letters of the 5th and the 8th were forwarded to me here and I received them this morning, and hasten to write to you.
I saw a copy of the Herald of May 1st a few days ago, and I was somewhat surprised at its contents. I must say, my brother, that I do not, at all, consider the contents of that paper to be at all in harmony with the agreement, nor with the advice it contained. I was hopeful that [pg 78] all parties would hold to the agreement, and govern themselves according to it; but I see it seems my hope was in vain. Your remarks to Sister Lovelace, as well as some other things you had in the paper, it seems to me, are contrary to the agreement. I have tried to carefully guard the columns of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, and keep everything out that might have the least tendency to be offensive. I had even laid aside a number of communications that made reference to these things. But now, my dear brother, in all kindness I must ask that you simply erase my name from the article, and that my name be considered with it or in connection with it no more. I feel that under the circumstances it is my duty to write this to you at once. So I say, in kindness, that as long as this state of affairs exists I am done making any further effort along the same line as that contained in the agreement. I signed it in good faith and so far as I am concerned, would have had no more to say on these matters but for the facts stated. So that now, so far as that agreement is concerned, I shall consider that I am loosed from it. So for the present it is all at an end. I trust you are all well, and remain,
Yours in humble hope,
C. H. Cayce. Eagleville, Tenn.
We will now only say further that it seems to us that all our dear brethren everywhere who have been thinking we were too severe on Brother Kirkland, and that he wanted peace and fellowship, can surely see now that we have made a fair and earnest effort to settle the trouble, and Brother Kirkland has failed to abide by the agreement. Dear brethren, we beg you to think of these things and ponder them well, and may the Lord guide and direct us aright and sustain us by His grace, and help us to walk in and follow the right way, is our humble prayer. These things are trying to us, and we humbly ask an interest in the prayers of all the brethren. C. H. C.
JOHN 11: 39
May 22, 1906
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Sir and Friend— When you have the time I would like for you to write a short editorial on John 11:39, that is if you think there are any spiritual applications beyond the historical fact that Lazarus was dead. Christ went to the grave and said, “Take ye away the stone.” I have heard two Arminian friends preach from this text, but to my mind they got it somewhat mixed. They would apply the stone to the stony heart, and would say to their penitents at the altar to take away the stony heart. But it seemed to me that the stone was placed over the grave of Lazarus to make it more secure; if so, then the above is no part of a spiritual application. I guess I had better quit before I say too much. Come and see us sometime. Yours truly,
Joseph B. Anderson
Ponder, Mo.
OUR ANSWER
We suppose Brother Anderson merely wishes our opinion of the expression, “Take ye away the stone.” He says he has heard two Arminian friends [pg 79] preach on that text, and that, to his mind, they got it somewhat mixed. We would be somewhat surprised if they did not get things mixed. Their whole theory is a “tangled hank,” from first to last.
It seems to have been the custom in those days that a stone be placed over a grave or sepulchre. A stone was placed over the sepulchre where the Saviour was buried, and the women who went to His grave early in the morning of the first day of the week said, “Who will roll away the stone?” The stone over the grave of Lazarus has no reference whatever to a stony heart. It simply shows that Lazarus was dead, and that he was buried according to the usual custom. In the resurrection of Lazarus was a wonderful display of the power of God. He could have raised Lazarus just as easily without the stone being rolled away as after it was taken away. The stone being over the grave did not binder His ability to raise Lazarus. But if He had raised him without the stone being first taken away, then those unbelieving Jews would have said it was all a “sham” and that Lazarus was not dead. Then the question might be asked, why did the Saviour not roll the stone away Himself? We answer, it was not necessary that He roll it away. They could do that themselves. They could not give life to Lazarus, but they could roll away the stone. The Saviour did what they could not do. So He tells them to roll away the stone, and when it is taken away, they can see Lazarus lying there now dead, and “behold he stinketh.” Now, the Saviour cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth,” and he obeys, the Saviour imparting life with the command. They have seen Lazarus was dead, and they have seen that life was imparted to him, and he came forth. There is absolutely no room to dispute the fact that the dead was raised. Hence this is a wonderful display of the power of Christ, showing that He has power to raise the dead. Even so now He has the power to raise the sinner out of a state of death in sin to a state of life in Christ.
The sinner is not commanded to take the stony heart away, or to take the stony heart out of his flesh. In Ezek. 11:19-20, the Lord says, “And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh; that they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances and do them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.” Here we have the positive promise of the Lord, the God that cannot lie, that He will take away the stony heart and that He will give a heart of flesh. He does not tell us to do what He has promised to do for us, and He does not promise to do for us what He commands us to do. Having the stony heart taken away, and a heart of flesh given, is equivalent to being born again, and sinners are no where commanded in God’s word to be born again. This taking away of the [pg 80] stony heart and giving of a heart of flesh is something the Lord will do “that they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them.” Then the stony heart must be taken away in order that acceptable obedience be rendered to the Lord. If the stony heart must he removed in order that acceptable obedience be rendered to the Lord, then the stony heart must be removed before the sinner obeys. So, if the Lord commands the sinner to remove the stony heart, and the sinner cannot render acceptable obedience until the stony heart is removed, and the Lord cannot or will not save the sinner until the stony heart is removed, it looks to us as though there is no hope for the poor sinner. They do get it somewhat mixed, sure enough. But the Lord takes away the stony heart and gives them a heart of flesh and puts a new spirit within them. The Lord thereby qualifies them for His service.
But someone might ask, “Does not the Lord somewhere command somebody to purify their hearts?” Certainly He does, but He is not talking to alien sinners. James 4:8 says, “Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.” James is not talking to unregenerate sinners; he is talking to the brethren, to children of God, those to whom the Lord has given a heart of flesh. In the 11th verse he says, “Speak not evil one of another, brethren.” He uses the term “brethren” all along in different places, so it has no application whatever to the unregenerate. Some brother, then, might ask, “How are they to purify their hearts?” Peter tells us how. 1 Pet. 1:22-23: “Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently; being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.” They purified their souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit. To obey the truth through the Spirit, one must first be in possession of the Spirit, or must have the Spirit before they obey. Then they do not purify their souls unto eternal life, but unto the unfeigned love of the brethren. They are in possession of the Spirit before the obedience is rendered; and the Lord promised to put a new Spirit within them, and when the Lord puts that Spirit within them they are “born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.” All the Lord’s dear children, to whom the Lord has given a heart of flesh, should endeavor to “purify their souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren.” We think Brother Anderson should do this.
We pray the Lord to bless these thoughts to your good, and to the good of all our readers. Dear brethren and sisters, pray for us.
C. H. C.
[pg 81]
GALATIANS 3:27
May 22, 1906
In another column in this paper is a communication from Brother H. L. Morgan, of West Grove, Iowa, in which he requests our views on Galatians 3:27, which reads as follows: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” We do not wish to set up our view as a standard, for we realize our weakness, and that we may be wrong; so we do not wish our readers to accept our views only so far as they are in keeping with inspiration. So we ask that what we may say be compared with the Bible, and unless it holds good and is sustained by the Bible, do not receive it.
To our mind this text represents our becoming in possession of eternal life as being baptized into Christ. To be born of God is to be baptized into Christ. To be baptized into Christ is to pass out of a state of death in sin into a state of life in Christ; is to be killed to the love of sin and made alive to the love of holiness. It is to be quickened into divine life; it is to be raised up together with Christ. It is also set forth in Scripture as a regeneration, being born again, born of God, begotten again, being translated; and other figures are used to represent the same thing.
This becoming in possession of eternal life is called being baptized into Christ, because a true baptism signifies that the one baptized is dead to sin, has become dead to sin, and is alive unto God. So, in becoming in possession of eternal life one dies and is made alive at the same time— they are become dead to sin and alive unto God at the same time. So, to be baptized into Christ is to be killed to sin, killed to the love of sin, and made alive to God, alive in Christ. It is to be raised up into a state of life in Christ. This baptism is not a water baptism. It is a baptism of the Holy Spirit. John, who baptized the Saviour and those in the region of Jordan, said of Jesus, “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.”
The Apostle Paul, in 1 Cor. 12:13, says: “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” To be baptized into one body is to be baptized into Christ; it is to be baptized into the body of Christ. The redeemed of the Lord are represented as being the body of Christ. To be baptized into the body of Christ, or into Christ, is to be brought into the family of the redeemed, or into the heavenly or spiritual family. This is not done by many preachers, but by one Spirit; it is a work of the Holy Spirit.
There is a washing in baptism. In water baptism there is an outward washing which is a symbol or figure of the inward washing by the Holy Spirit.
[pg 82] The baptism or washing of the Holy Spirit is an inward work, and it is the work which brings us into a saved state, or into Christ, or the body of Christ. “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour.”— Tit. 3:5,6. In this text it is expressed as the “washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” It is a work of washing or cleansing by the Holy Ghost. So by one Spirit we are baptized into one body, baptized into Christ. In this work the Holy Spirit comes in direct touch or immediate contact with the heart. In water baptism, the outward washing, the water comes in direct touch or immediate contact with the body or person baptized. So in the inward washing or cleansing, the Holy Spirit comes in direct touch or immediate contact with the heart or soul.
These are some of our thoughts in connection with the text. We haven’t time to write more now. At some time in the future, perhaps, we will try to comply with Brother Morgan’s request to write some few thoughts on the other subject mentioned in his letter. If we overlook the matter he is at liberty to call our attention to it again. We trust the Lord may bless these thoughts given to his benefit, and we pray the Lord to bless him in his declining years.
This is written at the home of Brother J. H. Hay, near Eagleville, Tenn. We are now on a tour among the churches of the Cumberland Association. We ask an interest in the prayers of all our readers. C. H. C.
MATTHEW 8:22
May 29, 1906
Brother James Tubb, of Magazine, Ark., asks us to give our views of Matthew 8:22, which reads, “But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.” Perhaps it would be better to give some of the connection. Beginning with verse 18 we have the following language: “Now when Jesus saw great multitudes about Him, He gave commandment to depart unto the other side. And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest. And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay His head. And another of His disciples saith unto Him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.”
[pg 83] We do not think the idea is intended to be taught here that if our father or mother dies a physical or corporeal death we should not bury them, or see after their burial. It is right and proper for us to perform our duty toward them, not only in this particular, but also while they are living. We think this language teaches that we should let nothing come between us and our duty to God. We should not let father, mother, nor anything else come between us and our blessed Saviour. He has done for us what father and mother, or even all the world, could not do for us. While our fathers and mothers and friends are all good and kind to us, and perhaps have been, and would be, glad to do for us everything in their power to promote our happiness and well being, yet they could not do for us what the adorable Redeemer has done. This being true, we should not allow anything to come between us and our service to Him. Our duty to the Lord should be considered first. We should “seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. We “ought to obey God rather than man.”
Sometimes we are ready and anxious to find some excuse for not serving the Lord, but our excuses are not sufficient. We have often thought that if we would, all of us, be always as ready to remove the excuses we might think we had for not serving the Lord as we are to look for them as reason for not engaging more in His service, we would all get along much better. If we would always try as hard to serve the Lord as we sometimes try to find an excuse for not doing so, how much better it would be for us, and how much better we would all get along.
If it is necessary for us to forsake father, mother, brother, sister, wife, children, houses and lands in order to serve the Lord, and do what He requires at our hands, we should do that. “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”— Luke 14:26, “So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.”— Luke 14:33. “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”— Matthew 10:37. These all teach that we should let our service to the Lord be first; we should not serve the world first, and then serve the Lord afterward, or when we cannot serve the world, but we should let our duty to our Saviour be first and the world second. We should not allow anything of a worldly nature to keep us from serving the Lord. Of course we may sometimes be providentially hindered, by illness or misfortune, so we cannot render such service to the Lord as we would wish; but we should not look for excuses for our failures and try to ease our conscience with the thought that we are providentially hindered, when we could go on in the [pg 84] Lord’s service very well in the face of the little obstacles which may be in our way.
Let us all try to serve the Lord first, “seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness;” try to serve the Lord more and the world less. May the Lord help us so to do, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
THAT BASIS OF AGREEMENT
June 12, 1906
In our issue of May 15 we gave some extracts from a basis of agreement which we signed with Elders J. V and R. S. Kirkland on April 19th, and also an extract from some of his writings in his paper of May 1st, in which he pointedly and openly violated the agreement. We did not publish the agreement in full because it was not necessary, as it had been broken by one of the makers. We published enough for any fair minded and unprejudiced person to see that it was broken. We also published a copy of our letter of May 9 to Elder J. V Kirkland. We would suggest that every one of our readers now get the issue of May 15 and read that letter again. The following is a copy of Elder Kirkland’s reply:
Elder C. H. Cayce:
My Dear Brother— I was very much surprised and disheartened at yours of the 9th inst., which I received today. As to Sister Lovelace’s article, to which you refer as not being in harmony with our agreement, I will say was arranged for the paper and in the office when we wrote the basis of agreement. I do not think, my dear brother, that you should at all allow this to interfere in our reconciliation. It was not my intention, and is still not my intention, to make references to these troubles.
I have withheld some writings that referred to it that was already set up in type. You remember that you published that article of Elder Vickers (which was one of the most disagreeable pieces, to our feelings, at all) after we had our first talk, and agreed to undertake a settlement, but as our effort had not been made public I said nothing about it, but felt very much discouraged when I read it.
I have stated in the paper of today (that is already in print) that we have come to an agreement, and asked my contributors not to further agitate those differences, and should any persist in doing so I will hold it out of the paper provided you stand to the agreement you signed with us.
I have asked you in both of my letters to tell me if Brother Oliphant, or any of the rest who stood with you, had signed the agreement, to which you have made no reply. I can’t help but think that they have failed to sign it is why you write as you do. You know you promised us faithfully that you would stand to it whether anybody else did or not, and we still expect to stand to it whether you do or not. Now if there is nothing in your way except the reference made to the trouble in Sister Lovelace’s piece (which was more in your favor than mine), I know [pg 85]it can all yet be carried out as first agreed to, and if this is all, I know you will not allow that to interfere with this settlement, on which so much depends. I can assure you, and God knows that I signed it in good faith, and intend to strictly adhere to every item in the agreement. We have sent it to the following named brethren (and everyone has signed it), to wit:
Elders E. W. Thomas, J. W. Richardson, P. F. Watkins, Jno. T. Oliphant, M. G. Mitchell, Geo. A. Shoultz, W. L. Murray, Ira Turner, S. L. Pettus, Wm. H. Crouse, A. M. Kirkland, H. E. Pettus, W. A. Pinkstaff, A. J. Willis, W. M. Smith, Wm. E. Williams, B. F. Querry.
Now, Brother Claud, if you are sincere in this agreement, let us still be quiet until we have a thorough understanding of your dissatisfaction. If what you state is all the matter can easily be adjusted. We will not take your name off of the agreement. We would not expect you to take ours off under the same circumstances. We have stated in the paper that we will publish the agreement in full in our next issue, and we want to see or hear from you before then, and have what names have signed yours, if any. Hoping to hear from you at your earliest convenience, I am yours for peace,
J. V Kirkland
We answered this letter on the 18th, and the following is an exact copy of our reply:
Elder J. V Kirkland:
Dear Brother— Yours of the 14th was sent to me at Burns last Monday night, but failed to reach me until Thursday at McEwen.
In my letter to you of the 9th I made no reference whatever to Sister Lovelace’s letter, as you are surely aware, if you will only read my letter again. I referred very plainly to your remarks to her letter. You surely know, my brother, that your remarks to that letter was a positive violation of that agreement. We have never used such language as that in referring to you, or those with you, in this trouble. My father never did use such expressions in referring to you, and I never have; and you certainly should have known that I would not consent to go on in this agreement after your using such expressions, when we had signed that agreement. Your statement that the article was prepared for the paper and was in the office when the agreement was signed, is no reasonable excuse to me for its going before the public. If such language as was used in your remarks had been in an article in our office, and already in type for our issue of April 24th, we would not allowed it to go in the paper, and rather than to have done so, we would have paid five times the cost of having other matter set to take the place of it. We would have had only three days to do this, while it was one week and three days to the date of your paper. There was ample time to have kept that article of yours out of the paper. So this explanation does not at all explain to the satisfaction of one who knows anything about the printing business.
Your reference to our publishing Elder Vickers’ article is also without just cause in this case. His article was published before any agreement had been written, and before we knew it would be done. Besides, you were continuing to publish matter referring to those things as though nothing had been said along that line. But I had held back some communications before the agreement was signed. So this does not excuse.
You say, “I have asked you in both of my letters to tell me if Brother Oliphant or any of the rest who stood with you, had signed the agreement, to which you have made no reply. I can’t help but think that they have failed to sign it is why you write as you do.” Then I suppose you can’t help but think I did not tell the truth. I wrote you very plainly why I was writing the contents of my letter of the 9th, but your expression shows you, do not believe it, for you say you [pg 86] “can’t help but think” it is something else. This expression is in perfect harmony with what you said in the Herald, that somebody had “no respect for truth, honesty,” etc.
My brother, if you think I will continue on under that agreement, and say nothing, as long as you are using expressions like this, let me say, once for all, that you are very much mistaken. When I sent out the copies of the agreement, I asked no one to sign it. I merely asked for an expression from them in regard to it. If no other one had ever agreed to sign it, if you had abided the agreement, I would have never said any more about the trouble. But the agreement is broken, and I am bound by it no more; and I still have to say I am done with it. I am sorry, but as I view the matter there is no one to blame but yourself. The only terms I know now for a settlement, at least this is my own feeling in the matter, is for you brethren to simply agree to cease advocating the things complained of. This is all I know to say further in regard to the matter. I have tried in all I have said to be kind, but firm, and I know my sainted father never spoke unkindly of you, and I consider you have often reflected upon him, as well as myself and others.
Again, I ask that my name be considered no more with the agreement. I suppose you have seen this week’s PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. It shows where I now stand on these matters, as also does this letter. Yours in hope,
C. H. Cayce
We also received a letter from Elder R. S. Kirkland dated May 15. The following is an extract from it:
When J. V. came home at noon, and told me the pieces you referred to were set up before our agreement was written, and that he would so state to you, and when I saw how determined he was to stand by our agreement, and the piece he had written for this paper, asking the brethren to write nothing else for publication, concerning the troubles that had existed, I felt some hope again, that this would be satisfactory to you and that we could soon move on together, in accomplishing the blessed purposes that we had in view when you were here.
It seems to us that the statements of these two brethren do not exactly agree. Elder R. S. K. says Elder J. V. told him the article referred to as being a violation of the agreement, which was published in the Herald of May 1, was already set up (already put in type) before the agreement was signed, and that J. V. would so state to me; but J. V. does not so state. Elder J. V says the article was already prepared for the paper and in the office before the agreement was signed, but this is absolutely no reason for its being published. Notice, too, that Elder J. V. says in this letter: “I have stated in the paper of today (that is already in print) that we have come to an agreement, and asked my contributors not to further agitate those differences, and should any persist in doing so I will hold it out of the paper provided you stand to the agreement you signed with us.” Then in the same letter he says: “You know you promised us faithfully that you would stand to it whether anybody else did or not and we still expect to stand to it whether you do or not.” It seems to us that one statement means that he is going to stand to the agreement provided we do, and that the other statement means that he is going to stand to it whether we do or not. Elder R. S. says Elder J. V. was determined [pg 87] to stand to the agreement. So we wonder if he was determined to stand to it when he signed it. If he was determined to stand to it when he signed it, then he must have been determined not to break it; and if he was determined not to break it, we wonder how it was that he did break it. We wonder if he did something he was determined not to do. Or, did he determine to break it and then determine to stand to it, provided we would stand to it, after he had broken it? Or, did he determine to break it and then determine to stand to it, whether we would or not, after he had broken it? We cannot understand this “determination.” The following is a copy of our reply to Elder R. S. Kirkland:
Elder R. S. Kirkland:
Dear Brother— Yours of the 15th was received several days ago, and I would have answered sooner, but have been so much behind with my work on account of having been away from home, that I have let your letter wait and answered others older— received before yours was, knowing you would see my letters to Brother J. V., I note you say he told you the article I referred to was already set up, and that he would so state to me; but he does not say that in his letter to me. If it had been, it should have been kept out. I know I would have kept it out of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. But besides the article I referred to, which he wrote, there were others. When any number of parties enter into an agreement, and one of them breaks the agreement, that releases all the others. So I consider that I am out of it. I am sorry, but under the circumstances I cannot conscientiously remain in it.
C. H. C.
In a letter from Elder J. V. dated May 21 he has the following to say with reference to the language he used in the Herald of May 1st, which we say was a violation of his agreement:
It mentioned no one. I only spoke of the unkind spirit and hard words that I had endured, as indulged in by some, and attributed it to human tradition when backed by jealousy and prejudice, and it was this spirit that I said seems to have no respect for truth, honesty, sincerity, years of faithful service, gray hairs, etc.
In this he admits that he had reference to things indulged in by some. It was, of course, the things indulged in by some who differed from him. He attributed the things they indulged in to human tradition when backed by jealousy and prejudice, and it was this spirit of human tradition, backed by jealousy and prejudice, that “seems to have no respect for truth, honesty, sincerity, years of faithful service, gray hairs, tears, piety nor learning.” Then, some who differed from him were in possession of a spirit of human tradition, backed by jealousy and prejudice, and this spirit they were in possession of seems to have no respect for truth, honesty, sincerity, years of faithful service, gray hairs, tears, piety nor learning.” Verily, we did not misconstrue his meaning. There is no way to “explain” it away. Every effort made to “explain” it away only drives our conclusion more plainly to the point.
[pg 88] In this same letter, of May 21, he says we quoted from a Missionary Baptist publication to prove what he claimed as his intention was not as he said. We suppose he has reference to the clipping from the Baptist Flag which we published in our editorial headed “Some Plain Facts,” in our issue of Feb. 27, 1906. He surely knows that what we quoted from the Flag was for no such purpose as he says here, but we quoted it in support of our statement of what Elder J. N. Hall told us, that Elders Kirkland had considered the matter of representing in the Missionary Baptist meeting at Texarkana last fall, where they could have a hearing and cooperation in the work of preaching the gospel to the lost. The clipping from the Flag said they were concerned about preaching the gospel to the lost, etc. Elder Kirkland asked in the Herald, after this, why we did not tell what Elder Hall said to us before Elder Hall died. If we had known Elder Hall was going to die at the time he did, we would have told it before. We would be glad to have him for a witness, for we are sure he would not deny a word we quoted from him as his statement to us.
He also says that in our statement, “It seems to us that all of our dear brethren everywhere who have been thinking we were too severe on Brother Kirkland, and that he wanted peace and fellowship can surely see now that we have made a fair and earnest effort to settle the trouble, and Brother Kirkland has failed to abide the agreement,” that we “as same as acknowledge” our severity on him, but talk as if it was just. We did not “as same as acknowledge” anything of the kind. We acknowledged that some dear brethren had been thinking we were too severe, but we did not acknowledge that they were correct in their thoughts. The language itself implies that we thought they were mistaken in thinking we had been too severe, which is the very opposite of what Elder Kirkland says.
The following is a copy of our reply to Elder Kirkland’s letter of May 21:
Elder J. V Kirkland:
Dear Brother—Replying to yours of the 21st, just received, will say I see but little necessity for discussing the matter further. As to you calling us names in the article you published, will say that every reader would judge you to have had reference to those who differed from you on the points involved, and the names of the parties had just as well been called. This is a reasonable view to me. Not only was this language used which I mentioned, but the different points (or some of them) were discussed. I have honestly and candidly given you my opinion and told you my feelings in regard to the matter. I just cannot conscientiously allow my name to continue in connection with the agreement under the circumstances. If you want to continue to charge me with falsehood, etc., I suppose you have the privilege, if not the right. So far as I am concerned I expect to have but little to say about those things, perhaps nothing. I shall refer to them only when I think it is really necessary. I would be glad the matters could all be dropped and settled, yet under the circumstances I do not consider myself bound by that agreement. I have given the reason.
As to who signed it with me will say that I wrote you I asked no one to sign it. I only [pg 89] asked for an expression from them in regard to it. So no one signed it, though I had expressions of willingness from some to accept it (or words of that import) If it would bring peace to our churches. Some did not approve of some of the wording. Now I have told you as plainly as I know how. And I wish you to remember I asked for no signature. For the present I do not deem it necessary to say more.
Yours in hope,
C. H. Cayce
We received another letter from Elder J. V Kirkland dated May 28 in which he says:
You say: “Not only was this language used which I mention, but the different points were discussed.” I was only answering in a kind way her questions. The agreement does not forbid us teaching our views on these points but says: “We only claim the liberty to express our opinion on this subject in kindness to our brethren,” etc. Besides I have told you repeatedly that this was written long before we signed the agreement and that I had no intention of agitating these differences. You say: “If you want to continue to charge me with falsehood, I suppose you have the privilege, if not the right.” Now, Brother Cayce, you know that I have never charged you with falsehood. Why do you use such language?
Of course Brother Kirkland “was answering in a kind way her questions “when he said a flood of abuse had been heaped upon him for the past eighteen months, and when he used the other language already quoted from him in that article, “No respect for truth, honesty,” etc. If that is kindness shame would blush in the presence of unkindness, we should think.
The expression, “We only claim the liberty to express our opinion on this subject in kindness to our brethren,” appears in the agreement only with reference to Elder Kirkland’s proposed plan of federal government, but this does not give the privilege of continually advocating it. Besides, what could possibly be the use or benefit of an agreement if the different points embraced therein are to be continually advocated or agitated? The article being written before the agreement was signed is no excuse for its being published. If Brother Kirkland had no intention of agitating the differences when he wrote and published that article, we wonder what he would have said if he had intended to agitate the differences. He says we know he has never charged us with falsehood, but we happen to know he has. His own letter of May 14th, and our reply of the 18th, as copied above, will speak for themselves, and are too plain on this point. If it were necessary we could produce more. So, we will say we used such language simply because it is true. In this same letter he says further:
If you should sign a note with several parties and one should hurt your feelings, even if it were intentional, would that give you a lawful excuse to take your name off the note? Could you just take it off any way whether the other parties were willing or not? When a man signs a contract with others can he just take his name off because they or one of them hurt his feelings, even if it were intentional?
If we were to sign a note agreeing to pay you a certain amount for a certain [pg 90] consideration, and you were to fail to perform the consideration, that would give us a lawful excuse to refuse to pay the note, and no court of justice would require the payment of it. If a man signs a contract with others, and one of the others breaks the contact, or fails to do as the contract stipulates, then he is released. If we sign a contract with you, and you fail to carry out your part of the contract, then we are released from the obligation, and we are no longer bound by it. If we were to sign a contract with you, and we should fail in a single instance to carry out our part of it, you would have a perfect right to refuse to be bound further by it. Even if we should say we are going to carry out our part of it, this would not binder you being released, after we had failed on our part, and we would have absolutely no right whatever to call in question your withdrawal. So, we consider we signed a contract, or agreement, or covenant, with you. You broke the agreement, or covenant. That makes the whole thing null and void, and makes it appear to us that the only terms of peace that will reach the case are that you continue to advocate the things which are causing the confusion and distress among our people, and those who do not believe them must say nothing, and utter no protest whatever. This is the way it looks to us.
As we stated before, we state again that we signed the agreement in good faith, and would have said no more about the trouble if Brother Kirkland had not broken it; but he did break it, so we are free to do as we see proper, or as we feel the cause to demand. And we would also say, as we have said before, that the only way we can see for a settlement is for those brethren to simply lay those things down and cease to advocate them, etc.
We humbly beg our readers to consider these things, and may the Lord help us to stand with the truth in humbleness, yet with boldness, is our prayer.
C. H. C.
REMARKS TO J. F. LEONARD
June 12, 1906
We think it is as much wrong to advocate an error through the press as in the pulpit. We should contend against false ways through the press as much as from the pulpit. And we should do this both ways. We think Old Baptists do sympathize with and pray for mourners; but they do not need the modern mourners’ bench revival machinery invented by the world and used by them. The Bible teaches everything we ought to practice religiously, and it says nothing about the mourners’ bench. Neither do we think Old Baptist churches should have organs.
Of course if they want them, we cannot prevent [pg 91]them having them. And if they want a Sunday school, or a kissing party, or an ankle show, we cannot prevent that either. But this does not make it right. Because a church wants a thing does not make it right. We do not wish to declare non-fellowship for our brethren who have the organ, but we do not approve of it. May the Lord help us all to lay aside every thing that causes confusion.
C. H. C.
WHO ARE THE PRIMITIVE BAPTISTS?
June 26, 1906
In the Baptist Banner, a little Softshell sheet, of May 23, 1906, published in Martin is a windy effusion under the above beading. The wonderful (?) display of wisdom (?) and learning (?) is over the signature of C. H. Bell, a little preacher of the Softshell persuasion, in which he has this to say concerning “these people known among us as the Primitive Baptists:”
They oppose, or once did, (and that is the principle today) an educated ministry and say it is wrong to educate our preachers, when it is a well grounded fact that many of the Primitive preachers were highly educated, Paul especially. These with many other peculiar ideas have made a very wide difference between what are known as Missionary Baptists and these people.
We wonder where the Rev. Parson Bell was educated? Wonder if he graduated in Harvard or Yale? We doubt if he ever even had any schooling in “Whale College.” Allow us to suggest, Mr. Bell, that Paul was educated in literary and law affairs before he was called of the Lord to the ministry. After the Lord’s call he did not spend a few years attending a man-made theological incubator to learn how to preach, but “immediately conferred not with flesh and blood.” If the Lord needs an educated man now, or has a work for an educated man to do in His vineyard, He knows where to find him and is able to call him, as in the case of Saul of Tarsus. “For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.”— l Cor 1:26. But this, with many other peculiar ideas Paul had, has made a very wide difference between him and the Softshells. Was Peter an educated man? Was Matthew? Was Mark? Was Luke? Was James? Was John? Oh, the proud, boastful spirit of these Softshells!
But Elder Bell says “Peter caught the spirit of what is called Hardshellism.” Then Peter must have been what you now call a “Hardshell.” Well, we are in good company. But Elder Bell says Peter was convinced that he was wrong.
If Peter was wrong, then we are wrong. If we are right, then Peter was right. In the Baptist and Reflector of April 28, 1892, Rufus C. Burleson says we “cling [pg 92] to all the doctrines and ordinances as they came from heaven-pure, simple, holy and sublime.” He also says we “have never rejected any ordinance or doctrine of the Baptist Church as founded by Christ and the apostles 1892 years ago on the banks of Jordan.” We are clinging to all the doctrines and ordinances as they came from heaven, we are right, we have never rejected any ordinance or doctrine of the Baptist Church as founded by Christ and the apostles. The Softshells have done this. Then the Softshells are wrong, and have departed from the simplicity of the gospel. Hence they are not primitive. Mr. Burleson also says, “Scores of our Missionary Baptists are only immersed Methodists in the Baptist Church.” Elder J. R. Graves said, in the Tennessee Baptist of Sept. 8, 1860, “Let it be borne in mind then that our Missionary organism is of human origin, and of very recent date, entirely outside and independent of the churches, and not known in the primitive ages of the church.” These quotations are from leading men in your own church, and according to their own admissions you are not Primitive Baptists. Your claim sounds very much like, “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.”— Isa. 4:1.
Elder Bell says we have no gospel only for the sheep. We must still be in the right, for the Saviour told Peter to feed His sheep; but the elder says “it don’t make good sheep feed sometimes,” he fears. We suppose the reason he thinks it does not make good sheep feed is because he does not like it. This does not prove that it is not good sheep feed, for the Apostle Paul tells us “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Elder Bell further says, “In the debate between Elders S. F. Cayce, Hard-shell, and I. N. Penick, Missionary, Elder Cayce said there was no message for the sinner and when he looked at the figures showing the number now in heathen lands without Christ the Saviour, he became indignant and assured if they were ever saved at all it was before the foundation of the world and that our preaching to them would not change their case.”
To this we would say that Elder S. F. Cayce conducted himself as a Christian gentleman in the debate here with Elder Penick, and treated his opponent with all possible courtesy and fairness, and gave no cause for such misrepresentation of his position as this. We will not say Elder Bell has willfully misrepresented him, but we do most emphatically state that Elder S. F. Cayce did not say that “if they were ever saved at all it was before the foundation of the world.” He did argue that they were saved “according as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world.” He argued that the saved were chosen [pg 93] in Christ before the foundation of the world and saved in time according to that choice. But if you are not satisfied with that debate, “trot out” your “big brother” again and we will try him a few rounds. Elder S. F. Cayce has fallen asleep, and his labor is ended in defending the cause of Christ, but while his son lives, by the help of the Lord we are ready to defy this Philistine army. Bring out your Goliath, if you are wanting more.
There is just one more sentence we wish to notice at present in the Elder’s article, and that is this: “See the success and blessings of the Missionary Baptists, while the other is growing beautifully less all the while.” Does worldly splendor, pomp, vain pride and show, denote that the Lord is with you, and that the Softshells are the church of Christ? Does wealth and numbers prove that your denomination is the church of Christ? If it does, it will also prove the same thing for the Methodists, or the Catholics, or others. An argument that proves too much is as bad as one that proves nothing. As to the “other growing beautifully less”— this only manifests a spirit of hatred and malice, and shows that the Elder would be glad if they were all dead. But false prophets of his kind have been saying for years— long before he was born— that they would soon all be dead. Are they all dead yet? No, there are enough left yet to put the whole Fullerite army to flight, and it doesn’t take long to do it, either. “One shall chase a thousand, and two shall put ten thousand to flight.” They are not quite so few yet as you would like. When the last Old Baptist dies, Elder, if you are living, you better be about winding up the last of your little affairs here, for just then the elements are going to melt with fervent heat and time will be no more. He also says we were once about equally divided, but now it is not so. Yes, it has been true all along the line, and is true yet, that the children of the bond woman are more than the children of the free woman. Ishmaelites are more numerous than Israelites.
Now we would suggest to Elder Bell that we have on file some things in his own writing, and that it might do very well for him to cast no more reflections or insinuations about the Primitive Baptists. C. H. C.
[pg 94]
MATTHEW 24
June 26, 1906
Brother G. B. Thomasson, of Agnes, Texas, has requested our views of Matthew 24. As he does not call for our views on any special portion of the chapter, we suppose he wishes to know our opinion of the same as a whole. So, we will offer only a few words. In the thirty-fourth verse the Saviour says, “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” All those famines, pestilences, wars, rumors of wars, desolations, earthquakes, and other distresses mentioned— these were all to be fulfilled before the passing away of that generation. So this prophecy could not be of something that is yet in the future. Those things have all been fulfilled. In the fifteenth verse He says. “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place,” etc. The holy place was in the temple, and in the destruction of Jerusalem the “abomination of desolation” was seen standing in the holy place. Dead bodies were found there. So, taking it all together, we think this chapter is foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem and the overthrow of the temple. In verse 2 it is said, “There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” This was said with reference to the temple. Then the Saviour tells of some things that were to come to pass before the destruction of the temple, and says these shall all be fulfilled before that generation passes away. For these reasons we think the chapter is foretelling, mainly, of the overthrow of the temple and the destruction of Jerusalem. We offer these thoughts simply as our own views. We are not infallible, and may be wrong; but if what we have given can be any benefit to anyone, we shall have nothing to regret. C. H. C.
THE SPIRITUALITY
OF THE GOSPEL
July 24, 1906
In the Apostolic Herald of May 15, 1906, is a communication signed Albert Oliphant, Forest, Ind., which contains some things we wish to notice. The following is an extract from the letter:
I suppose for a good many years there has been among God’s people more than one notion as to the spirituality and effectiveness of His gospel, which is greatly to be lamented. This concerted condition resulted in the formation of two factions, or parties. Each, in their devilish enmity, have wandered into very dangerous extremes. One party believes that the “gospel of Christ is the power of God” and man, addressing only the regenerate, discarding the accountability of the unregenerate, and the preaching of repentance to them; however, they proclaim [pg 95]the inability of the unregenerate with great emphasis (but for what profitable purpose, with consistency, I cannot comprehend), since they believe the unregenerate are not subjects of gospel address; for it is supposed that a minister is preaching the gospel while he is in the pulpit— not merely “lecturing.” This disregard and unconcernedness for the religious welfare of the souls of the unregenerate, they plainly see while the minister is in the pulpit, or in their society. Consequently to them, the gospel is destitute of sweetness, the house of God its preciousness, or sacredness; the audience decreases, the church declines for the want of gospel food, and in many places becomes extinct for the want of recruits.
We wish, first, to call attention to the expression, “devilish enmity.” We do not desire to offer any comment on these words— we only call attention to them.
Brother Oliphant says, One party believes that the gospel of Christ is the power of God and man, addressing only the regenerate, discarding the accountability of the unregenerate, and the preaching of repentance to them. We do not understand why Brother Oliphant says this party believes that the gospel is the power of God and man. This must be a supposition of his. But we plead guilty to believing a portion of what be says this party believes, though we do not discard the accountability of the unregenerate. The law demands perfect and perpetual obedience, and the sinner is accountable and under obligation to keep the law; but the sinner is unable to keep it, as he is already under its curse, by reason of sin. The broken law requires of the sinner that which he is now unable to perform. We do maintain that the gospel is to the regenerate, and to them only. We do not believe there is a single command, admonition or exhortation in the gospel to the unregenerate requiring spiritual service of them. What is the gospel? What does the word gospel mean? The gospel is good news. The word “gospel” means good news or glad tidings. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.” Rom. 1:16-17. Paul was not ashamed of the glad tidings or good news of Christ. Why was he not ashamed of it? Because it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. If one preaches or proclaims the good news or glad tidings of Christ, he is proclaiming the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God— 1 John 5:1. The literal or interlinear translation says, has been begotten of God, or has been born of God. The word which is translated “born” may be correctly translated either begotten or born. So if one preaches the gospel, proclaims the good news of Christ, be proclaims the power of God to save the person who is born of God. To proclaim the power of God to save the believer through Christ, is to preach the gospel, is to proclaim [pg 96] the good news of Christ. None of this is to the unbeliever. It is to every one that believeth. In the proclamation of the good news of Christ the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith. The righteousness of God is not revealed in the gospel to the character without faith, but revealed from faith to faith. The person who has faith is in possession of the Spirit, for it is a fruit of the Spirit; and if one has the Spirit he is one of the Lord’s children. So in the proclamation of the glad tidings of Christ the righteousness of God is revealed to those who are born of God. This text (Romans 1:16) is one used by Brother Oliphant, and it very plainly contradicts the idea, we think, that the gospel is in any sense addressed to the unregenerate. Remember that the gospel is good news. What good news have you for the unregenerate? Can you tell him that Jesus died for him? Upon what principle can you tell him this, only upon the principle that He died for all the race? If you tell him that Jesus atoned for him, must it not be upon the principle of a universal atonement? Then what about the doctrine of special atonement? The most glorious, full and complete gospel sermon we have on record is the Saviour’s sermon on the mount, as recorded in Matthew, beginning at the first of the fifth chapter, and the Saviour begins that wonderful discourse by presenting a speciality, “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” The good news of that discourse was for those who are poor in spirit; those that mourn; the meek; those who hunger and thirst after righteousness; the merciful; the pure in heart; the peace-makers; those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake; those who are reviled, persecuted, and who have all manner of evil said against them falsely for Jesus’ sake.
We haven’t space to copy all of Brother Oliphant’s article from the Herald. We would be glad if we did, so that all our readers could see for themselves every argument made and every Scripture quoted in defense of the positions taken in the extracts we have given above; but the extracts are sufficient to show his positions, we think. We suppose the positions taken are endorsed by the editor, Elder J. V. Kirkland. We know that he endorses some of them. Elder Kirkland agrees with him on the repentance question. In support of the idea that the unregenerate are commanded, in the gospel, to repent, Brother Oliphant quotes a number of passages. He does not make an argument from each one, but merely quotes them. We want to notice a few of them to see if they are to the unregenerate, or if they may be rightly applied to them. First we notice Luke 13:3, “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish,” which he quoted. Remember that this text is given to show that the unregenerate are commanded to repent. If this is true, then the perishing is eternal, so the conclusion must be that the unregenerate must repent in [pg 97] order to life. But why not let us have the whole thing? “There were present at that season some that told Him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay; but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwell in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay; but, except ye repent. ye shall all likewise perish.”— Luke 13:1-5. It is plain that this language was spoken to the Jews, who were God’s people as a nation. It was spoken to national Israel. National Israel was typical of spiritual Israel. So, instead of the language being now applicable to the unregenerate, it belongs to the Lord’s disobedient children. If they live after the flesh they die to the enjoyments that are in the gospel church or kingdom. This argument might be made still further, but this is sufficient to show that the right application of the text is not to the unregenerate.
The next we notice is Acts 2:38, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.” If the unregenerate are told in this text to repent they are also told to be baptized, for the same persons are commanded to be baptized who are commanded to repent. So, if this position is correct, the Campbelites are right. Brother Oliphant surely will not accept that. A text that proves too much is as bad as one that proves nothing at all. What is true of these two passages is true of every text the brother quoted. Not one of them requires gospel service of the unregenerate.
Now, notice what Brother Oliphant says about the gospel being destitute of sweetness to the unregenerate. We wonder how much sweetness there was for the unregenerate in the gospel Paul preached. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”— l Cor. 2:14. Paul was talking about his preaching, the “things we speak,” and says the natural man does not receive them. The gospel Paul preached was destitute of sweetness to the unregenerate. How about John’s preaching? “They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.”— l John 4:5,6. If John knew what he was talking about, the man who proposes to preach in such a way as that the unregenerate will hear his preaching— hear with gladness— proposes to be of the world in his preaching. If he proposes to give a gospel sweetness to the unregenerate, the world, he admits in so claiming that his preaching is not of [pg 98] God, but of the world. The world hears those who are of the world in their preaching. John teaches this. The world did not hear or receive John’s preaching; there was no sweetness in his preaching for them; but those who knew the Lord heard his preaching; there was sweetness in it to them. We are in good company. We would rather be in company with Paul and John in preaching a gospel that has a sweetness for the Lord’s humble poor, than to be in company with the world in preaching another gospel that is received by the world. How much sweetness was there in Stephen’s preaching for them? When they heard what he had to say “they gnashed on him with their teeth,” and they stoned him to death. Not much sweetness to them in his preaching. If there was a sweetness in the gospel to the unregenerate, then the gospel would lose its offensiveness to the world and no one would ever be persecuted, stoned, put in prison, put to death, or be punished by the world for preaching it.
But Brother Oliphant says:
The opposite party (at least some of them), seem also to believe that the “gospel of Christ is the power of God” and man, looking to the “watchman,” instead of “beyond” the “watchman;” believing in instrumentalities beyond what is reasonable— that it might be possible for it to be the minister’s business (or “power”) to save souls, “build the house,” or “keep the city.”
So far as we are acquainted, those who claim to believe in instrumentalities in eternal salvation say they believe it is God who does the saving, that the power to save is with the Lord, but that the Lord uses instruments in salvation. We know they sometimes make arguments and make remarks that would lead one to think they believed the minister has power to save; yet they do not claim to believe this. But we conclude from the reading of what Brother Oliphant has to say that be thinks some go to an extreme in this regard— that the power to save is with the ministry— but that he believes the power to “save souls” is with the Lord, and that He uses instruments in that work. We understand him to mean that he believes the Lord uses the minister as an instrument in the salvation of the sinner. If this is not what Brother Oliphant means, we have misunderstood him. But we haven’t space to discuss this point at present.
The following is another extract from Brother Oliphant’s letter:
The gospel also makes it the duty of “all nations of men” that “dwell on all the face of the earth” to seek the Lord. Acts 17:26, “And hath made of one blood (Adam) all nations of men (all human creatures), for to dwell on all the face of the earth; and hath determined the times before appointed (when they should each exist), and the bounds of their habitations” (where they should each exist.) Verse 27: “That they (relative pronoun, which has for its antecedent all nations of men) should (duty) seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us.” Verse 28: “For in Him we live, move, and have our being” (existence.)
[pg 99] Here is accountability in its full force, declared by the Lord in His gospel, or counsel. Since all the human specie is commanded to repent, and seek the Lord, it is each and every one’s duty; and God by His gospel requires all duty to be performed; and whatever God requires of His creatures is His “counsel” to them; and He hath commanded His ministry “shun not to declare the whole counsel of God.”
He does not quote all of the 28th verse. That verse, in full, and the 29th and 30th verses read, “For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent. Paul is here preaching to a people who are the offspring of God— born of God— a people who have been worshiping God ignorantly, having an altar erected to the unknown God. They are commanded to turn away from their ignorant or idolatrous worship, and all those who are born of God, the offspring of God everywhere, who are engaged in such worship are commanded to repent. There is nothing in this text for the unregenerate. It is to the children of God who are engaging in false worship, and it is the duty of the ministry to admonish all such persons to repent, turn away from it and worship the Lord as directed in His word.
Again we would beg our brethren to lay aside all such teaching and let us labor for the things that make for peace. Oh, that the Lord may sustain us all, and help us to declare all His counsel without fear or favor, yet in humility. May the Lord open our understanding, so that we may all see the truth and help us to earnestly contend for it. Let us be careful to avoid all extremes, and let us be faithful to our Master and to our trust, and the Lord will bless us. C. H. C.
THE WORD MADE FLESH
August 14, 1906
There is a precious sweetness in the thought that the Word was made flesh. We are all poor sinners, having violated God’s law in Adam. When Adam sinned, we all sinned in him, for we are only Adam multiplied. Now, that the law of God has been violated, if we ever enter the portals of eternal glory the demands of that broken law must be met. The law must be satisfied. All the debt we owe to divine justice must be paid. Not only so, but there must be righteousness for us. As we have broken the law, we are already guilty; so we can have no righteousness of our own to plead that is sufficient to [pg 100] recommend us into the favor of God. All this being true, the law must be kept by one who is just like the one that violated it. The penalty of the law must be paid by one , and the demands met in the person of one, who is just like the one who violated it. We could not satisfy the law. We could not do that which would take away our guilt. John realized something of this, we think, when in the Spirit on the isle of Patmos. He says, “I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon. And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and read the book, neither to look thereon,”— Rev. 5: 2,3,4. This language surely signifies that John realized the utter inability of sinful man to satisfy the demands of divine justice. But while we were not able to do this, thanks be to the blessed name of the Lord, there was one who stooped so low as to come into this world, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who was able to do all this for us. “And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof.”—Rev. 5:5. This language surely refers to Jesus. He was the Lion of the tribe of Juda. He was of the offspring of David. He was kin—of the family of David; he was of the tribe of Juda. “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.”— Rev. 22:16. Here the Saviour tells us plainly that He is the offspring of David. He had a body like ours, subject to suffering, sorrow, and pain; His body was like ours in every respect except sin. His body being just like ours in every way except sin, it was just like the body of Adam was before he violated God’s law. Oh, how much He was adapted for the work He came into the world to do. Well might he say, “Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me,”— Hebrews 10:5. Read the entire chapter. How did the Lord prepare His body? He was conceived of the virgin Mary by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, and born of her into this world. Being born of the virgin Mary, begotten by the power of God, He was verily man and truly God. Thus he passed by the nature of angels and took upon Himself the seed of the seed of Abraham— taking upon Himself a body of flesh and blood. “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.”—Ga. 4:4,5. He was made of a woman— hence He was the son of Mary. As such, He is called the son of man. He was kin to mankind, being made of a woman, born of a woman. [pg 101] It was necessary that the law be kept and its demands met by one who is like the one that violated it; it must be done by one who is kin to the one who violated it. In this we see how that Jesus was “prepared” to do the Father’s will. Blessed thought! He was capacitated to redeem us from all iniquity, that we might receive the adoption of sons. But now after we have received the Spirit of adoption, after we have been born of God, we have so many trials and difficulties to endure here in this low ground of sorrow that we that sometimes feel almost ready to surrender. Our sorrows and bereavements are so great sometimes that we feel like giving up in despair. But, oh, blessed Jesus is suited to our case again. “Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God. Let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, het without sin.”— Heb. 4:14,15. Oh, how glad we are that we have a high priest who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities. “He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief.”— Isa. 53:3. As He was a man of sorrows, He was surely in possession of a body of flesh and blood, a body like ours, subject to suffering and sorrow. As he endured sorrows and was acquainted with grief, He can and does sympathize with us in our sorrows and griefs. Oh, what a precious Saviour, High Priest and Friend we have in Jesus. “Forasmuch then as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels, but he took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted.”— Heb. 2:14-18. Blessed Saviour! He took part of flesh and blood—he took on Him the seed of Abraham. No one can deny that Jesus had a body of flesh and blood without denying the plain statements of Holy Writ. How glad we ought to be that we have such a Redeemer as Jesus is. He was made like unto his brethren. They were of Adam’s race, so he took upon Himself a body like ours, sin excepted. Yet He bore our sins. Our sins were all imputed to Him, and His righteousness is imputed to us. Precious Saviour, how sweet and adorable is his name! Thou didst pass by the nature of angels, and come down here into this world, and take upon thyself a body like ours, and bear all our sins in thine own body and put all our sins away by the sacrifice [pg 102] of thyself. And now, having done all this for us, thou hast arisen from the dead and ascended to glory, there to appear in the presence of God for us, to intercede for thy people according to the Father’s will. Oh, blessed Redeemer, thou knowest when we are tempted and when we need thy prayers. Then thou wilt pray or intercede for us when we are in need.
Let us cast all our care on Jesus, having the sweet assurance that He careth for us. Dear brethren, hold up your heads, and press onward in the service of our adorable King. He knoweth all your trials and difficulties, and will never leave thee nor forsake thee. Remember us in your prayers. Pray the Lord to direct us aright and to sustain us in all our trials.
C. H. C.
THE PRODIGAL SON
August 14, 1906
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Sir—Will you please give me your views on the prodigal son? It will be found in Luke 15. Was he born of the Spirit of God when he left his father or not? Or did he receive a change while he was gone? Please give your views on the above through the paper. I remain yours truly, J. F. Johnson
Sardis, Tenn.
OUR ANSWER
As Brother Johnson merely asks if the son was born of God before he left his father, we will not take space to quote all the chapter referring to the matter. It may be found in Luke 15, beginning with Luke 15:11, “And he said a certain man had two sons.” The younger son left his father and took his journey into a far country. If the father represents the heavenly Father, then the younger son was born of God before he left and took his journey. If the elder son was born of the Father, so was the younger son. He was as much a son of the father as the elder son. Both were born of the same father. And the younger son was no more a son of his father when he returned than when he left. He was his father’s son when he started on the journey; he was the same son while he was gone, and the same son when he returned. While be was away from his father’s home, he was a son, but was away from home, and engaged in swine feeding. We have thought perhaps some of the Lord’s sons are now away from home and engaged in the same kind of business. We can only hope they may come to themselves, as this younger son did, and acknowledge their errors and their [pg 103] sins, and come home again, and let the fatted calf be killed and have rejoicing in the Lord’s house, that the sons, who are now dead to the enjoyments of that house, are alive again.
We trust these few thoughts may be some help to you, and that the Lord may bless them to your good, and to the good of all our readers. C. H. C.
ELDER CROUSE’S LETTER
September 18, 1906
In our issue of Sept. 4, 1906, is a letter from Elder Wm. H. Crouse, of Winchester, Ky., under the caption “A Statement of Facts Important to Our People.” Our dear brother, Elder J. K. Stephens, of Bald Knob, Ark., was here in Martin at the time, and stated that he took the responsibility of having the article inserted in that issue without comment, leaving the comment, if any, to us, and that we had not seen the article. We have a few words to offer, and we wish to offer them in the spirit of kindness, but yet we wish to speak plainly. If we had seen the article before it was published we would have written to Elder Crouse privately and offered some remarks; but as the letter has already been published we feel it to be our duty to offer some remarks publicly.
First, Brother Crouse says, “For many months a war has been waged against Elder J. V. Kirkland.” We do not, at all, feel that Brother Crouse has correctly stated the case in this expression. We do not accuse him of stating it wrongly on purpose, but do think be makes a wrong charge against us. Instead of a war having been waged against Elder J. V. Kirkland, he has waged a war against the time-honored principles of our fathers, and against the doctrine and practice of the church. While he has done this, some have stood firmly by those principles, and have defended them in the face of the opposition of Elder Kirkland and some others. None of us who have opposed the new measures advocated by him, we feel sure, have done so as opposing Elder Kirkland; but we have desired to be faithful to our King in opposing his departures from the original principles of the church of Christ.
Brother Crouse also says, “but I did feel that he was unjustly opposed and persecuted.” Brother Crouse does not say, in so many words, that be does not feel that way about it now, but we are hoping that he now has a different feeling. One is certainly justifiable in opposing a wrong position or false doctrine. Elder Kirkland’s position on Federal government is either right or wrong. If it is right, then he was unjustly opposed in his advocating it. If [pg 104] it is wrong, then the opposition was just and he was not unjustly opposed. The same thing is true regarding his position on the commission, and Elder Crouse says he has “never for one moment favored his ideas of church government or the commission.” As to the persecution, we have never thought persecution consisted in telling the truth. So far as we know, every charge made against Elder Kirkland has been sustained. They have not been denied by him, that we know of.
So far as the points are concerned that are mentioned in Elder Crouse’s letter, and on account of which those brethren have withdrawn from Elder Kirkland’s paper, none of them are new. It had already been said in our paper that Elder Kirkland said our people were not justifiable in withdrawing from the Missionary or New School Baptists. Elder J. N. Hall’s statement to us, which was published in our issue of Feb. 27, 1906, in our editorial headed “Some Plain Facts,” in support of which we copied an editorial from the Baptist Flag, a Missionary Baptist paper published in Fulton, Ky., showed clearly that Elder Kirkland would be willing to fellowship them. Elder Kirkland never denied this. He only insinuated that we were jealous because Elder Hall wanted him to join the New School Baptists. We never thought then, and do not think yet, that this would be a very convincing reason to give that one is jealous of another. The New Schools would be glad to get anyone from the ranks of the Old Baptists at any time. It has also been stated in our columns that Elder Kirkland had said he would be willing to receive the Missionary Baptists on their baptism, provided they would come a church at a time. Not one of these things had ever been denied that we know of, and they all, therefore, stood as confessed. This all being true, these are no new things just brought to light. They are only presented in a little different way, perhaps.
Now, some might say, “If you were aware of these things, then why did you sign that peace agreement with them?” We suppose we can have no better time than now to tell why. In the first place we wish to say plainly that we did not sign that agreement as representing anyone. We simply signed it as an individual, and our signing it could bind no other person. Individually and as an individual, we were willing to sign the agreement, and allow Elder Kirkland to hold the views embraced by him, provided he would not agitate or contend for them. We hoped that as a result of the agreement the questions would be agitated no more, and that thereby a division might be averted. We were willing to sign the agreement with him, and allow him to hold those views, provided he would not agitate them, in order to save a division. On the other hand, we thought that if Elder Kirkland broke the agreement, which he did, it ought to show to fair-minded brethren that he [ pg 105] did not want peace on any kind of reasonable terms. It ought to show that he preferred a division rather than to cease agitating those measures.
Now we wish to call attention to some of the statements Elder Crouse submitted to Elder Kirkland. The second item reads:
While we might not agree with all that our brethren did in separating from the Carey-Fuller party (we are all fallible) yet we hold that they were justified in separating from them and that such issues would be sufficient ground for separation today; viz: that eternal life is conditional, the atonement universal, and that it “rests upon the church to bring the world to Christ.”
In Elder Kirkland’s letter to Elder Crouse he says, “In the second item I have always thought a division could, and should, have been averted, by prudence and the proper use of the blessed truth, in patience and love. So I do not think it would be exactly honest in me to sign it as you word it.” Notice that be says be has always thought this way.
In the “Cause Defended,”published in 1898, is a chapter by Elder J. V Kirkland on “Baptist History— Perpetuity of the Gospel Church.” In this chapter, on page 95 of the book, the following language is found with reference to the separation of the Old Baptists from the New School Baptists:
Such gross departures from the original faith and practice of the Baptist Church as those already mentioned, with hundreds of others too tedious to mention, are sufficient ground to justify those who are true Baptists and wish to keep pure the communion and preserve the holy principles and holy church government, delivered to us by Christ and His apostles, which our holy brethren have faithfully contended for against the powers of darkness and given their lives for more than twelve hundred years during the dark ages, in withdrawing from those who have brought in those departures.
If he has always thought “a division could, and should, have been averted,” then he has always thought, surely, that there was not sufficient ground to justify a division. The statement submitted by Elder Crouse says our brethren “were justified in separating from them” (the New School Baptists). Elder Kirkland does not think it would be exactly honest in him to sign the statement worded this way, as he has “always thought a division could, and should, have been averted.” Of course, if it could, and should, have been averted, then there was not sufficient ground to justify it. If Elder Kirkland thought in 1898 that the departures were sufficient ground to justify our brethren in withdrawing from them, did he always think they were not justified in doing so? If he always thought they were not justified in separating from them, then did he think in 1898 that our brethren had sufficient ground to justify them in withdrawing from the New Schools? And if he thought in 1898 that the departures of the New Schools were such as to justify our brethren in withdrawing from them, but does not now think they were justified in [pg 106] separating from them, did be always think “a division could, and should, have been averted?” How can it be that be “always thought a division could, and should, have been averted,” if be thought in 1898 that our brethren had sufficient ground to justify them in withdrawing from the New Schools? This all looks like a contradiction to us, and we do not see how the statements can be harmonized.
In Elder Kirkland’s letter to Elder Crouse he offers no objection to the third item, yet there is a word changed in it, as submitted by Elder Kirkland. That item, as written by Elder Crouse, reads:
We believe the alien sinner to be dead in sin and wholly unable to rescue himself from his condition, and cannot be reached by the gospel, but can only be quickened by the Spirit of God.
As changed by Elder Kirkland it reads:
We believe the alien sinner to be dead in sin and wholly unable to rescue himself from his condition, and cannot be rescued by the gospel, but can only be quickened by the Spirit of God.
Notice that the first says the alien sinner cannot be reached by the gospel; Elder Kirkland used the word “rescued” instead of “reached.” The New School Baptists, we think, will admit that the alien sinner cannot be rescued by the gospel, that the Holy Spirit rescues the sinner; but argue that the gospel reaches the sinner, and that the Holy Spirit reaches the sinner through the gospel and rescues him. We would ask why Elder Kirkland changed that word? Does he hold the New School position on this question? We cannot understand why he would use the word “rescued” instead of “reached” unless he does hold with them. We leave the reader to judge.
Again, in his letter to Elder Crouse he says: “I was asked some years ago if a Missionary Baptist church should reform and accept the true doctrine and practice of the Bible as we understand it, could we take them into our fellowship as a church, and I said that I think we could just as our brethren did the Separate Baptists in the Kehukee Association in 1777, and I so stated in my correspondence with Elder J. M. Thompson.” Remember, as above stated, it has already been published in our paper that Elder John T. Blanchard heard Elder Kirkland say he would be willing to receive the Missionaries on their baptism, provided they would come a church at a time. Now, he claims this would not be alien baptism. And he would be willing to receive them just as our brethren did the Separate Baptists in 1777. Hassell’s History, page 698, says, concerning the differences that existed between and among the brethren then, that “The most forcible objection of all appeared to be the retention of members who had been baptized in unbelief; and this was admitted on the part of the Regulars to he a wrong; on which account several of their churches sought to correct it, by requiring all such of their members to be [pg 107] baptized.” These brethren, in reconciling their differences, adopted seventeen articles of faith found on pages 699 and 700 of Hassell’s History. Article 12 reads: “We believe baptism and the Lord’s supper are gospel ordinances, both belonging to the converted or true believers; and that persons who were sprinkled or dipped while in unbelief were not regularly baptized according to God’s word, and that such ought to be baptized after they are savingly converted into the faith of Christ.” Article 16 reads: “We believe that no minister has a right to the administration of the ordinances, only such as are regularly called and come under the imposition of hands by the presbytery.” By these articles of faith it is clearly seen that those brethren accepted or received no baptism except that which was administered by one having proper authority, and the baptized person being a proper subject. To conform to this belief the churches then sought to correct the irregularity on this point by requiring all their members to be baptized who had been dipped before they were regenerated. To receive a Missionary Baptist church in the way Elder Kirkland is willing to do would be to receive them without requiring what the brethren required in the Kehukee Association. Besides this, suppose a Campbellite church should reform in doctrine and should accept our position on election, predestination, salvation by grace, and so on, why not accept them on their baptism? They went out from us, just as the Missionaries did, by the invention and introduction of new theories. It would be just as consistent to receive one as the other. The Campbelites party has lost its identity which it once held with the Baptist Church. On page 97 of the “Cause Defended” Elder J. V Kirkland says, concerning the Missionary Baptist cause, that it “had lost its identity with the true Baptist Church.” On page 99 he says: “From this it is very evident that the Primitive Baptists are right in their claim to hold the identity of the apostolic church.” If we hold the identity of the apostolic church, the Missionaries do not; and any baptism, therefore, administered by them, whether it be a single member or a whole organized body of them, is without gospel identity, and is alien baptism.
So, when the whole matter is summed up, we can see no new reason for the steps taken by these brethren. We will also say that so far as we are concerned we think it is just as necessary for those brethren to renounce Elder Kirkland’s position on some other points as on these. In THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of July 18, 1905, is a letter from Elder L. E. Thomas, in which he upholds Elder Kirkland’s plan of federal government, or at least it is so understood, and argues that the commission was given to the church. This letter was written to Elder S. F. Cayce, and in it he says, “Hoping you will favor me with an answer soon, either through THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST or privately,” [pg 108] etc. He was favored with a kind reply by our father, Elder S. F. Cayce. A short time after this, as our readers know, our father passed away, and we are reliably informed that Elder Thomas said, when he heard of it that “it is a God-sent blessing to our cause,” etc. On our recent tour in Ohio and Indiana some of the churches served by some of these brethren refused to make appointments for us. This could be for no other reason than that we oppose the positions believed by them. Will they all now renounce those positions also?
We are glad Elder Crouse has seen the error of following Elder Kirkland, and we trust he will now continue steadfast, and that the Lord may enable him to be faithful in contending against every false way and to stand firmly for the truth, letting others do as they may. May the Lord direct and sustain us all. C. H. C.
ACTS 26:18,20
September 25, 1906
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— Will you give in the paper your views of Acts 26:18,20? Please take up each clause in these two verses and give all the explanation necessary. I believe you are able to do this or I would not ask it of you. Yours in gospel bonds, W. A. Lamb.
Kite, Ga.
OUR ANSWER
In compliance with Brother Lamb’s request we will try to give some of our thoughts on the Scripture referred to. But we wish to give some of the language in connection with the 18th and 20th verses. This was in Paul’s defense before King Agrippa, as recorded in the 26th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. Beginning with verse 15 we read: “And I said, who art thou, Lord? And He said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee.” This includes the 17th verse. The 18th, 19th and 20th verses read: “To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. Whereupon, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: but shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then to the [pg 109] Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.” We thus quote at length so that the reader may have the connection. We are of the opinion Brother Lamb wishes our views more especially on the clause, “that they should repent and turn to God,” although he asks that we take up each clause in the 18th and 20th Verses. We haven’t space to take up each clause and comment at much length on each, but will endeavor to offer a few of such thoughts as we have. Our ideas are worthless unless they are supported by inspiration, so we desire to give a “thus saith the Lord” for our positions, and we desire that our positions be in harmony with the general tenor of the Scriptures.
Notice, first, the expression, “For I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness,” and also, “delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee.” We wish first to call attention to the thought embraced in this language, that God called Paul to the work of the ministry— his calling was from the Saviour, and that he was sent by the Lord. The Lord said He was the sender. Paul conferred not with flesh and blood. He did not wait for a board or church to send him. He did not enquire of the church as to what he must do. He did not ask them whether he would be supported [or] not. He did not say he could not preach and make tents too. He was a tent-maker. He did not say he could not do both. He did not want to ask the church at Jerusalem if they would support him while be was in Damascus and in Judea and among the Gentiles. He began preaching Christ at once, with all his confidence and trust in the Lord that provision would be made for him— that the Lord would be with him and would provide for him. His trust was in the one who sent him. Even so it is this day. If the church sends a man, his trust is in the church, he depends on the church, and he looks to the church for support. If the Lord sends a man, we think he is willing to trust the Lord, and to depend on the Lord’s promise to be with him and to feed and clothe him. When the cry came from Macedonia, “Come over and help us,” Paul did not refuse to go until they would raise a certain sum of money, as some of our preachers have done in this latter day, but went, by the direction and sending power of God, into Macedonia. If the ministry of today would follow Paul’s example there would be less trouble among the dear people of God.
Paul was sent by the Lord as a witness. “A true witness will testify to the truth without money and without price.” If a witness is hired to testify in the courts of our land, his testimony would be thrown out of court. Even if his testimony should be true, it would not be received by the court, if the court is apprised of the fact that he is hired to testify. If a man will not go before a certain court to testify unless he is hired to do so, he may also be [pg 110] hired to stay away, or to go before some other court. So, it seems that some have been hired to leave the Old Baptist court and to testify in some other court.
He was sent as a minister. “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.” Eph. 4:11-14. “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.” — l Cor. 13:28. These Scriptures teach us that the gifts in the ministry are given by the Lord to the church, and are for the benefit of the Lord’s people. They are “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.”
“To open their eyes.” It would do no good to open the eyes of one who is blind. To benefit one by opening his eyes, he must first have life and the power of sight. People are sometimes born in nature without the power of sight, because nature and the works of nature are imperfect; but God is perfect and His work is perfect. It is the doing of God, the work of God, by which one is born into the spiritual kingdom. When one is born into that kingdom he is born with the power of sight. He may now be benefitted by having his eyes opened to every false way, and to the true teaching of the Scriptures, and to the doctrine of God and the ordinances of the church of Christ.
“And to turn them from darkness to light.” If one has his eyes closed, it is apparently dark. The Lord sent Paul to open the eyes of those who had been born of God, and to turn them from darkness to light. He was to open their eyes to the truth in a doctrinal way, and to the ordinances of the gospel; he was to turn them from the darkness of false worship, and from law worship, to the light of the true gospel worship of God. He was to declare unto them the whole counsel of God, and knowing the terror of the Lord he would persuade men. He would not persuade unregenerate sinners to be born again; it is the work of God that sinners are born again. He would persuade those who have been born again, those who have a sweet hope in Jesus, to turn away from the darkness of law worship and law service to the true light of gospel worship and gospel service. The foolish virgins said, “Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out.” The light of law service has gone out. “A [pg 111] great wonder appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet.” The light of the moon, representing the law, has gone out— it is under feet, and the sun has risen. The true light of gospel service is now shining. Paul was sent of the Lord to turn the children of God from the darkness of the law to the true light of the gospel. No minister who preaches law for gospel can rightly claim to be doing what Paul was sent to do.
“And from the power of Satan unto God.” To be turned from false worship to the true service of God is to be turned from the power of Satan unto God. “Take heed unto thyself and to the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this, thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee.” The minister of the gospel, by taking heed unto himself and unto the doctrine, will save himself and those that hear him. He will not save all those who hear the sound of his voice, but those who hear— understand and heed his preaching. “Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.” The Lord opened Lydia’s heart, that she attended unto the things spoken of Paul. The Lord regenerates, gives the understanding, opens the heart. Then the minister who is sent of the Lord, by taking heed unto himself and unto the doctrine, may save himself and those who hear— may save those who have been regenerated, who have understanding, whose hearts the Lord has opened. He saves himself, first, from false ways, from the power of Satan. “But I keep under my body, lest after I have preached to others I myself should be a castaway. Then he saves those who hear with the same salvation, in the same way that he saves himself— from false ways, from false doctrines, from the doctrines of men and devils— thus turning the Lord’s children from the power of Satan unto God.
“That they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.” “He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”— John 1:11-13. Those who hear, or heed, the preaching of the gospel have already been born of God, and they receive forgiveness of sins in a manifest sense. When Jesus came unto His own, those who received Him had been born of God; those who believed on His name had been born of God. So, those who had been born of God were given power to become sons of God. They were not given power to become the sons of God in regeneration, for they were already born of God. They were given power to become sons manifestly. Paul was sent to preach the gospel, that those who had been born of God might receive forgiveness of sins, or become sons of God, in a manifest sense. It was not that the unregenerate might receive forgiveness [pg 112] of sins, or become children of God, or that they might be born of God. “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him. But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”— l Cor. 2:9-14. As no man knoweth the things of a man only by the spirit of man, even so no man knoweth the things of God only by the Spirit of God. No man who is destitute of the spirit of man can know the things of man; even so no man who is destitute of the Spirit of God can know the things of God. Paul’s preaching, therefore, could be of no spiritual benefit to those who were destitute of the Spirit of God. He spoke the things of God, but the natural man, the man who did not possess the Spirit of God, did not receive those things. He could not know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Those who were in possession of the Spirit could discern those things, could receive the things he preached; and in taking heed to them they would show their faith by their works, thereby receiving forgiveness of sins in a declarative way. And they also thereby received “inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith that is in” Jesus. They received the inheritance among them who are oftlinein the visible kingdom or organized church of Christ here on earth. “Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”— 2 Tim. 2:10. Paul was willing to endure all the trials and persecutions that might be heaped upon him by the enemies of the cross of Christ for the sake of God’s elect, for the sake of God’s little children, that they might “also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus;” that they might walk in obedience to the loving commandments of Jesus, and thereby enjoy the manifestations of His divine presence and have His approving smiles, thereby receiving some sweet assurances that they are indeed the Lord’s children.
“But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God.” We have already seen that Paul’s preaching was to those who had been born of God, and for their benefit. This being true, it cannot [pg 113]be that Paul shewed to the unregenerate that they “should repent and turn to God;” but he did show that those who were the children of God should repent, turn away from every false way, and turn to God, turn to the true worship and service of the Lord. On the day of Pentecost there were present Jews, devout men, out of every nation, who heard the preaching of Peter, and “they were pricked in their heart”— they were cut in their heart. This is proof that the Lord bad already taken away the stony heart out of their flesh and had given them a heart of flesh, a heart susceptible of feeling. “They were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye. shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” They were the Lord’s children; they were devout men; they had been circumcised in heart. Peter told them to repent, to turn away from false ways, to come out from among the world and be separate therefrom. Verse 40 says, “And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” He did not command the untoward or wicked generation to repent nor to save themselves. Surely Paul and Peter were both sent of the Lord, and their preaching was of the same kind. And surely Peter did not fail to preach according to the commission given him. He surely preached on this day according to the command of the Lord. Then if Paul was to admonish the untoward or wicked generation or unregenerate sinner to repent, Peter should do the same thing; but he did not do that on this occasion. No command is recorded that he gave to the untoward generation. God’s children are commanded or admonished to repent, come out from among that generation, to save themselves from them by coming out and being separate from them.
We might go on and on, giving instance after instance and Scripture after Scripture, but we deem it unnecessary. What is true in the foregoing references, is true in every case that might be referred to. God’s word nowhere contradicts itself. It is all a perfect chain of harmony from first to last, and all other Scriptures treating on the same subjects are in perfect accord with these.
We have tried to comply with Brother Lamb’s request to such an extent as that he may understand our position and know where we occupy on the points involved. We trust the Lord may bless the remarks to the good of all our readers. Let us all try to contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints, and pray with, and for each other. Remember us in your prayers. C. H. C.
[pg 114]
OUR COLORED BRETHREN
October 2, 1906
We see a move on foot among our colored brethren for a National meeting to be held in Huntsville, Ala., in 1907 to organize a National Association. We note that they have a National Moderator, a National Vice Moderator, a National Secretary, a National Financial Secretary, a National Treasurer, a National Statistical Secretary, fourteen National Field Secretaries, National Executive Committee composed of thirteen, a Board of Directors composed of members from sixteen associations, with the Moderator and Clerk of sixteen other associations, a Press Bureau composed of four members, a committee on Sunday School Work composed of seven members, a committee of seven women on National Woman’s Work, a committee of two on History of Colored Primitive Baptists and Hymn Book.
We would kindly advise our colored brethren to let these things severely alone. Where, in the Bible, do you find any of these secretaries or committees? This whole affair looks very much to us like the new inventions and ponderous machinery of the New School Baptists, and is foreign to the Bible. Our opinion is they will cause trouble among our colored brethren, and we think it would he better to let these things alone and follow the plain and simple teachings of the Scriptures in all church matters. C. H. C.
MATTHEW 12:43-44
October 2. 1906
Brother J. B. Miller, of Shepherd, Ga., has requested us to give our views of Matt. 12:43-44, which reads, “When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.” We do not feel any impression to write at much length upon these words. If we are not mistaken this Scripture has already been explained in our columns perhaps more than once; but we will offer in a very brief way what we think is taught in the parable or illustration used by the Saviour in the language. We would call attention to the fact that the unclean spirit went out of the man. He was not bound nor cast out. This man could be nothing better than a nominal professor. He professed to be good, possibly; but the unclean spirit had only gone out for a season. The strong man armed was not bound. The strong man keeps his house and his goods are in peace until a stronger comes [pg 115] upon him. The unclean spirit keeps his house, the sinner, until a stronger comes upon him. The stronger is Jesus. He is stronger than all powers of darkness, and He comes to the poor sinner and binds the strong man, and spoils his armor wherein he trusted. The last state of this man is never worse than the first. The strong man, the unclean spirit, is bound. But when the unclean spirit goes out of his house he is not bound. It is his own house he goes out of. When he returns he finds it empty. If it is neempty, it is not occupied by the Spirit of Jesus. The Lord has not taken up His abode there by the operation of His Holy Spirit. The Lord is not there. The Interlinear translation says he finds it unoccupied. So he can be no better than merely a nominal professor. The unclean spirit “taketh with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there,” so says verse 45. So instead of being better after his outward profession he is worse than before, “and the last state of that man is worse than the first.” We have known some nominal professors in our lives who were worse after than they were before— that is, their practice was worse and they were more wicked. The last state was worse than the first. But when the Lord binds the strong man, the last state is never worse than the first. The Lord’s work is perfect and will stand. Men may persuade and scare the sinner so that he may for a while profess to be so very good; but scared religion will not last and is worthless. God knows the hearts of all men, and no outward profession when the heart has not really been changed can deceive the Lord. These few thoughts are offered in love to all our readers. C. H. C.
WHAT DOES HE BELIEVE?
October 9, 1906
We take the following from the Western Recorder: “Elder R. S. Kirkland, of Fulton, Ky., joined Walnut Street Church in this city on last Sunday morning and preached there Sunday night. He was one of the best known and most highly esteemed ministers of the ‘Primitive’ Baptists. His study of the Bible convinced him that the commission was given to the church instead of to the apostles as individuals, and hence is of perpetual obligation; and that it is the duty of the church to preach the gospel to all the world. He received a most cordial welcome, and his sermon Sunday night gave great satisfaction. On the advice of friends, including the writer, he engaged in evangelistic work for a number of years, and this he will continue for a time, at least. He is a preacher of unusual force and originality, and he is sound in the faith— a thorough Missionary Baptist. We cordially commend him to our people. We have known of Brother Kirkland for some time. He has been quite a prominent preacher in the ranks of our Primitive Baptist brethren. A number of them, however, objected to his missionary teachings. We are glad to have him join a Missionary Baptist church, where we believe, [pg 116] he belongs. May we ask one or two questions? 1. Does he believe that a person must have repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved, or that a simple feeling of desire to be saved indicates that he is regenerated? 2. Was he received in the Walnut Street church on his Primitive Baptist baptism, or was he rebaptized? The Recorder does not state. We ask these questions for information— Baptist and Reflector, Sept. 27, 1906.
The Reflector is glad, and so are we. We are glad for any to leave us who are not satisfied with the teaching of God’s word and the old order of gospel service, as handed down to us through the ages from Christ and the apostles. You are welcome to any others we may have who may be in line with him. We suppose he can tell you whether or not he believes a person must have repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved. We have been informed that he was received in the Walnut Street church on his Primitive Baptist baptism; that they did not “re-baptize” him. Why not take him that way? A. J. Holt, a leading Missionary Baptist of this state, corresponding secretary of the Tennessee Baptist convention, said, “My reasons for receiving the baptism of the Anti-Missionaries are, they have the same baptism we have. * * * They are a congregation of baptized believers; that is what we call a church.” Elder W. P. Throgmorton said in a letter dated Sept. 26, 1893, “I believe that the baptism of our ‘Hardsbell’ brethren is valid. * * * From the time of the division between us and the ‘Hardshells’ it has been the general custom of our people to receive ‘Hard-shell’ baptism as valid. * * * As to the supposed case (or real case is it?) you mention of the ‘Hardshell’ preacher who wants to come to the Missionaries.
I would take him on his baptism, and would accept him as a minister on his ‘Hardshell’ ordination, provided his views as to doctrine and practice accords with those of Missionary Baptists.” Of course they took Elder Kirkland on his baptism, and would be glad to take many more the same way, and you are welcome to every one who wants to go.
C. H. C.
STARS IN THE CROWN
October 9, 1906
After a great revival in a town, when the hymns sung in the meeting had sung themselves down into the hearts of the people and were being sung on the streets, a brother was going along singing, “Will there be any stars in my crown?” Across the street another brother sang: “No, not one; no, not one.” We fear there may be too much truth in this with many a Baptist. What about it?— Baptist and Reflector, Sept. 27, 1906.
We suppose the Reflector knows whether it is true or not. C. H. C.
[pg 117]
OF THE WORLD
October 9, 1906
The world is coming to the Baptists. Let Baptists rise and take the world.— Baptist and Reflector, Sept. 27, 1906.
“They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.” — l John 4:5. C. H. C.
DEBATE AND MEETING AT BUFFALO
October 16, 1906
We arrived in Doniphan, Mo, on Monday, October 1, on our way to the debate at Buffalo Church, near Bennett, Ripley county, Mo. Elder P. E. Whitwell, of Bennett, and Brother J. J. Seymore, of Doniphan, met us at the train. Mr. Borden, our opponent, boarded the same train at Naylor, Mo. Brother Whitwell conveyed us to his home that afternoon, and we spent the night there. Tuesday morning we went to the church. The weather was very disagreeable and rainy, so we had a small crowd Tuesday and Wednesday. The crowd increased each day, so that the house was about full on Friday. Elder Borden opened the discussion and continued in the affirmative for two days, he affirming that “The church with which I (E. M. Borden) am identified is apostolic in origin, doctrine and practice.” On Wednesday morning we began in the affirmative, we affirming that “The church of which I (C. H. Cayce) am a member, known as Primitive Baptists, is apostolic in origin, doctrine and practice.” Mr. Borden represented the Campbelites. He is a pleasant man, and conducted himself in a gentlemanly manner all through the discussion. We had a pleasant discussion, and if there was the least unpleasantness between the disputants we were not aware of it. Of course we think we sustained our position fully, and our brethren all expressed themselves as being perfectly satisfied with the result. They were all exultant and happy. According to our previous arrangement we remained with the church on Saturday and Sunday and had meeting both days. On Sunday a dear sister came to the church and gave a reason of her hope in Christ, and was gladly received by the church. She is to be baptized at the next regular meeting, the fourth Sunday in this month. The meeting was a pleasant and joyful one, and will long be remembered by us. We tried to serve them as an humble pastor some years ago, and they have a warm place in our heart, and we pray the Lord to revive and prosper them. We would kindly and lovingly admonish them to be diligent in the discharge of their every duty and to fill their seats at their meetings, and “forsake not the assembling of themselves together.” May the Lord bless every one of them, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
[pg 118]
BEGAN TWENTY YEARS AGO
October 16, 1906
Since the last issue of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST we looked into the first subscription book kept by our father, Elder S. F. Cayce, when he established, or first began publishing, THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. In turning through its pages we saw the names of several parties who are yet taking the paper; some of them have been subscribers since the first issue, Jan. 1, 1886; others began taking the paper during that year whose names are yet on the list. But many of those whose names are on that book, who subscribed for the paper during the first year of its publication, have passed away and gone to their long eternal home. Some of them have passed away during the past twelve months. Some of them have seemingly gone off after strange doctrines— some, too, who were dear, good brethren. They have allowed prejudice to lead them astray, it seems. It is now nearly twenty-one years since the first issue of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST was mailed to its subscribers. The present editor was only a lad of a boy, then, though he entertained a precious hope in the Saviour and loved the Old Baptists and their doctrine and order. In our childhood days the dear brethren often gathered at father’s home, and peace and fellowship abounded. It seemed that they all loved each other and loved the cause. They enjoyed each other’s company and association. They lived for each other. Oh, how we long for those happy days to be restored in our beloved Zion. What is wrong? Surely there is a wrong somewhere. It seemed to us that the brethren then all had confidence in each other, and a brother’s word was as good as his bond. Now, it seems that there is so much distrust and a lack of confidence. Dear brethren, what is the matter? Have some gone too much after the world? And have some gone to an extreme one way and some the other? We believe the true Old Baptists love each other now; but do we show it— do we manifest it as it was in years gone by? “Let us not love in word only, but in deed and truth.” Let us all try to prove our love by our works. In those days of old the dear old soldiers of the cross would go to church for miles and miles. They would visit other churches. Let us visit each other more, and associate more with each other, and thereby cultivate our love one for another. Let us try to throw off any spirit of slothfulness and lethargy we may have, and “serve the Lord with reverence and godly fear.”
But we did not begin this to write on that line. We thought to mention a few things that passed through our mind as we looked over the pages of that old book. We have also lately been looking over some old copies of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. We find the same doctrine defended in those old papers [pg 119] that we are trying to contend for now. The articles of faith put forth in the prospectus and in the first issue were the same that we publish now, except the eleventh article has been added since the paper started. Although that article has been added since then, yet the sentiment of it was contended for in the paper at the first. All the sentiments of those eleven articles were believed and taught then. Those same principles are good enough for us now.
The Bible teaches them, and we are content with them. We hope, by the grace of God, to continue to contend for them while we live, whether our stay on earth be long or short. We humbly ask all our readers to pray for us to that end. The “good old way the fathers trod” is good enough for us. They walked in the Bible way, for whatever is Baptistic is Scriptural. We would rather have the sweet fellowship of the Lord’s humble poor and afflicted people than to have all the applause and praise of men and the pleasures the world affords. We ask for only an humble low place among them, and trust they may graciously grant it unto us while we live. When we have to die and pass away, we desire that they may be gathered around us then. “Mid scenes of confusion and creature complaints, how sweet to my soul is communion with saints.” “The friends of my Master most cheer me on life’s rugged way.” Brethren, watch over us for good, and pray for us.
C. H. C.
TOUR IN OHIO AND INDIANA
October 16, 1906
We left home on Tuesday, July 31, for a six weeks’ tour in Ohio and Indiana. This was our first visit among the brethren in those states. We filled appointments on Aug. 1 and 2 at Dry Ridge, Ky. Elder James J. Gilbert, of Winchester, Ky., is the pastor of this church. At this place we met Elder J. Seldon Steers, who lives in Dry Ridge, and Elder C. P. Beadle, of Indiana. On the 3rd we went to Salem Church, near Walton, Ky. Elder Beadle went with us. At these two places we met a number of dear brethren and sisters, who were kind and good to us. Then we went to Indiana, and attended the White Water Association, held at Second Williams Creek Church, Aug. 10, 11 and 12. This was a pleasant meeting, indeed; the preaching was all a unit, and the brethren all seemed to be of one mind. Love and fellowship abounded. At this association we met Elders E. W. Harlan, John R. Daily, R. W. Thompson, Hiram Dale, F. T. Taylor, C. W. Radcliffe, T. C. Williams and W. A. Chastain.
We also attended the Scioto Association at Mt. Pleasant Church, near [pg 120] Sabina, Ohio, on Aug. 15, 16 and 17. Besides the writer, the following ministers were present: Elders J. C. Reed, J. W. Wyatt, J. W. McClanahan, J. W. Taylor, U. C. Porter, L. V Hite, W. A. Chastain, Wm. Cory, Wm. Fisher, Walter Yeoman, R. W. Peters, J. W. Hoppes, Geo. Waddle, L. T. Ruffner, Z. K. Holliday, Thos. Cole and T. C. Williams, and Licentiates D. P. Spitler, Fred Chester and J. R. Smith. This was another pleasant meeting. Peace and harmony prevailed throughout the entire service.
The next association we attended was the Muskingum, at Jonathan Creek Church, near Gratiot, Ohio, on Aug. 22, 23 and 24. The names of their home ministers are Elders W. H. Fisher, E. Barker, Frank McGlade, U. C. Porter, O. L. Daily, C. J. Carmichael, W. H. H. Francis, J. J. Vanhorn, and Licentiate J. T. Neel. These were all present, we think. The visiting ministers present were Elders Z. K. Holliday, A. S. Shoemaker, L. V Hite, T. C. Williams, J. W. McClanahan, J. Harvey Daily and the writer.
The next association attended was the Miami, at Mt. Zion Church in Blanchester, Ohio, on Sept. 7, 8 and 9. The ministers of the association are Elders Wm. Cory, J. C. Reed, T. C. Williams and Licentiate Harvey Adams.
These were all present. The visiting ministers present were Elders J. C. Hanover, C. J. Carmichael, M. Silveus, J. W. Hoppes, J. W. Taylor, and the writer.
These were all pleasant meetings. At the Muskingum Association two dear sisters came home to their friends telling what great things the Lord had done for them. Many hearts were made glad. From this (the Muskingum) Association we went to Falls of Licking Church, having appointments there for Saturday and Sunday, Aug. 25, 26.
Elder L. T. Ruffner was with us at this church. We had an enjoyable service here. On Sunday Sister Lillie German came to the church and gave a reason of her hope and was gladly received. As our next appointment was at Newark, Ohio, for Monday night it was requested that we have services the next day at this place again and that we also attend to the ordinance of baptism. This we agreed to do. So the unworthy writer had the privilege and pleasure of baptizing the sister on Monday.
We haven’t the space to mention all the churches and homes we visited nor all the persons met. We visited a number of churches in different associations and it is with a feeling of gratitude that we say we were heartily received at every place we went. The brethren and sisters were kind to us— taking us into their homes, and conveying us from place to place. They were so much better to us than we feel to deserve. Many of them we never expect to meet again in this world of sorrow, but while we live we shall ever remember their many expressions of fellowship and love and encouragement, [pg 121] and their many acts of kindness. These things all made us feel so little and unworthy and insignificant. We feel so unworthy of the many expressions of fellowship from the dear brethren, both in word and deed. And we humbly ask every one of them to pray the Lord to sustain us and keep us in the right way, and help us to live in such a way as to always retain your love and fellowship. It seems to us this world would have but little for us if we were deprived of your fellowship. The Lord has been good and kind to us, in permitting us to be among those dear brethren and sisters.
May heaven’s richest blessings be showered upon every one of them, is our humble prayer. We ask every one of them to take this as a personal letter to them, expressing our thanks and feelings of gratitude for their kindness. We would write many of you personally, but it is impossible for us to write to as many as we would be glad to write to. We shall always be glad to hear from any of you, and when any of you feel disposed to do so, you are requested to write for the columns of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST.
We want you all, both North and South, to feel that it is your own medium of correspondence. Send us all the news of your good meetings. Help us to make THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST better, more interesting and comforting all the time. Pray the Lord to so lead and direst us that we may conduct the paper to His glory and the comfort of His people and the advancement of His blessed cause. Pray Him that we may do our duty— regardless of what men may say, think, or do— and that we may be possessed of a spirit of true humility.
May the Lord bless every reader, and help us all to fight the good fight of faith a little longer, until the warfare is over and we lay our armor by in death, is our humble prayer.
C. H. C.
1ST PETER 3:18-21
October 23, 1906
We have been requested by Sister Lizzie Herston, of Killen, Ala., to give our views on 1 Pet. 3:18-20. Brother D. P. Mason, of Citronelle, Ala., has asked for our views of the 19th verse. We do not offer our views as a standard but will cheerfully offer a few of our thoughts on the passage. It reads: “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: by which also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, [pg 122] eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Christ suffered for sins. He had no sins of His own for which to suffer. He was the just one. Then He must have suffered for the sins of others. Those for whose sins He suffered were unjust— they were sinners. He must have suffered to render satisfaction for sins. Isaiah 42:4 says: “He shall not fail.” Isaiah 53:10 says, “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He hath put Him to grief: when thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.” If He suffered to render satisfaction for sin, He accomplished that object, or else He failed. The prophet said He should not fail. Then He surely did render satisfaction for sins. Not only did He suffer to render satisfaction for sins, but it must be true that He suffered to render satisfaction for all the sins of all those for whose sins He did suffer. If Christ suffered for you, it was to render satisfaction for all your sins. This is true concerning every one for whom He suffered. Then if it be true that “He shall not fail,” it follows that He did render satisfaction for all the sins of all those for whose sins He suffered.
When He suffered for sins He made an offering for sin. Isaiah says, “When thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed.” He made an offering for sin for His seed— or His people. He saw, in His eternal mind and purpose, every one of them. They were all embraced in the offering. He suffered for their sins that He might bring them to God. Their being brought to God was the object to be accomplished by His suffering for their sins. He did not suffer for their sins to bring them back simply to their original condition, Adam occupied in the garden of Eden, nor to give them an opportunity of coming to God, or to make their salvation possible, or to give them a chance to be saved; but He suffered for their sins to bring them to God. If it is true that “He shall not fail,” then it must also be true that every one for whose sins He suffered will be brought to God. He suffered for their sins to bring them to God, and the prophet says “He shall not fail,” so they will all be brought to God.
Jesus says, “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which He hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.”— John 6:38-39. The Father’s will was that He should lose nothing— that every one be brought to God for whose sins He suffered. The prophet says “the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.” If the Lord’s pleasure shall prosper in His hand, and the Lord’s pleasure [pg 123] is that He should lose nothing and that they all be brought to God, then all those for whose sins He suffered will be brought to God. Not one of them will be lost. Christ was put to death. He died, to this end. He was put to death in the flesh. His body was offered for sins. “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ Once for all.”— Heb. 10:10. But on the third and appointed morning this same body that died and was offered for sins was quickened by the Spirit, and Jesus arose from the dead a mighty conqueror over death and the grave in the behalf of every one for whose sins His body was offered. If the offering had failed to render satisfaction for the sins of one for whom it was made, He could have never come forth from the grave. But the offering rendered satisfaction, and His body was quickened by the Spirit and He arose from the dead.
By the same Spirit by which His body was quickened He went and preached unto the spirits in prison. This shows very clearly that there is a work upon spirit which is performed by the direct work of the Spirit. “And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.”— Eph. 2:17-18. There is a preaching, or a work, which Jesus does by His Spirit, or by the Holy Spirit. This work is what is also called regeneration. Through the work of Jesus, His offering, both Jews and Gentiles have access to the Father by one Spirit in the work of regeneration. The Holy Spirit makes the application of the blood of Christ in the work of regeneration. People were saved, or brought into spiritual relationship with God, in Noah’s day by the work of the Spirit, just as they are now, and just as they were in the days of the apostles. He preached unto spirits in prison by the Spirit in Noah’s day. “I, the Lord, have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.”— Isa. 42:6-7. “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; He hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; to appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning; the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that He might be glorified.”— Isa. 61:1-3. The Saviour, by His Spirit, goes to the poor sinner who is in the prison house of sin, and by that Spirit proclaims liberty to the captive, delivers him from the bondage of sin, applies the blood of Christ [pg 124] in regenerating the sinner, and makes him a tree of righteousness, the planting of the Lord. He is not the planting of the Lord and the preacher, but the planting of the Lord. The whole work that is necessary to his eternal salvation, and that qualifies him to live in heaven, is the work of the three-one God. This was true in Noah’s day, and it is true now. They were brought into the benefits of the atoning blood of Christ in Noah’s day by the work of the Spirit; and it is even so now.
Noah and his family, eight souls, were saved in the ark by water. Noah was a righteous man, and was a preacher of righteousness before the flood, before the ark was built. So the salvation in the ark was not the salvation which qualified him to live with God in glory. He was already a righteous man, had already been made righteous. The salvation in the ark was enjoyed after the other work had been done, after he had been made righteous. He was saved from the old world to the new world. He was saved from the wicked generation. “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us.” Baptism is a figure of something, and it is like another figure, and they are a figure of the same thing. Baptism saves in a figure, just as the ark saved in a figure. If the apostle was correct, and baptism is a figure like that of the ark, and saves in the same way, then baptism saves those only who are made righteous before baptism. Some might ask, “How could they be saved by baptism if they are saved, or made righteous, before they are baptized?” They are saved by baptism just as Noah and his family were saved in the ark. They were children of God before the flood came, and were saved in the ark from the old world to the new. So God’s people now who are baptized are saved from the world to the church; they arise from baptism to walk in newness of life. There is a blessed salvation to be enjoyed by the child of God— that one who has been born of God, been made righteous, in baptism. In being baptized we say we have been killed to the love of sin and made alive to the love of holiness. When we had the sweet assurance in our hearts that we had indeed been made alive to holiness, and the blessed hope sprang up in our hearts that we had an interest in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, a sweet peace filled our souls that the world knows nothing of. So, when we follow the Saviour in baptism there is a sweet peace enjoyed which cannot be realized any other way. This portrays, in the figure, what was done for us and in our hearts in the work of regeneration. It is an outward washing symbolical of the inward cleansing already performed in our hearts by the work of the Holy Spirit. By being baptized the child saves himself from the untoward or crooked generation, as Peter exhorted those on the day of Pentecost who were pricked in their hearts. We are glad to see the Lord’s children come to the church, telling “what great things the Lord [pg 125]has done for them,” and being baptized and enjoying the salvation which is enjoyed therein.
May the Lord bless these thoughts to the good of all our readers, is our humble prayer.
C. H. C.
SALVATION BEFORE FAITH
October 30, 1906
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— Which is first-salvation or faith? I ask this so you can answer through THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, as I want to show it to those who say “faith precedes salvation.” I write like I know you see it as I do— that a child must be born first, which is life, and life is salvation, and it is to the living that God gives gifts, and faith, I think, is a gift. If I am wrong and you see differently, I hope you can make it plain to me. May the good Lord help and bless you and yours in all things, is the prayer of a poor, unworthy sister,
Rocheport, Mo., R. 2.
Mrs. Robt. Alexander
OUR REPLY
We most assuredly think you are correct in saying salvation precedes faith. If faith is used in the sense of belief, then it is a mental act, an act of the mind. The unregenerate man is in possession of a carnal mind, and the carnal mind is enmity against God. He is not in possession of a spiritual mind, or the mind of Christ. For one to be in possession of a natural mind, or carnal mind, be must necessarily be in possession of the natural life. Then no act produced in or by the natural or carnal mind can be in order to the receiving of natural life, but proceeds from that life. No stream can possibly rise higher than the fountain head, and no effect can be higher than the source from whence it comes. Then a belief or faith produced in or by the carnal mind can be no higher than the mind, the source from whence it springs. The mind can produce nothing above itself. Then in order that one have true spiritual faith or belief he must first have the spiritual life— he must first possess a spiritual mind.
We learn from Gal. 5:22 that faith is a fruit of the Spirit. Anyone can understand that in nature the vine produces the fruit. The grape is an evidence that the vine existed first. The first grape sprang from the first vine. It is the vine that produces the grape.
This is true with reference to every kind of natural fruit. The tree or vine produces the fruit. Hence the tree or vine must necessarily exist first. One must first possess the tree in order to produce the fruit. So one must possess the Spirit in order to produce faith, which is a fruit of the Spirit. If one is in possession of the Spirit he is already a child of God, is already in possession of eternal life, has already been born [pg 126] of God. In Rom. 8:9 the apostle says, “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.” Every proposition has two sides to it— an affirmative and a negative. In this proposition the apostle affirms the negative side of the question, and the other side of it must, of necessity, be “if any man have the Spirit of Christ, he is one of His.” As it is true that one must have the Spirit in order to produce the fruit of the Spirit, it follows that one must be Christ’s in order to have faith. This means that he must be Christ’s in the sense of regeneration— in possession of the Spirit of Christ.
1st John 5:1 says, “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” This is the King James translation. When we see one who is a true believer in Jesus we know that one is born of God. How do we know it? We know it from the fact that the belief is the fruit and the evidence of the birth. Being the fruit and the evidence of the birth it cannot possibly precede the birth.
The Interlinear or literal translation of this passage reads, “Every one that believes that Jesus is the Christ, of God has been begotten.” To translate the words so they would read easier in the English we have it this way, “Every one that believes that Jesus is the Christ, has been begotten of God,” or “has been born of God.” The word is correctly translated “has been born” as well as “has been begotten,” for it
means the same. Then the one who truly believes in Jesus has been born of God. The birth is first.
John 1:11-13 says, “He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” We are told here that those who believe on Him were born of God. The birth preceded the belief, and their believing was an evidence that they were born of God. Those who believed had been born of God. Eternal life is given first, and faith follows after, and is an evidence of the previous existence of life.
These are only a few of the reasons which might be given and evidences that might be produced showing that eternal salvation or eternal life precedes true faith in Jesus, but we deem these to be sufficient. May the Lord bless these remarks to the good of every reader. C. H. C.
[pg 127]
SELAH AND LUKE 16:1-9
October 30, 1906
Will you or someone answer some queries for me?
1. What does the word “Selah” mean that is found in the Psalms so often?
2. Luke 16:1-9, and most especially the 9th verse.
Your brother in hope,
Lot Gordy
Dalton, Ga.
OUR REPLY
Selah means a “suspension (of music), a pause.” With reference to the text referred to in Luke 16:1-9, will say we have heard different opinions expressed on this; but it has often been a puzzle to us as to what it really does mean. We have heard it said that the Saviour taught in the language that we should make friends, or be friendly, with the ungodly or unrighteous persons, so that they may receive us into their homes, etc. We may have said sometime ourselves that this might be the meaning of the text, but we do not now think so. From the 1st to the 8th verses in this chapter is recorded the parable of the unjust steward. Get your Bible now and read it, as we haven’t space to give here the entire quotation. The 8th verse reads, “And the Lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely, for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.” The lord of the steward, the rich man, commended the steward, not for his unjust works, but for being wise. It was the wisdom he displayed that was commended. “The children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.” How true this is! Instead of acting wisely, as we should, in spiritual or church affairs, we so often act so very foolishly or unwisely. Acting in a wise way is commended, and acting unwisely or in a foolish way is condemned. Let us be wise, not in our own conceits, but in doing what our Lord requires, wise in attending to our religious duties, as well as all the duties devolving upon us.
The 9th verse reads, “And I say unto you, make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.” The word mammon here means riches, and the literal or Interlinear translation renders the text, “Make to yourselves friends by the mammon of unrighteousness.” We think the true meaning of this language is that we should distribute of our carnal means or riches to those who are destitute and in need of food and raiment, that those who have of this world’s goods should bestow their goods to those who are in need.
Verse 10 reads, “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.” Verse 11, “If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon (or riches) [pg 128] who will commit to your trust the true riches?” If one is not faithful to distribute of his carnal things, when he has plenty, and to administer to those who are destitute, how shall it be thought that he will be faithful in other matters? “But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.” — lst John 3:17,18. We Old Baptists do love one another. Of course we do; the world admits it; but, dear brethren, do we not sometimes forget to love in deed? Are we not sometimes forgetful of the deed, and allow the word to go for the deed? We are not accusing anyone. Let each of us ask ourselves the question, and all our readers can answer in your own hearts whether this is not sometimes true, but we will acknowledge here that we have been guilty. We acknowledge our shortcomings, not only on this line, but we so often fail to do the right. Lord, help us to serve thee more and better in days to come than we have done before. Dear brethren and sisters, remember us in your prayers.
We could write more in connection with the above parable and lesson drawn from it, but we feel this is sufficient for all to see what we understand it to teach. We may be wrong; we are fallible and liable to err, but we freely give our ideas on the subject.
May the Lord bless the same to the good of all our readers. C. H. C.
1 CORINTHIANS 3:14-15
October 30, 1906
Brother Arthur Davis, of Boaz, Ala., has requested our views on the above mentioned Scripture. Verses 11, 12 and 13 read, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.” The 14th and 15th verses, on which he requests our views, read, “If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” It seems to us that this language teaches plainly that there is a reward to be enjoyed or had by obeying the Saviour. It does not teach, however, that we receive eternal life by obeying the Lord. Eternal life is the gift of God, as is abundantly taught in the Scriptures, and the Lord imputes righteousness without works. “Not by works of righteousness which [pg 129] we have done; but according to His mercy He saved us.” “Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling; not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.” “By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast.” Many expressions besides these might be given showing that eternal salvation is not obtained by rendering obedience; that the reward of living with God in glory is not obtained by our works. Every poor sinner who is so fortunate as to enjoy heaven, with all that heaven means, will enjoy it for no other reason only for what Christ has done for him. It is all the work of God, from first to last, that will give us to enjoy heaven. But when the Lord has imparted divine life to us, we are then spiritually alive. The Lord then preserves and cares for us in that life, and has promised never to leave nor forsake us. His grace is sufficient, and is always present. We may not always realize the presence of His grace, but it is present and sufficient, whether we always realize it or not. In nature, those who are alive, those who have the natural life, enjoy that life and enjoy the blessings in the life by being diligent and by rendering strict obedience to the laws of nature. So the person who has the divine life enjoys that life and the blessings of that life while here in this world by rendering obedience to the laws of Christ’s kingdom. Those who have the divine life are under law to Christ, so the apostle says. Being under law to Christ, they enjoy the Christian life here by obeying Christ. This does not obtain a home in heaven. The Lord gives that to us by His grace. But when the Lord has given us the life that will give us to live with Him in glory, we are then made alive to righteousness, we have the righteous life; and by being diligent in the discharge of our duties which pertain to that life we have a reward of the blessings that pertain to that life while here in this world.
“The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure. enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned, and in keeping of them there is great reward.”— Psa. 19:7-11.
“But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work) this man shall be blessed in his deed.” — James 1:25. Many passages might be quoted showing that there is a blessed reward to be enjoyed by the child of God when he lives in obedience to the adorable Redeemer.
[pg 130] On the other hand, when we live in disobedience we suffer loss. We lose all the blessed reward which is ours when we obey the Saviour. We lose the blessings of His approving smiles; we lose the blessing of an easy conscience. When we try to obey our Saviour we have an easy conscience, realizing that we have tried to do what the Lord requires. But when we disobey, we have a guilty conscience which smites us for our wrong doing.
While all these things are abundantly taught in the Scriptures, we think, yet acceptable obedience is rendered from a principle of love. If we try to serve the Lord because we love Him and because we love the right, the Scriptures teach that these blessings will be enjoyed by us. If we propose to serve the Lord simply because the blessings are promised, and not because we love God or right, then the blessings are not promised to us. While all this is true, we think these things are all laid down in the Scriptures for our encouragement, and we think they should be taught in the right way for the comfort and encouragement of the poor tempest-tossed child of God. We think they should be taught as an encouragement to the poor child who is halting between two opinions, and fearing to take up his cross on account of his own weakness and unworthiness. The Lord has promised to never leave nor forsake such; and when those who feel poor and unworthy and insignificant walk in the Lord’s commands they enjoy the blessings of the life He has given them—- they enjoy the reward promised.
May the Lord help us all to walk in obedience to His commands, help us to build of gold, silver, precious stones, so that our labor may not all be lost or burned up; but that we may have the reward. If we fail to do what He requires of us, then we are building of wood, hay, stubble, and our works will all be burned up and we lose what we have done; we are thus living a life of disobedience. Though we may thus suffer loss, we will not be banished at last from the peaceful presence of God, for “he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” Oh, how good, kind and merciful is our God— though we disobey Him and are so sinful, yet we shall be saved! How faithful we ought to be to do what little He requires of us. May the Lord help us so to do, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
PARABLE OF THE SOWER
November 6, 1906
Brother R. F. Deason, of Centerville, Ala., has requested us to give our views of Matt. 13:4-8, in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. Verses 3 to 8 read as follows:
[pg 131]And He spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow; and when he sowed, some seeds fell by the wayside, and the fowls came and devoured them up: some fell upon stony places where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: and when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprung up, and choked them: But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
We do not wish to set our views up as a standard. We know we are poor and fallible and liable to err. We know we make mistakes, and our views will not do for a standard, but we are willing to give our brethren our views on any portion of God’s word, when we feel to have any light on its teaching; but if they differ from us we do not propose that our way of looking at it is the standard. On this parable of the sower we do not agree with many of our brethren. They may be right and we wrong. This makes us fearful of expressing our views— not that we are afraid of our brethren, nor afraid of the position we hold. But we trust we realize the great responsibility resting upon us to teach and advocate the truth. Feeling this great responsibility we will give some of our thoughts in regard to this parable, and if any of our readers see the matter differently, we ask them to cast the mantle of charity over us, and remember that we are as liable to make mistakes as other people.
We are aware that many of our brethren hold the position that the hearers denominated as the “wayside,” the “stony places,” and the “thorns”were all unregenerated, and that the hearers called the “good ground,” and these only, were children of God. We know that there is a preparation of heart that is necessary in order that the preaching of the gospel be of spiritual benefit to anyone. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”— lst Corinthians 2:14. Read all this chapter. It clearly teaches that the natural man, the unregenerate man, cannot be taught spiritual things. The unregenerate man does not receive the teaching of the gospel. “They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.”— l John 4:5,6|. This is an infallible rule by which we may know whether a man is of God or of the world in his preaching. If the world receives or endorses his preaching, it is proof positive that he is of the world in his preaching. On the other hand, if God’s people receive it, and there is a witness in it to them, it is proof positive that his preaching is of God, that the doctrine taught is the doctrine of God. These, as well as many other expressions in Holy Writ, teach conclusively that the unregenerate [pg 132]do not receive the preaching of the gospel, that a preparation of heart is necessary in order that one receive the gospel teaching. “He that is of God heareth God’s words,” says Jesus. If “he that is of God heareth God’s words,” then one must be of God in order to hear God’s words. If one must be of God in order to hear God’s words, then his hearing is an evidence that he is already of God. “The Lord opened Lydia’s heart, that she attended unto the things spoken of Paul. “So, the work of the Spirit in the heart must be done first before one can hear, or understand, or receive the preaching of the gospel. The Saviour, in speaking to unregenerate persons, said, “Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word.” They could not hear His word because they were destitute of the spiritual life. They were not of God. It is true, they did hear the sound of His voice, the natural sound, but they did not hear in the sense of receiving His teaching.
Now, one other point we wish to notice here. If our brethren are right in their view that the wayside hearers, the stony places and the thorns all represent alien or unregenerate persons, and only the good ground represents children of God, it is still true that the preaching of the gospel is not in order to eternal life. With this view of the matter, the sowing of the seed does not prepare the ground. The ground is prepared before the seed is sown. No man sows seed in order to prepare the ground. He always prepares the ground and then sows the seed.
But we do not think these represent three classes of unregenerate and the good ground, and that only, represents the regenerate. This would give us three classes of unregenerate and only one class of children of God. All God’s children, according to this view, would be a fruit-bearing class. It is true they all have that faith that God gives, which is called a fruit of the Spirit, but they do not all bear fruit in the sense of this parable, for the fruit bearing here, we think, is in rendering obedience to the Saviour. Notice the Master’s explanation of the parable. Verses 18 and 19, “Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the wayside.” Many of the Lord’s dear children hear the word of the kingdom and do not understand it. They get many precious crumbs, perhaps, from the experimental truths the servant of the Lord proclaims, but when the minister begins to apply these same truths in a doctrinal way they cannot understand it, and the wicked one catcheth away that which was sown in their hearts. Many of God’s dear children, too, are not in the way, but are by the way— hence way side bearers. “These received seed by the way side.” Mark the expression, [pg 133] the statement of the Saviour, “they received seed.” Then remember Paul says “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God.” These received seed.
Verses 20, 21, “But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by be is offended. “Many of God’s people cannot stand persecutions. Many of them are good soldiers and are faithful as long as there is no fighting to do and as long as there are no persecutions to endure, but many of them have turned away from the service of the Lord by and by, when there were persecutions or trials to endure. “And they come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they shew much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness. And, lo, thou art unto them as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument: for they hear thy words, but they do them not.”— Ezek. 33:31-32. These heard with joy, but did not do. The hearing was all right, but the trouble was in not doing. “For thus saith the Lord to the men of Judah and Jerusalem, Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns.”— Jer. 4:3. This was spoken to the men of Judah and Jerusalem, to the Lord’s people. This does not apply to the unregenerate. “Today if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.”—Heb. 3:15. How careful we should be to not harden our hearts, but to attend strictly to the Lord’s ordinances and commandments in time of trials and persecutions, as well as in times of refreshing seasons. These received seed. “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God.”
Verse 22, “He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.” Have you not known some of the Lord’s dear children who would hear the sweet sound of the gospel with joy and gladness, and then allow the cares of this world and their desire for riches choke the word, and they fail to bring forth fruit to the honor and glory of God in rendering obedience to Him? “But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some men coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”— 1 Tim. 6:9-10. The Lord’s dear children often follow after the things of this world instead of seeking first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, as they are commanded [pg 134] to do, and pierce themselves through with many sorrows, and become unfruitful. These received seed, though among thorns. “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God.”
Verse 23, “But he that receiveth seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.” These all bore fruit, but some bore more fruit than others. These took heed to the word; they endeavored to follow the Saviour, and in doing so brought forth fruit. “And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;” “For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.”— 2 Pet. 1:5,8. Beside what the Lord has done for us— after He has given us a sweet hope in Jesus, we should be diligent; and when we are diligent in doing His commandments, which are not grievous, we are not barren or unfruitful. Oh, that we all might be more diligent in the discharge of our every duty.
We have given some of our thoughts in connection with this parable. We haven’t space for more at the present. If you do not see it as we do, we ask your kind forbearance. We want no controversy, and trust the Lord may bless these thoughts to the good of some inquiring child of God. C. H. C.
MATTHEW 8:11-12
November 13, 1906
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Esteemed Brother— If not asking too much of you I would like very much to have your views on Matt. 8:11-12. Who are those that shall come from the east and the west? What kind of children are under consideration in the 12th verse? I do not ask these questions to raise a controversy, but I ask them with no other motive than to obtain information. My greatest desire is to understand the teachings of God’s Holy Word, and I often ask God in my feeble petitions to give me wisdom and knowledge that I may be enabled to learn more and more of His wonderful ways and goodness toward the children of men.
May God’s rich grace and sovereign mercy ever be with you, and may he enable you by His Spirit to proclaim His everlasting gospel to the glory of His name and the upbuilding of His glorious cause. I am, I humbly trust, your unworthy brother,
Chas. M. Foster
R. 2. Broughton, Ill.
OUR REPLY
The Scripture referred to by Brother Foster reads as follows: Verse 11, “And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and west, and shall [pg 135]sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.” Verse 12, “But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
We think those who “shall come from the east and west”are children of God among the Gentiles. The benefits of the kingdom in a visible form, separate from other kingdoms, as a visible, organized body, had not then been extended to the Gentiles. They had not then been admitted into the kingdom. Under the law dispensation, or before the gospel dispensation, the kingdom was a natural one, and that kingdom was committed to the Jews. “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.”— Rom. 3:1-2. The services, the ordinances, the divers washings and all the ceremonies were among the Jews. These things were all committed to them. That “many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven,” signifies, to our mind, that the privileges and benefits of the service of God will soon no longer be confined to the Jews. The privileges of this service is soon going to be extended to the Gentiles, or to the nations. Isaiah foretells the same, we think. “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”— Isa. 2:2-3.
“The law and the prophets were until John:” Luke 16:16. Until John’s day the service was law service, which was all confined to the Jews; but now gospel service is required, and the benefits and privileges of it are to be extended to the Gentiles. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob rendered service to the Lord. Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with them in the kingdom— that is, they shall come from the east and west and engage in the service of the Lord.
Luke 13:29 says, “And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.” The expression, “sit down in the kingdom,” does not mean that there is nothing for the child of God to do in the kingdom, for there is much to be engaged in; but it means that there is a sweet rest to be enjoyed by the child of God in the Lord’s kingdom in doing the things the Lord commands to be done there. As Abraham and Isaac and Jacob enjoyed the blessings of the Lord in obedience, and as the children of Israel (National Israel) enjoyed the blessings of the promised land [pg136] (Canaan), so those who come from the east and from the west and sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom, the child of God who enters into and goes on in the service of the Lord, enjoys the blessings of the gospel Canaan (the church). As we have seen, this refers to the extending of the privileges of the service of the Lord to the Gentiles, as we understand it; then we think the “children of the kingdom” that “shall be cast out into outer darkness” refers to the Jews, as a nation. They refused to enter into the gospel service; they were enemies to that service. “As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes.”— Rom. 11:28. Because of their unbelief and wickedness they were cast out into outer darkness, and they remain there to this day, so far as gospel service or worship is concerned. Luke 13:28 says, “There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.” The 29th verse was quoted above. The Jews were, therefore, thrust out, for He was talking to Jews when He used this language. We think the parable of the householder, as recorded in Matt. 21:33-43, teaches the same lesson. “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”
Oh, how thankful we, the Gentiles in nature, should be that the blessings and benefits of the gospel kingdom have been given to us. They were glad in the days of the apostles. “Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, it was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.”— Acts 13:46-48.
The salvation mentioned here cannot be the receiving of eternal life, for eternal life is not given through the instrumentality of preaching, but by a direct work of the Holy Spirit. Their judging themselves unworthy of everlasting life does not mean that they did not think they were good enough to have everlasting life, or that they felt to be too unworthy, too unrighteous, or too unholy for the Lord to bestow everlasting life upon them. The grace of God manifested in the bestowal of that life makes the poor sinner feel his unworthiness. It gives him to realize that he is unworthy and that be has no righteousness to plead. It causes him to realize that he is a poor sinner, and to pray like the poor publican, “Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner.” But they would not heed the teaching, they refused to enter into the gospel service, thus judging themselves unworthy of everlasting life. We repeat, we [pg 137[ should be thankful for the glorious privileges which we enjoy— or rather, which we have vouchsafed to us. Many of us, perhaps, feel sometimes that the service of the Lord is a great burden, and that it is so grievous that we cannot engage in it. Oh, how cold and careless we are sometimes. Let us awake to our duties, and not consider the sweet service as a drudgery, but remember it is a sweet and blessed privilege of which many of the Lord’s dear children are deprived. Let us remember that some of the saints have endured severe persecutions for the service of our blessed Lord, and the time may come when some of us may be deprived of the glorious privileges which we now have. Let us show by our works that we appreciate the blessed privileges we have. May the Lord enable us and help us so to do, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
HEBREWS 6:4-5,6
November 20, 1906
Brother J. D. Berry, of Horton, Ala., has requested that we give our views of Heb. 6:4-5,6, in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. The language is as follows:
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame.
This language is often quoted by those who believe in the possibility of final apostasy in their effort to substantiate that theory. The argument is made that the expression, “if they shall fall away,” implies that it is possible for one to so fall away as to be finally lost. Or, that it, at least, implies a possibility that they fall away, and that therefore they may fall; and if they do fall, it must be a final fall as it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance. Instead, however, of the apostle teaching the possibility of apostasy in this text, he is plainly teaching the very opposite of that theory. To our mind it is one of the strong statements in support of the God-honoring and soul-cheering doctrine of the final preservation of all the saints to glory.
In the first place we wish to notice, briefly, what the idea that he is here teaching the possibility of apostasy would involve. If, for argument’s sake, we grant that it is possible for one to fall away, the apostle tells us it is impossible to renew him again unto repentance. The apostle Peter (2 Pet. 1:5-6,7,9-10) says, “And beside this,”— that is, beside what God has done for you which made you partakers of the divine nature— “giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; [pg 138] and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.” “But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.” If Paul is arguing the possibility of final apostasy in Heb. 6:4-6, then they fall in that sense when they fail to do the things commanded, or admonished, by Peter. If they fail to add either virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness or charity, then they fall away, and Paul puts up an eternal bar to their ever entering eternal joys by saying it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance. Why would it be impossible to renew them again unto repentance? “Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame.” The Son of God was crucified once for them, and has given them the divine life, they have been made partakers of the divine nature, or partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the heavenly gift and the good word of God and the powers of the world to come; and now, after all this has been done for them, if they fall away the Son of God must be crucified again. If they fall away they cannot be renewed again unto repentance; the death of Christ in their behalf was a failure, and He must now be crucified again and make another effort in their salvation. But the Son of God can never be crucified again; His death was not a failure; so instead of it being possible for them to fall, it is impossible for them to do so. Again, if they fall away after all has been done for them which we see has been done, then the Son of God is put to an open shame. Why and how would He be put to an open shame? If one of them should fall away, it could be said, Here is one for whom Christ died, shed His blood for him, suffered for him, was buried for him, arose for him, ascended to the Father and interceded for him, made him partaker of the Holy Ghost, gave him to taste of the heavenly gift and the good word of God and the powers of the world to come, and all this has failed to land him safely in glory— he has fallen away at last— and the Son of God, therefore, put to an open shame. But the Son of God will not be put to an open shame. Therefore they cannot fall away. This is just what the apostle is teaching— that they cannot fall away.
The language is in the form of a hypothesis. This is one of the strongest ways of establishing the truthfulness of a proposition. To prove the truthfulness of the proposition the impossible opposite of the original, or true, proposition is supposed, and the result of the supposition argued. This failing, then the proposition reverts back to the original, and the truthfulness of the original thereby established. So, upon this mode of reasoning the proposition [pg 139] supposed is “if they shall fall away.” This is the impossible opposite of that which is true; but supposing it is true, the reasoning is that Christ must be crucified again, and that He would be put to an open shame. But Christ cannot be crucified again, and cannot be put to an open shame; and as He cannot be crucified again nor put to an open shame, then the supposition cannot be true that one may fall away, and the original proposition is established.
The apostle uses the same manner of reasoning in 1Cor. 15:13-15. “But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ: whom He raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.” He goes on with the same manner of reasoning in verses 16, 17 and 18. But what professed Christian will argue that Christ was not raised from the dead? We all believe with all our hearts that Christ was raised from the dead. But Christ was not raised if there is no resurrection of the dead; that is, if our bodies are never to be raised from the dead, then Christ was not raised. In this place the apostle again supposes the impossible opposite of that which is true— he supposes there is no resurrection of the dead, that our bodies will never be raised, then argues the result of that position, which is that Christ is not raised, their preaching was vain, the faith of the saints was vain and the apostles were false witnesses. All these things were true if there is to be no resurrection of our bodies. But is it true that the apostles were false witnesses, the faith of the saints vain, the preaching of the apostles vain, and the body of Christ not raised— are these things true? No, a thousand times, no. Then if they are not true, the supposition upon which they rest cannot be true, and the truthfulness of the original proposition is established, that there is to be a resurrection of the body. The reasoning here is precisely the same, upon the same hypothesis, as that in Heb. 6:4-6.
How could it be true that the apostle is teaching the possibility of final apostasy in verses 4, 5 and 6, when other language in the same chapter is so clearly in opposition to that idea? It cannot be. He begins to argue, as we have seen, by showing the result if any should fall away; all this argument showing conclusively the truthfulness of the proposition he starts out to prove— the certainty of the final salvation of all the saints. Though he argues thus, he says in verse 9, “But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.” He is persuaded better things of them than that one of them will ever be finally lost, because the original proposition is true, all God’s people are finally saved. Although [pg 140] he would reason upon a hypothesis, though he would thus speak, yet he is persuaded the supposition is not true. Dear child of God, are you not also persuaded of the same thing? Are you not persuaded that the apostle was correct in his reasoning, and that not one of the Lord’s little ones shall ever perish?
Now, remember that “If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”— Gal. 3:29. “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began.”— Tit. 1:2. If they are heirs according to promise, and the promise is eternal life; and God, who made the promise, cannot lie, then not one of them will ever perish.
See what a glorious promise God has made, and confirmed that promise with an oath, as recorded by Paul in Heb. 6:17-20: “Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath: that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth to that within the vail; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.” God’s counsel is immutable (this is one of the two immutable things), and it was His counsel or design that they should never perish. It being His counsel or design that they should never perish, He promised them eternal life. God’s promise is immutable, because it is impossible for God to lie. So His promise is another one of the two immutable things. As God’s promise is immutable, and as He promised them eternal life, not one of them will ever perish. God has not only made the promise, but He has confirmed that promise with an oath. He could swear by no one greater than Himself, because He is greater than all, so He sware by Himself. Then if one of these to whom He has promised eternal life, and confirmed the promise with an oath, should ever perish, then God has not only failed to fulfill His promise, but has also sworn falsely. Oh, horrible thought that men would go so far in their self-righteous esteem and arrogant presumption as to argue a doctrine that would bring our blessed and holy and merciful and loving Benefactor so low! “Oh, shame, where is thy blush?” Our God is faithful and true. His promises are all sure— they are immutable, He will not— He cannot— fail to do what He has sworn to do. He has sworn by His holiness that He will not lie unto David, and David impersonated or represented Jesus in this, and that promise He swore He would not lie about was that His seed or His children should endure forever. Oh, how safe, how secure, how sure is the final salvation and future happiness of all the Lord’s little children. They are poor and tempest-tossed and tried [pg 141] pilgrims here, only sojourners, as it were, in a strange land. But cheer up, dear ones, hold up your heads; no weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper. Jesus has conquered the last enemy for you, and even though you pass through the dark scene of death your sleeping dust will one day obey the heavenly voice of King Jesus and come forth again. “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory.”— Col. 3:4. Your blessed, sweet hope is an anchor of the soul and is sure and steadfast. It will never give way; it will sustain you in the hour of death, and on the other side of the dark river that sweet hope will be swallowed up in the reality, for then we “shall see face to face.” Our dear father passed away trusting in and resting on this blessed hope. The last discourse we ever heard him deliver was on the subject of this blessed hope. It was sufficient to sustain him in life, and sustained him in his last hours, and it is sufficient for us all.
May heaven’s richest blessings be showered upon every one who may read these lines, is our humble prayer. Again we ask all the dear brethren and sisters to remember us at the throne of grace. C. H. C.
A WRONG IMPRESSION
December 11, 1906
In the Apostolic Herald of Nov. 15, 1906, is an editorial over the signature of J. V. K. which contains just a few things we think justice demands some attention. This editorial is purporting to be a reply to Brother Luckett’s letter which was published in our columns in No. 38. The truthfulness of Brother Luckett’s positions and arguments are in no way overthrown, and we do not consider a single argument made by Elder Kirkland in reply to be of sufficient force or weight to demand any attention. But his editorial contains some statements which are misleading, and we feel they should be corrected. Concerning the agreement which was signed April 19, 1906, Brother Luckett says, “It was badly broken by Elder Kirkland before the ink, with which it was written, was dry.” To this Elder Kirkland says:
Now, this is positively a mistake which I have clearly corrected before; the article which Elder Cayce claimed was in violation of the agreement, was written some two months before the agreement was made, and prepared for the paper and in the office long before we made the agreement. Besides I said nothing against anybody, but spoke of the cruelty of human tradition when backed by prejudice, which no one should have complained of unless he wished to defend human tradition when backed by prejudice.
[pg 142] To this we wish to say again that his explanation does not explain. Because the article referred to was already written and in the office when the agreement was signed is no excuse for the publication of the article. The agreement was signed on April 19th, and the article appeared in his paper of May 1st, which was ample time to have prepared another article to take the place of that one. And again he says, “Besides I said nothing against anybody.” Here is what he said; read it and see if he “said nothing against anybody:”
This good, kind, faithful letter from dear Sister Lovelace was a sweet comfort to my wounded heart, and greatly lightened the burden of my weary soul. I feel glad that such true, noble saints, who have known me so long, believe me to be true and faithful to God according to my sincere convictions, notwithstanding all the flood of abuse and hard sayings that have been poured out upon me for the last eighteen months, and the great industry and artful efforts employed to represent me as a vile person, and to thereby destroy the confidence of my brethren in me. I know, if I know anything about honesty and sincerity, I have been honest and sincere in all I have done in my religious life. I have always groaned over my weakness and imperfections, but I have been true to my conviction. Oh! how unfeeling and destructive is human tradition, backed by prejudice and jealousy, when it gains hold in the hearts of the people of God. It seems to have no respect for truth, honesty, sincerity, years of faithful service, gray hairs, tears, piety nor learning. Where such is the case all are frequently sacrificed in order to protect some deformity of human creeds, which will not bear the light of investigation.
You see in this he says “the flood of abuse and hard sayings that have been poured out upon me for the last eighteen months, and the great industry and artful efforts employed to represent me as a vile person, and to thereby destroy the confidence of my brethren in me.” Did anybody pour out a flood of abuse and hard sayings against him? Did anybody employ great industry and artful efforts to represent him as a vile person, and thereby endeavor to destroy the confidence of his brethren in him? Elder Kirkland says these things were done. If they were done, did “anybody” do it? If he was not saying anything against anybody, then there did not anybody do these things he said were done. He simply said these things were done, and of course he had reference to them being done by those who had opposed him. Then he speaks of human tradition, prejudice, etc. He could have reference to nothing else only that those who had opposed him had poured out a flood of abuse upon him and had employed great industry and artful efforts to represent him as a vile person, and that in doing this they were actuated by human tradition, backed by prejudice and jealousy, and that in engaging in this, which he says had been done, they had no respect for truth, honesty, sincerity, years of faithful service, gray hairs, tears, piety nor learning. He can no more explain away the meaning of his language in this than he can explain away the existence of the sun.
[pg 143] In the same editorial in Nov. 15th issue, in reply to what Brother Luckett said about his little book called “A Condensed History,” he says:
As to the “valuable little book,” it was highly commended by some good, able brethren before some decided that I was doing all I was doing for pretentious show and undertook to destroy my influence among our people. Elder S. F. Cayce said of it:
Elder J. V. Kirkland has written and published a very valuable little book, a condensed history of the church, notice of which appears on another page, which we have read very carefully and can cheerfully recommend its perusal to all lovers of truth— all who feel interested in the welfare of Zion— S. F. Cayce, in P. B., July 26, 1904.
Elder Kirkland publishes this statement as though it was all our father ever said about it. Why did he not publish also the statement which appeared over the signature of S. F. Cayce in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of Nov. 8, 1904? Here is the explanation about that endorsement:
When we gave notice of, and recommended, Elder J. V Kirkland’s new book, “A Condensed History of the Church,” we had not then read his proposed plan for the “federal government of the churches,” but had read from the beginning up to the chapter on “Church Government,” and was so well pleased with what I had read that I wrote said notice, feeling that we would be equally as well pleased with the remainder of the work. But, alas, when I had read the balance of the book, after our notice of same had been published, I felt so disturbed that I turned back and read it again— re-read the chapter on the “Plan Suggested for the Federal Government of Our Churches,” and felt so grieved and so “torn up” that my wife saw that I was in trouble about something and asked me to tell her what was the matter, and I finally told her, and stated, too, that I was very sorry indeed that I had recommended Brother Kirkland’s history without offering any objection whatever to his proposed plan for the ‘federal government of the churches,’ and that I was very much opposed to such a move.” This was just before I started on my long tour in Alabama and Mississippi, about the last of July, and I decided that I would write Brother Kirkland in regard to the matter, before condemning the proposition through our paper. So I commenced to write him personally two or three times while on the tour, but would quit and put it off, from time to time, fearing that I might not be able to express myself as I wished, and that I might wound his feelings. So I concluded that I would, therefore, wait until I could see him and talk face to face. But as we have not yet had an opportunity of talking privately with Brother Kirkland— but have written him however— and as we have been informed that the convention— or the brethren composing the meeting— held in St. Louis recommended the inauguration, or adoption, of said proposed plan of federal government, and as the work has been recommended through our columns, and as our brethren in different parts of the country are anxious to know whether we favor the movement, we feel it to be our indispensable duty to speak out; we feel that the cause absolutely demands it, hence we propose to make our objections known. We wish it distinctly understood, however, that we entertain the very best of feelings toward Brother Kirkland, and that we have no ill feelings whatever toward him or any brother who may have favored the proposed plan of “federal government.” Not only so, but we firmly believe that Elder Kirkland’s motives, or intentions, are good, and we think, also, that the evils, the factions, the divisions, etc., which he refers to should be remedied. But, as stated to him in a private letter, we do not believe that a “federal government” is the thing needed; and we oppose the idea for the following reasons.
[pg 144] Notice in the foregoing that our father had such confidence in Elder Kirkland that after reading the historical part of the book he felt perfectly free to recommend it, but was so much grieved after reading the remainder of it. Notice, too, that he says he entertained the very best of feelings for Elder Kirkland and firmly believed that his motives or intentions were good. And now, after our father has passed away, and can no longer speak for himself, will Elder Kirkland or someone else please tell us why the editor of the Apostolic Herald will continue to endeavor to leave such impressions on his readers concerning him? If he could be raised to life here again now and see the things Elder Kirkland has said of him, and the impressions he has endeavored to make concerning him, could he say now that “we firmly believe Elder Kirkland’s motives, or intentions, are good?” These things are all so painful to us. It grieves us much to feel called upon to correct such things from the pen of one we have loved and esteemed as a true minister of the gospel of Christ.
Not only is it grievous to us on this account, but much more so that Elder Kirkland cannot let the ashes of our dear sainted father rest in peace, after he has worn himself out in the service of the cause Elder Kirkland has professed to love. We had much rather he would endeavor to leave a wrong impression concerning us (and we feel that he has done so several times) than for him to leave a wrong impression concerning our father. It is deplorable that people will resort to such measures.
Oh, that the Lord may give us all grace to enable us to bear all the trials and persecutions of life, and enable us to stand in the right way in humbleness and devotion to His blessed cause. Dear brethren and sisters, will you all please pray the Lord to help us to bear all these sore trials? C. H. C.
JOHN 8:31,47
December 11, 1906
Brother Cayce:
Please give your views on John 8:31,47. It seems that the same people are under consideration in verse 47 that are in 31. Your unworthy sister in the fear of God.
Boydsville, Ark.
Vina Carey.
REMARKS
If you will notice verses 13 and 14 you will see this language: “The Pharisees therefore said unto Him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. Jesus answered and said unto them, though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.” This conversation, or discourse, [pg 145] of the Saviour to the Pharisees continues unbroken to verse 29, which says, “And He that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please Him.” Now, in verses 30, 31 and 32 is a break in the conversation. These verses say, “As He spake these words,”— the words in the preceding verses— “many believed on Him. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on Him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Then in verse 33 the conversation goes back to the Pharisees again, “They answered Him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, ye shall be made free?” The conversation with the Pharisees continues on unbroken to verse 47, and even after. By noticing this break in the discourse of the Saviour we think your difficulty will disappear. C. H. C.
VARIETY OF BAPTISTS
December 18. 1906
We have a great variety of people in our denomination. Some are BAPTISTS, some BAPtists, some BAPTISTS, some Baptists, some “baptists,” some baptists (?), and some — Western Recorder, Dec. 13, 1906.
We also had some of the latter class of “baptists (?)” but we think most of them have left us and gone to the Missionaries. C. H. C.
CLOSE OF VOLUME
TWENTY-ONE
December 25, 1906
This issue of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST closes the twenty-first volume. One more year, with all its changes and shifting scenes, is numbered with the past. During the past twenty-one years many sorrows, trials and difficulties have been encountered and endured by us. Some of us have had to endure bodily afflictions, as well as pass through many dark seasons of doubtful disputations of mind. Temptations have been encountered along life’s journey; fightings without and fightings within. Loved ones have been taken away from us, and their places are vacant in our homes and their kind and cheerful voices are heard no more. Day by day we continue to miss their kind words and tender watch-care. Not only have we had all these things to endure during the past twenty-one years, but many of us have passed through some of these sore trials during the last twelve months. Some of our loved ones who were [pg 146] with us one year ago are now numbered with the pale nations of the dead, and their spirits are sweetly resting in the presence of God. Sorrows, trials, troubles, afflictions, sufferings and distresses are all over with them, and they are indeed resting now.
Yet, with all our sorrows and trials, the Lord has been good to us all. Oh, how kindly He has watched over us and preserved our unprofitable lives. His goodness and mercy still endures, and will endure forever. Those of us who are yet spared are monuments of His grace. Realizing the Lord’s goodness and long-suffering in His continuing our lives through another year, we should render praise and adoration to Him. We feel to be thankful for His continued blessings, though we know we have been forgetful all along the journey of life.
During the year 1906, and since the death of our dear father on Aug. 27, 1905. the present editor has endeavored to continue to conduct THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST in such a way as to be of comfort and benefit to the Lord’s dear children, and to also endeavor to defend the eternal principles of truth— the doctrine of God our Saviour— the time-honored principles loved by our fathers. How well we have succeeded is not for us to say. We are conscious of the fact that we have made mistakes. No one, we are sure, can see and realize our mistakes and short-comings more plainly than we do ourselves. We greatly deplore every mistake we have made, and humbly ask all our readers to cast the mantle of charity over us and remember that we are only human and as much liable to do wrong as other people are. And please remember that we are ready to hear your entreaties and kind admonitions and brotherly pleadings when you see us going in the wrong way doing that which we should not. If we know our heart it is our desire to do right and to contend for the right way.
This volume closes with as large a list of subscribers as we have ever had— perhaps
larger. Our subscription list has steadily increased during the past two years, for which we feel thankful. We stated when father died, as well as one year ago, that the office was in debt. We are glad to say that the indebtedness is being gradually cut down, and we hope to have all debts paid in a few more years. While we have been enabled to reduce our indebtedness some during the past year, we admit we would be glad if we could have made a better showing along this line. Taking all things into consideration, we suppose we have no room to complain in regard to these things. We trust we are thankful to the Lord for all His wonderful blessings, and to the dear brethren, sisters and friends who have given us their loyal support, and who have helped us in extending the circulation of the paper. We appreciate your many favors, and pray the Lord to bestow His rich blessings upon you.
[pg 147] We humbly ask all our readers to continue taking the paper. Help us make it better next year. And will you, each one, do all you can to extend the circulation of the paper? Will you do your best to send us some new subscribers? We trust each one will do all you can in sending new subscribers for the paper during the year 1907. Is the paper a benefit and a comfort to you? If it is, do you not think it would comfort others? And if you think it would comfort others, can you not insist that they take it for a year? You don’t know how much this would help us, and we would appreciate it.
Again thanking every one of you for every kindness shown and for every kind word, and again expressing a feeling of gratitude to God for His many blessings, we bid you all farewell for the year 1906, with an earnest desire that we be remembered in your prayers. C. H. C.
INTRODUCTORY TO
VOLUME TWENTY-TWO
January 8, 1907
Another year of the publication of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST has been completed, and we now begin the twenty-second volume. Day by day we realize our weakness and imperfections, and our inability to perform the task of editing the paper as we feel it should be done. We realize our dependence upon the Lord for grace and guidance, and know that without His sustaining grace we must fail. As stated in the close of volume twenty-one, we are aware that we have made mistakes; we are human and liable to err. When we make a mistake we regret it as much as anyone could, and we are always willing to make amends, as much as possible. It seems that we realize our weakness more and more, as the days go by.
We desire to conduct the paper in such a way as to benefit the Lord’s humble poor, and so that it may be a benefit to the cause of Christ. If we are not deceived in our own heart, we love the Lord’s dear children, and we love the Primitive Baptist Church. We believe that church to be the kingdom our Lord established while He was here on earth. He gave laws, rules and regulations to govern His kingdom, and He is the only King and Lawgiver in the kingdom. We desire to be loyal to Him, and reverence and honor Him as our only King, who is love, mercy and truth. We desire to conduct the paper in such a way as to encourage all our readers to honor and glorify our blessed Master while we all live in this low ground of sorrow. And we desire to reach as many as possible. That is, we desire to try to benefit and [pg 148] comfort as many of the Lord’s humble poor as possible. We would be glad to send the paper into the home of every poor, weak, halting lover of the Lord. We are sending the paper to many poor widows and preachers who are destitute and unable to pay for the paper, and who desire to read it. During the year 1906 some of our dear brethren have contributed some funds to aid in sending the paper to such persons, but we have sent the paper to a great many more. In fact, we have given away on this account nearly $400 during the year, more than has been contributed by others to aid in sending the paper to the poor.
Some brethren have objected to our printing so many advertisements. Now, we will say that we would be glad if we were able to leave them out of the paper entirely. But all the money we get for the advertisements is used to aid us in sending the paper to poor brethren and sisters who are not able to pay for it. If we leave the advertisements out, then we would be compelled to stop sending the paper to a great many of them. Now, which shall we do? Shall we continue to print the advertisements, and continue to use the money derived therefrom in sending the paper to the poor? Or shall we quit printing the advertisements and stop sending the paper to them, and thereby deprive them of the comfort they receive from the paper? Which shall we do? We have given the matter much thought, and our judgment was that it is best to print the advertisements and use the money as we are using it. If we are wrong, we are open for conviction. How many will say for us to leave the advertisements out?
The subscription list is growing some, and our prospects are good so far as the circulation of the paper is concerned. Many good brethren and sisters have taken an interest in procuring new subscribers for us, and we appreciate their kindness to us in doing this, and humbly ask every one of our readers to continue to do all you can in this way for us in the future. Remember that THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST was enlarged last year, and contains each week a great deal more reading matter than it did before, and one dollar a year is an extremely low price for the paper. While the quantity is thereby so much increased, we desire that the quality be kept up to the standard attained in former years. We ask all our readers and correspondents to help us to do this. Write on such things as will have a tendency to bind the brotherhood together in love and fellowship. If you have troubles at home, that can be of only a local nature, do not send them to the editor to publish. The editor always regrets to refuse to publish such things, yet it is not for the best many times for them to go before the public. Write short articles, and send all the good church news you can and help us to make the paper interesting to all lovers of truth. We want you to all feel that THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST is a [pg 149] medium of correspondence for the mutual benefit and comfort of the Lord’s dear children all over the land, and help us to put the paper in the home of every Old Baptist in the country.
Asking an interest in the prayers of all our readers, we enter the new year with renewed determination, by the Lord’s help, to continue in our weak way to contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints. C. H. C.
INFORMATION WANTED
January 8, 1907
Does anybody know of a church of the “Disciples” or Campbellites, commonly called, that will endorse one of their representative men in denying that there is immediate touch or contact of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and salvation? And can anyone tell us of an anti-mission, or Hardshell, church that will endorse a representative man who will deny that the Lord uses means in the regeneration and salvation of sinners? There may be yet some of each kind, but where are they? No, we are not seeking debates, but simply wanting information, and rejoicing at the coming back to the truth from both of these extreme and erroneous points. However we will say that it is possible that we can find a man who will be present and make feeble remarks in case all parties should want a clean discussion of the truth.— Baptist Banner, Dec. 12, 1906.
The above from the Baptist Banner reads to us like Elder Penick is “hankering” for a ‘spute. In regard to the Campbellites, we have nothing to say more than that we are sure they have a number of able men among them who will deny the direct or immediate work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. It seems to us that this is the very thing E. C. L. Denton denied while in debate with Elder Penick not many miles from Martin.
As to the people Elder Penick is pleased to style anti-mission or Hardshell, will say that the Primitive Baptist Church here in Martin endorsed the writer quite a while ago to meet the elder in public discussion. Now, Brother Penick, just come over any day and sign propositions. It is “up to you” now to debate. We will meet you in public discussion on the same propositions you debated with Elder S. F. Cayce, or on the same propositions we debated with your brother, Elder A. Malone, in Macon county, in December, 1905. We are willing to discuss either set of these propositions. Now, brother, come on and sign ‘em up, or else just take it all back and say you don’t want any debate, you were just “making like.” Come over tomorrow and sign them. What say you? C. H. C.
[pg 150]
ROMANS 5:14
January 22. 1907
We have been requested to give our views of Rom. 5:14, which reads as follows: “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come.” Adam sinned by actual personal transgression of the law God gave him. Those persons who lived and died from Adam to Moses did not transgress by actual personal transgression, as there was no other law given from Adam to Moses, yet death reigned over them. Adam was a figure of Christ— “Him that was to come.” Eve, the bride of Adam, “being deceived, was in the transgression.” Adam went down under the law where his bride was. So Christ came down under the law where His bride was. He was “made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.” Adam had but one bride. So, Christ has but one bride. These are only a few of the thoughts we have had in connection with this text, and which we think it teaches. C. H. C.
INFORMATION WANTED
January 29, 1907
In our issue of January 8, we clipped a little article from the Baptist Banner, in which Elder Penick was making inquiry for a “Hardshell”to deny that the Lord uses means in regeneration. We told the elder that our church here endorsed us quite a while ago to meet him in public discussion, and invited him to come over and sign propositions. It seems that he has taken particular pains not to come — anyway, he did not come.
Now we want some information. Does anybody know whether Brother Penick will come over and sign propositions? Can anyone tell us if Brother Penick was really in earnest when he spoke about being present to make remarks, etc.? Or, was he just joking? Is Brother Penick sick?— is that the reason he did not come? We want information on the subject— and we want him to sign propositions now, or “take it back.” What are you going to do? C. H. C.
[pg 151]
EXPLANATION WANTED
January 29, 1907
To the Dear Contributors of the Ever Precious PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, a source of imparting much edification to such as have eyes to see, ears to hear and hearts to understand— I am an enquirer after consistency, ask for an explanation that I can see a consistency in. God says Eph. 2:1, “You hath God made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins.” Also 1 John 5:12, “He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son (or Spirit of Christ) hath not life.” I fail to comprehend how or in what sense the dead can perish, unless, as our Arminian friends have it, the alien is not dead, as above stated, but have a little spark of life that may be kindled by gospel fanning. So what I am enquiring after is, can anyone dead perish? and if the dead cannot perish, are we not authorized to say Paul was referring in 1Cor. 1:18 to wayside, stony ground and thorny ground hearers? for we are certainly taught in God’s most Holy Word that the way of truth is strait (difficult) and narrow, by reason of which many of God’s dear children treat the true gospel as foolishness, for Jesus says that the wayside hearer is so unmindful of his duty in adding to his faith, virtue; and to virtue, knowledge, etc., that Jesus said Satan caught away that which was sown in his heart. Bear in mind, had he been an alien the gospel would never have gone into his heart. The gospel does not enter the heart of the dead. We understand the Primitives to hold that it is the Spirit first, then they have the life of Christ; and then failing on the practical line they may perish from their enjoyment of their inheritance, and in their actions treat the glorious gospel of the grace of God as though it was foolishness. But Paul says in the chapter, “We preach Christ to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness, but to the called (from death to life) Christ the power and wisdom of God;”but all do not continue in the practical or life of correspondence with God as would be for their good; So what we are enquiring after is, was Paul having reference to alien, dead, sinners when he said, “The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness;” and if dead sinners can perish, are not the Arminians close to correct when they state he is not so dead as we think, or as Paul, Christ and others said? Now, what your enquiring brother, as I hope, wants and asks is an explanation how the dead can perish, and the living often perish from the practical life and die to the life of correspondence with God. I hope to meet you all in a better world.
An Enquiring Pilgrim
REMARKS
We feel a delicacy in offering a few of our thoughts to the dear brother who wrote the above enquiry, and we beg all to not think it presumption in us to do so. We desire to offer a few thoughts in the spirit of humility, and if any are benefitted, to the Lord belongs the glory.
In the first chapter of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians you will observe that some of them claimed to be of Paul, some of Apollos, some of Christ, and so on. After the apostle asks them “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” he goes on to argue and to show that the preaching of the gospel is not to regenerate or quicken alien sinners into life. “The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” The word rendered perish may also be rendered perishing without doing violence to the [pg 152] teaching. They are dead in trespasses and sins, and are perishing in their sins. Being in this condition, the preaching of the cross is foolishness to them. They must be saved from death in sins, from perishing in sins, in order that the preaching of the cross be otherwise than foolishness to them. The apostle goes on to argue this thought through the second chapter, in which he says “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him. But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” He is here talking along the same line as in chapter 1— about the unregenerate receiving the preaching, those things he speaks, and uses the same expression (foolishness)— as in first chapter. The alien sinner is dead, or destitute of spiritual life. He is dead to God and godliness. He perishes in receiving the punishment due for his sins.
This is the way we view the matter, and we do not see that there is any inconsistency in the view, or that it allows the Arminian any ground for saying “the sinner is not so dead as you Old Baptists say he is.” The alien is simply dead, and being dead he perishes (or decays) in his sins— is everlastingly banished from the peaceful presence of God in eternity. We do, not understand, either, that this in any degree interferes with the truthfulness of the fact that the Lord’s children may (and many of them do) perish from the enjoyment of the manifest presence of the Lord here by living in disobedience.
May the Lord bless these thoughts to the good of all our readers, and guide us all in the right way, and keep us from harm, and at last receive us unto Himself, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
[pg 153]
HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF
February 5, 1907
In the Southern Department will be found an article by Elder Lee Hanks headed “An Explanation,” which was called forth by Elder Kirkland demanding a retraction of a statement made by Elder Hanks in this paper some time ago. With reference to that matter we have this to say:
Elder Kirkland was labored with privately by a number of brethren, and he would not agree to cease advocating the measures and theories he advocated. Then some of the churches of the Greenfield-Philesic Association wrote kind and brotherly letters to Fulton Church, begging them to labor with those brethren. All the churches in the association, except one, took action in their conferences and stated in their letters to the union meeting of the Greenfield-Philesic Association, held with the church in Martin on Friday, Saturday and fifth Sunday in July, 1905, that “We favor dropping Fulton Church from our union and association unless they will cease advocating and practicing these things”— the things complained of, and which have been disturbing the peace of the churches since they began to be advocated. The letters sent to Fulton Church were handed to the moderator in conference, but were not read to the church. Thus they refused a hearing to their sister churches. So at the convening of the union meeting the Fulton Church was dropped from the union, they refusing a hearing to their sister churches, and the churches saying in their letters they favored this being done unless they would cease advocating the things then enumerated. The association also took action, dropping Fulton Church from the association, when convened with the church at Little Zion on Friday, Saturday and third Sunday in October, 1905. All the corresponding associations, except one, took action in their bodies, endorsing our act, namely, Big Sandy, Forked Deer, Obion and Predestinarian. The matter stands that way today. There is not a church in the Greenfield-Philesic Association, and we do not believe there is one in the Big Sandy, Forked Deer, Obion or Predestinarian Associations, all in West Tennessee, that would recognize Elder Kirkland or his church as being in order. It is true he has some followers, but the main body of Baptists here consider him as being entirely separated from them.
As it seemed necessary for us to make this statement again, we wish to notice the thought presented in the heading of this article that history is repeating itself. In the days of Gill and Brine there were no disturbances among the Baptists on the question of the commission or missions. Concerning the preaching and teaching of those men and the work of the churches in those days Cramp says in his history, page 499, “And this is certain that [pg 154] those eminent men and all their followers went far astray from the course marked out by our Lord and His apostles. They were satisfied with stating men’s danger, and assuring them that they were on the high road to perdition. But they did not call upon them to ‘repent and believe the gospel.’ They did not entreat them to be ‘reconciled unto God.’ They did not ‘warn every man and teach every man in all wisdom.’ And the churches did not, could not, under their instruction, engage in efforts for the conversion of souls.” Here is a period of time before the days of Fuller and Carey that the churches did not engage in mission work— they did not engage in efforts for the conversion or salvation of souls. They recognized the truthfulness of the teaching of Holy Writ that it is the work of God alone to save from sin and all its ruinous consequences. Gill and Brine were eminent men, they were representative men, of the Baptist Church in their day, and they did not call upon the unregenerate to repent and believe the gospel. The churches were having no trouble on the mission question in those days. It is evident that the Baptist ministers and churches of that day did not hold to the idea that the obligation of the commission was resting upon the church, for they were not engaged in mission work.
But this state of peace and quietude did not continue. Andrew Fuller and William Carey rose up among the Baptists and began teaching a theory which had been taught by Rome for centuries— that the church should convert the world to Christ. Their theory resulted in the organization of the first missionary board or society among the Baptists on Oct. 2, 1792, at the home of Beebe Wallis in Kettering, England. It is manifestly true that this was not in harmony with the sentiment of the Baptists as a body, for when Mr. Carey first made mention of the matter, or proposed the move, Dr. Ryland said, “When God gets ready to convert the world He will do it without your help or mine.” This is the substance of his expression. B. H. Carroll, Jr., in his work called “The Genesis of American Anti-Missionism,” page 25, says, “It is unquestionable that missionary activity in the United States, among all denominations, was, in a sense, a direct growth of William Carey’s work. This great Baptist was the founder of missionary activity in two continents and was the father of American, as well as English. missions.” This work of Mr. Carroll’s has been well received among the New School Baptists. If Mr. Carey was the father of missions among the Baptists, it follows that this mission child, born since 1761, the year Mr. Carey was born, is entirely too young to claim to be the original practice of the Baptists. The Baptist Church is older than the father of this little child— yet those who are followers of this late move claim to be the original Baptists.
Mr. Carroll says on page 58, concerning Adoniram Judson, that “The conversion [pg 155] of this man to Baptist views, and his missionary labors and successes severally, contained the genesis and stimulus of American Baptist Missions.” The genesis is the beginning. So Mr. Carroll says here was the beginning of American Baptist Missions. There were American Baptists prior to Mr. Judson’s conversion to baptism by immersion (for this is really what he was converted to), yet they were not Missionary Baptists, for Mr. Carroll says this is the genesis of American Baptist missions. Luther Rice was also a great leader in this new mission movement among the Baptists.
In a letter to Dr. Bolles, of Salem, Mass., written by Mr. Judson while in Calcutta, he says concerning places where there were openings for missionaries, “At present Amboyna seems to present the most favorable opening. Fifty thousand souls are there perishing without the means of life,” etc. The Boston Female Society for missionary purposes was organized in 1800. This appears to be the first female society formed in this country among the Baptists; and Mr. Carroll says, page 34, “After Judson, there were many spinning, weaving, knitting and other feminine societies to promote the mission cause.
After bearing with, though all the while contending against, these departures from primitive practice and teaching, as well as gross departures from the Scriptures and the simplicity of the gospel, a number of brethren met at Black Rock, Maryland, on September 28, 1832, and made formal declaration of non-fellowship against these departures. In their address they say: “We will now call your attention to the subject of missions. Previous to stating our objections to the mission plans, we will meet some of the false charges brought against us relative to this subject, by a simple and unequivocal declaration, that we do regard as of the first importance the command given of Christ, primarily to His apostles, and through them to His ministers in every age, to ‘Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,’ and do feel an earnest desire to be found acting in obedience thereunto, as the providence of God directs our way, and opens a door of utterance for us.” This expression from these brethren is unmistakable evidence that the commission was a “bone of contention.” They differed from the Missionaries on this point. We have already seen that the mission idea was a new thing, and a departure; and we will state this as a true principle, that the whole mission scheme, as well as a salaried system for the ministry, is based on the idea that the commission was given to the church, and that the obligation of the commission rests on the church. If you remove the idea from the minds of men that the commission is binding on the church, you would have removed the foundation from under the whole mission theory and the fabric would crumble and fall, having no foundation upon which to stand.
Those brethren at Black Rock [pg 156] did not believe the commission was given to the church, but to the apostles and ministry, for they said so. Fuller, Carey, Judson, Rice and others had invented new schemes and theories, based upon their view that the commission was given to the church and that the church should convert the world to Christ, and introduced those measures into the Baptist Church. These brethren at Black Rock held the original view, that the commission was given primarily to the apostles and through them to the ministry in every age. This was Gill’s view. He says:
“Go ye into all the world:” not only into Judea, and through all the cities of it, where they had before been confined; not only into the Roman empire, which is sometimes so called, because a great part of the world was under that government; but into every known and habitable part of the whole universe, to all the nations of the world under heaven; and it is to be observed, that this command is not enjoined upon every apostle separately, as if each of them was to go into all the world, and travel over every part; but that one was to go one way, and another way; every one had his line, or that part of the world marked out for him, whither he was to steer his course, and where be was to fulfill and finish his ministry: and besides, this commission not only included the apostles, but reaches to all the ministers of the gospel in succeeding ages to the end of the world; and since this, one part of the world which was not known, is now discovered: and the order includes that, as well as the then known parts of the world; and the gospel accordingly has been sent into it.
This shows that Gill held that the commission was to the apostles and ministry and not to the church.
But someone might ask, “Did not the brethren at Black Rock believe that it was the duty of the church to send the ministry?” Yes, they believed it this way, that it was the duty of the church to ordain or set apart to the work those the Lord called. They did not hold that a church in Tennessee or Kentucky should support a man while he was preaching in the “regions beyond,” or in Burmah or China. They held that it was the Scriptural plan for those to contribute their carnal things to aid the minister among whom he labored, and this is the way they give us to understand it was done before the mission scheme was invented. See their address.
Now, in this latter day some others have arisen among the Old. School Baptists holding that the commission was given to the church, among them Todd, Strickland, Hackleman, R. S. and J. V Kirkland, and others. Where will you now find the four first named? Among the New School Baptists.
Mr. Carroll says the Missionaries “pleaded in vain for a spirit of toleration.” Their measures were tolerated for years, but forbearance had ceased to be a virtue. Mr. Carroll, page 165, in quoting from Holcombe’s History of the Baptists of Alabama, describes a circumstance that is claimed to have occurred in the Flint River Association. He says the Missionaries “most affectionately and earnestly besought their anti- brethren to suffer them to do [pg 157] as they felt bound in conscience to do as they would with their own, and not let those things be a bar to Christian fellowship. They entreated, they plead by the mercies of God— by the love of the Saviour, and by the joys of heaven; they wept— tears flowed; they cried to heaven— heaven smiled! But the adamantine hearts of the anti- brethren were not touched; they were apparently as hard as the nether mill-stone.” Does this not sound very much like some favorite expressions in use so much in this day? Does it not have the appearance that some in this latter day have almost borrowed some expressions that were used in those days in pleading for forbearance? But, did our brethren do right in bearing with those departures no longer? What Old Baptist can afford to say our brethren should have longer borne with all the heresies they had to contend with? For our part, we think that if they made a mistake it was in bearing with those heresies for so many years. The Saviour says “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees,” and the apostle tells us that “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.”
Mr. Carroll, page 188, says “the attack always comes from the anti-s. They forced the fighting and necessitated the division.” This we say is to their credit. But the same charge is now made against those who are contending against the idea that the commission was given to the church, that the alien sinner should be admonished to repent and believe the gospel, as well as other theories that are not according to primitive doctrine or the Scriptures.
One instance of the result of continued forbearance with error is shown by the departure of the Hephzibah Association in Georgia, as recorded on pages 182 and 183 of Mr. Carroll’s work. In 1832 they were opposed to the new mission schemes, but they continued to bear with and tolerate the teaching of Elder Kilpatrick, which teaching was done privately as well as publicly, until in 1836 the association passed a resolution to “become a component member of the Baptist Convention of the State of. Georgia.” Verily, the rule given by the apostle is a good and safe one to follow— “an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject.”
After trying the board and society scheme for years, it seems that many of the New School Baptists are becoming aware of the fact that the scheme is a failure, though the cry has so often been made, “Give us money and we will take the world for Christ.” Now they are entering into another new scheme, and have organized a kind of national missionary association with J. B. Sellman as secretary and treasurer. This organization was effected, we think, in the latter part of 1905, at Texarkana. We cannot see any material difference between this and their former way; but now if a church or individual wishes to contribute to the mission cause their contribution may be sent to Mr. Sellman, [pg 158] who will keep a record of it and forward it to the missionary in the field. Mr. Sellman was appointed by the association.
In the Apostolic Herald of August 1, 1906, Elder J. V Kirkland editor, Brother Kirkland mentions the names of Elders H. F. Pettus (who is now with the New School Baptists) and W. L. Murray, and insists that they should spend their time preaching among the destitute and where there are no churches, and that the brethren should arrange as best they can to get up means to pay their expenses while there. He says: “And I wish to kindly ask all of our brethren and churches to lay by a donation to help in their expenses. If any church or individual wishes to make a donation for that purpose, they can send it to the A. H. with their instructions and I will see that it is expended just as they say, and a true record is kept of it for the inspection of all concerned.” For our life we cannot see the difference between the position occupied by Mr. Sellman and that which Elder Kirkland proposes to fill in the above statement, except that one was appointed by a kind of national association while the other was not. Verily, history continues to repeat itself.
Yet, amidst all the changing and shifting scenes that are continually going on in the world, the Lord has never left Himself without a witness. In all ages there have been some who were not carried about with every wind of doctrine, and there will be a few of that kind when the Lord comes again. His kingdom continues to stand, notwithstanding the many efforts to reform and reconstruct. Jesus is her King and Lawgiver, her Husband, and will never leave nor forsake. Let us press on, fighting as true soldiers under the banner of Prince Immanuel. Only a few more trials, difficulties, dark seasons and heartaches, and we can lay our armor by. May the Lord sustain us all, and help us to contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all delivered unto the saints. C. H. C.
ENTER INTO REST
February 12, 1907
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother in Christ, I hope— If it is not asking too much please give me your views of the “rest” spoken of in Heb 3 and Heb 4. I think it is a rest for the children of God while here in this world, if they have faith and trust in God at all times.
I have great sympathy for you in wanting to defend your dear father, but why not let God right all wrongs? If you can let God fight all your battles you can find a great rest of mind. I know this by experience. I am a lonely widow, and have had many ups and downs in this world. When things go as I think they should not, or not the way I wish they should, I sometimes worry over them a great deal; but when I can carry it to God in prayer and trust fully [pg 159] in Him everything works out so nicely, and then I can see that my way was not the best. I fully believe our dear Saviour when He said: “First seek the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you.” I believe these things mean carnal things, such as are necessary for life. I think if we would enter into that rest we must trust wholly in God for everything, and work every moment of our lives as though we were working for God, and trust wholly to Him for the reward of the same. Oh, how hard this is to do! Do you think there is anyone these days that enters into that rest? I think if Brother Kirkland had trusted in God and prayed to Him to bring all those factions together instead of praying to find a way himself, as he speaks of in his little book, the “Condensed History of the Church,” he might have been a great help to Zion. But as it is he seems to be making another faction. Oh, that he would cease from his own works, trust wholly in God, and enter into that rest prepared for the people of God.
Please pardon if I have worried you, and please give some remarks on this rest; I may be wrong.
Mary E. Chambers.
REMARKS
We don’t know that we have any special remarks to offer on the subject of that “rest” just now. We judge that if all the Lord’s children would cease their many works in endeavoring to “save souls” from an endless hell, and turn their attention toward doing what the Lord commands, they would enter into a sweet “rest.” There is a rest enjoyed in laboring to do what the Lord requires; but an awful bondage and weariness in laboring to do those things God has not commanded. May the Lord help us to do His bidding, and thereby enjoy the sweet rest from other labors.
As to defending our father will say we felt that justice demanded that we expose the false impression, which it seemed to us was intended to be made, that our father endorsed certain measures. His life and deportment need no defense; but when effort is made to make it appear that he endorsed that which he did not, we feel called upon to refresh the memory of our readers on those matters.
C. H. C.
QUESTIONS BY A PRESBYTERIAN
February 19, 1907
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— A Cumberland Presbyterian minister asked me to send you these questions, and for you to answer them through your paper. They are as follows:
1. Have the Primitive Baptists any written creed outside of the Bible?
2. Do you consider man responsible to his Creator for his salvation?
3. Is faith the act of the man, or is it the gift of God? He asked me if I thought you would answer them, and I told him certainly. Yours in hope, D. M. Raulston
Chattanooga, Tenn.
OUR ANSWER
Brother Raulston says the above questions were propounded by a Cumberland [pg 160] Presbyterian minister, but does not give the gentleman’s name. We answer:
1st. The Primitive Baptists have no written creed stating all their belief in full outside of the Bible. Our Confessions of Faith are only a written statement or explanation of our belief on some points which we understand the Scriptures to teach. The Bible is our rule of faith and practice.
2nd. Man is not responsible to his Creator for his salvation. Man is responsible for his damnation. By transgression man is lost, and man is responsible for it. If a man jumps into a well he is responsible for being in there, but he is not responsible for not jumping out again.
3rd. Faith is the gift of God. “For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.”— Rom. 12:3. “For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit.”— l Cor 12:8,9. Faith is a fruit of the Spirit; Gal. 5:22-23. Faith is the evidence of things not seen; Heb. 11:1. Evidence is not the act of a man, so faith is not the act of the man.
Since the gentleman has asked questions of us, and “turn about is fair play,” we wish to submit a few questions for his consideration.
When Philip baptized the eunuch did they both go down into the water? Acts 8:38.
Was the water in a jug?
How large was the jug?
Did Philip baptize the eunuch?
Did Philip sprinkle or pour the eunuch?
Can the Greek word “baptizo” be translated pour or sprinkle?
Did not Philip immerse the eunuch?
Did not Paul say “We are buried with Him by baptism?” Rom. 6:4.
Can a man please God while in the flesh?
Is not the unregenerate man in the flesh? If the man who is in the flesh cannot please God, and the unregenerate man is in the flesh, what can the unregenerate man do in order to his salvation?
Did not the Cumberland Presbyterian church spring from the Old School Presbyterians?
Is not the Cumberland Presbyterian church too young to be the church of Christ?
If a man has an experience of grace and is a member of a young institution [pg 161] should he not forsake the worldly kingdom and become a member of the kingdom set up by Christ while He was in the word?
We trust our friend will consider the answers to his questions, and also think seriously of the questions we have given, and may the Lord open his heart so be may receive the truth. C. H. C.
FOR WHOM IS THE GOSPEL?
February 19, 1907
Brother Noah Ellis, of Henderson, Texas, asks, “To whom was the gospel sent— the saved or unsaved, and for what purpose was it sent?” and requests that we answer through THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. We receive so many requests for views that we have not space to write at much length on many of them. We will endeavor to give some of our views in compliance with the request made by Brother Ellis.
The gospel is for the benefit of the child of God. The unregenerate have no part in the matter whatever. The natural man, which is an unregenerate man, one who is not in possession of the Spirit of God, “receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God,” says the apostle in 1 Cor. 2:14. In this text he is talking about the things which be preaches — that the natural man does not receive them. The gospel is good news, glad tidings. It is the news of what Christ has done for poor sinners. It is the news of what Jesus has done for those He has saved. There is no news in the gospel for or to the sinner who has not been saved by Christ. So the gospel is to the ones who have been saved with an everlasting salvation by Jesus Christ. The good news of the gospel is to them. Jesus says: “He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.”— John 8:47. This statement being true, one must be of God in order that he hear God’s words. If one must be of God in order that he hear God’s words, the gospel cannot be to or for the one who is not of God.
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”— 2 Tim. 3:16-17. All Scripture is given for the benefit of the man of God— so the apostle teaches in this language. Then the gospel is to the man of God, to the one who has been born of God.
The gospel is for the comfort of God’s children. “Comfort ye, comfort ye, nay people, saith your God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, cry unto her that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.”— Isa. 40:1-2. The [pg 162] prophet was to speak for the comfort of the Lord’s people, not in order to make people for the Lord. His speaking was to comfort the Lord’s people. “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.”— l Tim. 4:16. Timothy was already a child of God, had already been born of God. But by taking heed unto himself and to the doctrine he would save himself and those who heard him. He would save those who heard him from the same things he thereby saved himself from. He would save himself and those who heard him from error and false doctrine by taking heed unto himself and unto the doctrine and continuing therein. So the gospel is to save the Lord’s children from false doctrine and from the errors of false and idolatrous worship. May the Lord help us all to take heed unto ourselves and to the doctrine and to continue in the right way, and may we be found walking in the paths of righteousness and contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
WHEN WERE THEY WRITTEN?
February 26, 1907
Brother R. L. Edwards, of Paragould, Ark., writes:
I want you, or someone that will, to write an article setting forth when the names of God’s children were written in the Lamb’s book of life. The preacher here tells us they are registered in the book of life when the sinner accepts God as his or her personal Saviour. To all of the ministering brethren, if the good Lord ever directs you this way we will be glad to have you visit us. Pray for me and mine.
It is not necessary to write a lengthy article to show when the names of the redeemed, those who will finally enjoy heaven, were written in the book of life. Any man who says they are written there now, when they accept Christ as their personal Saviour, contradicts the plain statement of God’s word. “The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, [pg 163] whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.”— Rev. 17:8.
This is a plain statement that those whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world shall wonder. This being true, those whose names were written in the book of life from the foundation of the world shall not wonder. No statement could be clearer that the names of some were written in the book of life from the foundation of the world. “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”— Rev. 13:8. “My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.”— Psa. 139:15-16. David is here impersonating or representing Christ. God’s children, the redeemed, those who will finally enter heaven, are represented as being the body of Christ. The eyes of the Lord saw His substance, His children, when they had not been created; and in His book they were all written when there was none of them. They were, therefore, written in the book of life from the foundation of the world— before they “accept Christ as their personal Saviour.” Their names having been written in the book of life, Jesus atoned for their sins on the cross, and they are regenerated in time by the direct work of the Holy Spirit in the heart; and when this work has been done in their hearts they accept Christ as their personal Saviour, the Holy Spirit having witnessed in their hearts that Jesus is their Saviour, which enables them to accept Him as their Saviour. This is the plain teaching of God’s word on these points. Let us continue to contend for them, notwithstanding the false teaching of men.
C. H. C.
PARABLE OF THE TARES
February 26, 1907
We have been requested to give our views on this parable, which is recorded in Matt. 13:24-30. It reads as follows:
Another parable put He forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
The Saviour gave some light on this parable, in declaring it unto His disciples, as recorded in verses 36 to 43:
Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and His disciples came unto Him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; the field is the world; the good seed [pg 164] are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; the enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as. the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Now, it seems to us that this parable has reference somewhat to the end or closing out of the old or law dispensation and the ushering in of the new, or rather to the end of the Jewish age or Jewish world. Jesus says the harvest is the end of the world, and the reapers are the angels. The word angel, in Scripture, often means minister. “Unto the angel of the church,” as used several times in Revelation, certainly refers to the minister of the church. So the reapers or angels were the ministers of Christ, sent by Him. They were not sent by the church or by a board, but were sent by Him. They are sent the same way now as they were then— that is, Christ sends His ministers or His angels now.
As the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it was in the end of the Jewish age or Jewish world. Those wicked Jews were cast out; there was wailing and gnashing of teeth. The Lord’s kingdom, or church, came forth from all the darkness of that age, her subjects shining as the sun. Though they suffered persecution and martyrdom, yet loyal subjects were there, and the kingdom of Christ was “fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners.”
These are a few of the thoughts we have had in connection with this par able. We do not know that this is the correct view of it, but it is the way we view it, and we offer these thoughts for our readers, and not as a standard at all. We know there is a difference among brethren on many of the parables, and we do not propose that our views are a standard. C. H. C.
WHEN WAS CHRIST BORN?
February 26, 1907
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— What day of the month was Christ born, and what month was He born in? Does the Bible say when He was born? Please answer through THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. Yours in hope of eternal life,
Palmersville, Tenn. A. D. Maubray,
W. M. Pounds.
OUR ANSWER
The Bible does not give the date of the birth of Christ, neither the month [pg 165] nor the day of the month. No living man knows the exact date of His birth. We are supposed to count time from the birth of Christ. That is, it is supposed that time is counted, as we now compute time, from the birth of Christ, but it is conceded generally that He was born at least four years before the period from which our time is counted. Some chronologists place the time of His birth five or six years prior to the period from which our time is counted. The day, nor month, nor year of the birth of Christ is not certainly known. The beginning of His ministry is more definitely known than the date of His birth. C. H. C.
MATTHEW 24:19
February 26, 1907
We have been requested to give our views of Matt. 24:19, which reads: “And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days.” We think this language simply has reference to the literal destruction of Jerusalem, which is being foretold in much, if not all, of this entire chapter. In the destruction of Jerusalem, when the city was surrounded by the Roman army, mothers were driven to starvation, and literally ate the flesh of their own offspring who had died of starvation. This prophecy of the Saviour refers to this, and was fulfilled then. C. H. C.
CAYCE IS WILLING
March 5, 1907
Has our Brother C. H. Cayce decided to try his hand on the same propositions we discussed with his beloved father? And does he know of any community wanting us to discuss these issues? Just get yourself good and ready, brother, and “the Lord willing,” we will be on hand and try to make a few feeble remarks.— I. N. P.— Baptist Banner, Feb. 21, 1907.
It is not a late thing, Brother Penick, that we are willing to discuss those propositions. Yes, we know where the debate is wanted. There are some persons in the town of Martin, Weakley County, Tenn., who are wanting the debate. It is a good place, and the Primitive Baptist meeting house is open for our use. Yes, Martin will do. We will be home (D. V) on Monday, March 18. Come over and let us agree on the time. C. H. C.
[pg 166]
INFORMATION WANTED
March 5, 1907
Under the above caption our Brother C. H. Cayce manifests some anxiety for a debate with us, and seems to think we may be only joking as to our willingness to “make a few feeble remarks” if the Lord so wills that a debate will do good in any community. Find the place, Brother Cayce, where both people want a debate and want us to serve them, and get yourself good and ready, and don’t suffer any uneasiness about your brother’s willingness to show his faith that the Lord will use His word as a means to convert you from error on this very important issue. The propositions discussed with your beloved father suit me quite well. If these suit you, then the time and place are all that we need. We are very busy, but our Lord would have us be all things to all men that we may, by all means, save some, and we are certainly willing to endure all things. Something, at least, for the elect’s sake, that they may obtain the salvation with eternal glory. The Lord willing, we will try to accommodate you, brother— I. N. Penick, in Baptist Banner, Feb. 21, 1907.
Under the caption of “Information Wanted” in the Banner some time ago Brother Penick seemed very anxious to know if there was a Campbelite that would defend one side of a question and if there was one he called a “Hard-shell” that would deny the Lord uses means in regeneration. He seemed to be so anxious about it, and we like to be accommodating, so we told him, as our readers remember, to come over and sign propositions. As he did not come, we did not know what the trouble was, and so made enquiry. Now, Brother Penick says the propositions he discussed with Elder S. F. Cayce will suit him, so we suppose this part is now agreed on. Brother Penick says for us to find the place where both people want a debate, and that the time and place are all that we need. Well, we think we can name a suitable place. Some time ago some of your brethren in Martin wanted our brethren to get a man to deny a certain proposition in debate. If they did not want a debate this was the wrong kind of request to make. This was in Martin, Brother Penick, and our church house is open for our use. So now all we need to agree on is the time. We will (D. V) be home about March 18. Call on us then and we will see about the time. Don’t be uneasy about us being ready. We will try to be on hand to accommodate you. C. H. C.
THE RIGHTEOUS SCARCELY SAVED
March 12, 1907
We have been requested to give our views of the text recorded in 1 Pet. 4:18, which reads, “And if the righteous scarcely be saved where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” The question has been asked, “Who is the [pg 167] ungodly man?” Perhaps it would be better to read also the 17th verse, which says, “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?” Verse 18, “And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?”
“The time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God.” This judgment has to do with the house of God. The alien or unregenerated sinner is not embraced in this language at all. It is the regenerate character that this language embraces. The apostle is talking about the Lord’s children. In verse 15 he says, “But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evil-doer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters.” The Lord’s children should not live in such a way as to “suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evil-doer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters.” They should not be busybodies; they should each engage in their own calling, doing what the Lord requires of them, and not meddle with the affairs of others. They should not be evil-doers. They should endeavor to do right at all times and under all circumstances.
Doing right will not bring confusion and division in the church of God, where the judgment begins. The judgment is in the house of God, and that one who brings trouble in the church by wrong living or by introducing new means and measures, is necessarily judged as an evil-doer, or as a busybody. He cannot escape such judgment— he cannot be saved from it.
“Them that obey not the gospel of God,” we think, are the Lord’s children who hear the gospel, or understand it, but do not obey it. There are commandments, admonitions and exhortations in the gospel, which are all to the Lord’s children, to those who have been born of God; but all the Lord’s children do not obey those commandments and admonitions, nor heed the exhortations. Hence the Lord says, “If His children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; if they break my statutes and keep not my commandments; then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.” The “end of them that obey not the gospel of God” will be in suffering the chastening rod for their disobedience. “For if we sin willfully, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know Him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me. I [pg 168] will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge His people.”— Heb 10:26-30.
The Lord judges His people, and punishes them for their disobedience. The one who does not according to his Master’s will, yet knows His will, shall be beaten with many stripes. When we disobey our blessed Saviour, our punishment is sometimes very sore We render ourselves worthy of sore punishment, indeed, by refusing to obey our blessed Saviour, who has done so much for us.
“If the righteous scarcely be saved.” If those who live right, who endeavor to obey our blessed Master, “scarcely be saved”— scarcely escape the chastening of the Lord, scarcely escape sore punishment, “what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?” And “if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” The grace of God in the heart teaches us that we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world. If we do not live as His grace teaches us, we live ungodly lives, our lives are not then God-like. We suffer for our wrong doing in consequence.
May the Lord help us to keep His commandments, help us to live godly lives, and to walk in humble obedience to His commandments while here in this world, and save us in heaven by His grace, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
MATTHEW 5:13-16
March 19, 1907
Brother M. C. Grubb, of Osyka, Miss., requests our views of Matt. 5:13-16, which reads as follows:
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt has lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Some of this language is often applied to the unregenerate sinner by the man who is of the world in his preaching, but such application of it is a perversion of God’s word. This is found in the Saviour’s sermon on the mount, the most full, perfect and complete sermon, doubtless, on record. Verses 1 and 2 of this chapter (Matt. 5) read, “And seeing the multitudes, He went up into a mountain: and when He was set, His disciples came unto Him: and He opened His mouth, and taught them, saying”— and among other things which He said to them was the language of the text, “Ye are the salt of the [pg 169] earth,” etc. It was not said to the multitude; He left the multitude, departed from them, and went up into a mountain. His disciples came unto Him, where He was in the mountain, and the multitude was not there. Then He opened His mouth and taught them, the disciples, who were present with Him, saying unto them, “Ye are the salt of the earth,” etc.
There is some sense in which the Lord’s church or kingdom is the salt of the earth. It is for their sake that this wicked world is preserved and spared and perpetuated. Salt has a preserving or saving quality. It does not make or produce meat, but it preserves or keeps the meat already made. “Ye are the salt of the earth;” for your sake the earth is preserved. “But if the salt have lost his savour” — if you live in such a way as to lose your influence, and to bring reproach on the cause, then “it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.” If one lives in this way, so as to lose his influence, bringing reproach on the cause, he should be cast out, he should be excluded from the church, and allowed to be trodden under foot of men. He is no benefit to the church when living in that way. He has lost his savor, and is good for nothing.
“Ye are the light of the world.” There is a light in the true gospel service and worship of God. During the law dispensation there was a light in law worship and law service; but the law dispensation is ended, and the light of that service is gone out, and those who engage in that kind of service now manifest no light in that service. Gospel worship and gospel service has now begun; and you who worship God this way, under the gospel, are the light of the world. The light is now in gospel service and worship, and not in the law.
“A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.” The church of Christ was established in the top of the mountains, and it cannot be hid. The light of that city will shine throughout all ages while time lasts. The powers of men and devils may all be exerted to hide, cover up, or destroy this city, but it cannot be hid. “It shall stand forever,” says Daniel. It is above all other kingdoms. The light of other kingdoms is darkness when compared to the light of this kingdom. All other kingdoms are low, in the valleys, and are completely hid when compared with this kingdom, the city of our God. His church, this city, is high above all others. Let us who are members of this kingdom, who have a home in this beautiful city, not go down into the valleys in the darkness of the worldly kingdoms, but let us put forth all our best efforts in the service of God, doing His will and His commandments in this city which is high above the world, and where the light of gospel service and worship is to be found.
“Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel,” etc. In the [pg 170] affairs of nature, men do not light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick. “The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord,” says the prophet. If our spirit or soul has been lighted up with a flame of eternal life, we have the light and should not put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick. The candlestick is in the church, and not in the world, you know. How careful we should be as to where we put that light. It would look very foolish in nature, you know, for one to put a lighted candle under a bushel, or under a box. So in grace, we should put the lighted candle on the candlestick, in the church, where it will give light, and not put it under a bushel, or in some place where the gospel worship and service is not found. When our light is put under a bushel, or in the place God has not appointed for His gospel worship and service, it does not give light to those who are in the house or church.
“Let your light so shine before men.” Let your light shine before men like a lighted candle on a candlestick. Do not let your light shine like a lighted candle under a bushel, but on a candlestick. “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” By letting our light shine, on the candlestick, in the church, where the Saviour has commanded, we glorify our Father which is in heaven. We thereby give glory to God. We cannot thus glorify God by putting our light elsewhere. We should keep our lamps trimmed, and burning, and always on the candlestick, and thereby glorify our Father which is in heaven. “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.” We should let our light shine in such a way that others may see our good works. We should be so devoted to the service of God, and so attentive to His service, as to let that be first. “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness,” says the Saviour. We should be so attentive to the service in the church that others may see that we love the service of God more and better than we do the world and all that the world contains. Let us give our energies to His service. There is nothing in the world so pleasant or sweet as the service of God. “I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” The service the Lord requires of us as His children is not unreasonable. We owe all to Him. Let us prove that we love Him, and let us honor Him by doing what little He requires. “Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and I will receive you.” Let us, as His children, whose spirits have been lighted up with a flame of eternal life by a direct touch of God’s Holy Spirit with our spirit, be separate from the world. The world does not love us. They may try to deceive us, and try to make us believe they love us, but they do not. If they [pg 171] can so tempt us as to draw us away from the true service of God, they will have accomplished all that they desire. They may think well of us as neighbors and as earthly friends, but they do not love us as pertains to our service, and they are only too glad when they can succeed in drawing us away from it. Let us keep ourselves unspotted from the world. Let us not follow after their inventions.
May the Lord help us to deny ourselves of all that the world would place before us to draw us away from His service, and help us to let our light shine out in rendering service to Him and in doing what He requires of us as His children, and enable us to live humbly at the feet of our brethren, is our humble prayer.
C. H. C.
HAS CHANGED
March 26, 1907
We clip the following from the Baptist and Reflector of Jan. 31, 1907, and give it to our readers without comment:
A few weeks ago Rev. R. S. Kirkland, of Fulton, Ky., closed a meeting with Rev. D. T. Marlin, at Tennessee Bend, Ill., resulting in thirty-one accessions, seventeen by baptism. Brother Kirkland, after preaching the contrary some years, now seems to be very effective in proclaiming that people can help going to hell.
IS IT ANNOYING?
March 26, 1907
Rev. Claud H. Cayce, a Primitive Baptist disputant, of Martin, Tenn., is annoying Rev. I. N. Penick, of the Baptist Banner, for a debate. It is pitiful to see the risks some headstrong men will run.— Fleetwood Ball, in Baptist and Reflector, Feb. 28, 1907.
If Brother Penick is annoyed, he should not have begun the “annoying” business. If he had not run the risk in beginning the matter, he would not have been annoyed. He will probably be annoyed more than he is now when we engage in the discussion, which we will do if he will “come to time.” C. H. C.
[pg 172]
DEBATE WANTED
March 26, 1907
In the Baptist Flag of March 21 we notice a request from a Missionary Baptist Church, under the above heading, that we and Elder Penick engage in a discussion at their church. If you want a debate in your section, please confer with our brethren there. If they want a debate and think it will do good, and want us to represent them, we are ready to agree on the time. We suppose they have a right to say whether they want a debate or not; and if they do, they have a right to get someone else to represent them.
In accepting Elder Penick’s call for one to deny the Lord uses means in regeneration we were acting for ourselves, and our people in Martin want the debate, and one of his brethren here made a challenge. When we get through with the debate here, we will meet him at other places where a debate is wanted. But Martin is first. Come on, Brother Penick. C. H. C.
THE LAW SATISFIED
April 9, 1907
We have been requested to state, in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, our views as to what law Christ satisfied for His people. He rendered satisfaction for every sin committed by His people. He became the surety for those the Father gave Him, and He suffered for all their sins; He atoned for every sin each and every one of them commits. All their sins are charged to His account, as He is their surety. Sin is transgression of law. So that as Christ renders satisfaction for all their sins, He satisfies every demand of law against them.
C. H. C.
SOME QUESTIONS
April 9, 1907
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— I was asked to send you some questions for your views on them.
1st. Did Adam’s transgression cause eternal condemnation on all the human race?
2nd. Do the children of the devil sin?
3rd. What are the children of God before regeneration? Yours in hope,
Frank Harder.
Linden, Tenn.
OUR ANSWER
In reply to the first question will say that when Adam transgressed God’s holy law, the life he lived became poisoned with sin. We are nothing more [pg 173] nor less than Adam multiplied. When we are born into this world we are born with a life that is poisoned with sin; we are in possession of a nature that is sinful, and when we begin to practice anything at all we practice sin. The practice is like the nature it springs from. So that without the work of Christ to remove our guilt and the poison and stain of sin we would be everlastingly banished from the presence of God. “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.”— Rom. 5:12.
To the second question we say yes.
In answer to the third question we reply, natural men and women, children of Adam by ordinary generation. C. H. C.
DEBATE IN MARTIN
April 9, 1907
We have seen Elder Penick, and the propositions have been signed and the time agreed on for our debate in Martin. The Lord willing the discussion will begin on Tuesday morning, July 9, 1907, in the Primitive Baptist church house. The following are the propositions:
1. The Scriptures teach that all for whom Christ died will be saved in heaven. C. H. Cayce affirms; I N. Penick denies.
2. The Scriptures teach that in the death of Christ sufficient provision was made for the salvation of all the race of Adam. I. N. Penick affirms; C. H. Cayce denies.
3. The Scriptures teach that sinners are regenerated, or born of God, independently of, or without, the gospel as a means. C. H. Cayce affirms; I. N. Penick denies.
4. The Scriptures teach that in regeneration, or the new birth, the Lord uses the gospel as a means. I. N. Penick affirms; C. H. Cayce denies.
One day will be devoted to each proposition. It is hoped that we will have a clean and fair investigation of the propositions, as truth is what we should want. C. H. C.
KEEP A RECORD
April 9, 1907
A brother has asked us if we think a record should be kept of church conference. We think the clerk of the church should make a record of all the business transacted in every church meeting whether the regular moderator is present or not. Not only should a minute of the meeting be made, but a record should be made of everything done. Besides this, we think a record [pg 174] should be made on the church book of all the meetings. If the church meets and has preaching, it is proper that a record be made, the record stating who did the preaching. This will show in after years where the church has stood all along the line, and will be matters of history that may at some time be of invaluable benefit to our brethren in years now in the future. We cannot tell how much benefit some little record like these may be in the future. All records should be full and complete, so that they can be clearly understood by coming generations.
C. H. C.
ROMANS 7:9-10
April 16, 1907
Brother J. F. Mitchell, of Iconium, Mo., has requested our views of the above text, which reads as follows: “For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.” Some of our brethren may not see this as we do, and if any brother has something better to offer, he is at liberty to present: his views. We shall make only a few remarks.
“For I was alive without the law once.” He was alive to sin, he loved sin, but was dead to holiness and righteousness. He was not then dead to sin, but dead to righteousness; dead in sin, but alive to it. To be dead in sin is to be alive to sin. To be dead to sin is to be alive from sin or alive to God. He was alive to sin without the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. He was alive to sin without the “law of the Lord,” which is “perfect, converting the soul.”— Psa. 19:7. While in a state of nature, in the flesh, be was married to the law— the Sinai law. He was a Pharisee of the Pharisees. He thought he must do many things contrary to Jesus of Nazareth, which things he also did He consented to the death of the martyr Stephen. He obtained letters of authority from the high priest to bind and cast in prison those he found calling on the name of the Lord, both men and women. Starting on his journey from Jerusalem to Damascus to carry out his mission we hear him breathing out threatenings.
But, lo, before he reaches Damascus— “the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.” He now became dead to sin. Before this he was dead in sin, but now he is dead to it. The law that is “perfect, converting the soul,” has been written on the fleshly tables of the heart by the Spirit of the true and living God, and he is raised up from a state of death in sin to a state of life in Christ.
He is killed to the love of sin, hence “sin revived;” he sees what a great sinner he has been all his life; [pg 175] he dies to hope in legal righteousness; he dies to sin; he loves sin no more; but now he loves holiness and righteousness. He is now alive unto God, and so should bring forth fruit unto Him. He found the commandment to be unto death, in that he was killed to the love of sin; but the commandment was nevertheless ordained to life, for he is now alive unto God. His cry now is, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” Instead of binding the saints and casting them into prison, he now comforts them and suffers trials and hardships for their sake. He endures all things for them. He is willing to lay aside comforts and pleasures for their sake. He is willing to endure afflictions, to endure hardness as a good soldier. He is willing to be beaten with rods, with stripes, be cast into prison, shipwrecked, tried and condemned by his countrymen, and to be bound and scourged by them. “Neither count I my life as dear unto myself, so I finish my course with joy, and the ministry which I have received of the Lord Jesus.” “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.” May the Lord help us all to follow in his footsteps, to be followers of him as he was of Christ, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
GALATIANS 3:17
April 16, 1907
A brother in Mississippi has asked our views of Gal. 3:17 and Rev. 20:8. We have no thoughts regarding the latter that we feel like offering to our readers now, but will give a few words in connection with the former, which reads as follows: “And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.” The apostle is teaching in this language and in the context that the inheritance, eternal life, is not received by obedience to law. In verse 16 he says, “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ.” The promise to Abraham was an unconditional one, “In thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;” “In thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” “Thy seed” is Christ. The blessing of our eternal inheritance is in Christ, and not in our obedience to law. The law given to Moses on Mount Sinai was four hundred and thirty years after the promise to Abraham, “In thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” Yet this did not make the promise of none effect. The promise was an unconditional one, and did not depend upon obedience to the law given on Mount Sinai for fulfillment. [pg 176] This law did not make the promise of none effect. Obedience to the law could not give life. “If there could have been a law given that could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” If a law could have been given that could have given life, then Christ would not have come into this world of sin and sorrow as a sin bearer to suffer and bleed and die for poor sinners, for righteousness would have been by the law. “If righteousness come by the law, then is Christ dead in vain.” All of Christ’s suffering and death is in vain, He has accomplished absolutely nothing by it all, if poor sinners could be saved by their own obedience. This teaching of the apostle forever and eternally overthrows every Arminian theory and conditional system of theology— that sinners are saved in heaven by complying with conditions— no matter by whom that theory is invented nor what the conditions are. Sinners are not saved that way. Our eternal salvation is solely by virtue of what the Lord does for us, and not what we do for the Lord nor for ourselves. Then to the Lord alone belongs the praise and the glory. In the heavenly world there will be no discordant sound. No such song will be heard as “Thank you, thank you for the gospel,” as some money-hunting theologians have said; but the heavenly strain will be “Not unto us, not unto us, but unto thy name be glory, honor, majesty, might and dominion; for thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every tongue and people and nation.” God’s promise of eternal life is sure to all His children, and “the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are His.”
May His blessed sweet presence sustain us and enable us to realize that the promise embraces us, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
WOMEN PREACHERS
April 23, 1907
We have been requested to write an article giving our views as to women preaching. We do not think there should be much necessity for writing an extended article on this subject. The Scriptures are too plain on this point. The most disgusting sight we have ever seen in affairs of religion is a woman occupying the pulpit. Which one of the prophets was a woman? Which one of the apostles was a woman? When did the apostles ordain a woman to preach?
To preach is to teach. The eminent apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, says: “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence,”— l Tim. 2:12. If he did not suffer a woman to teach, [pg 177] then he did not suffer a woman to preach. No one would say he was a woman hater, and was not correct in his teaching on this line.
We had just as well reject his teaching on any other subject as on this. In the third chapter of this same letter he says, “If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,” etc. If women as well as men may preach, Paul would have said, “If a man or woman desire the office of bishop.” But God does not call women to fill this office— hence “if a man desire the office of bishop.” May not a bishop be the wife of one husband? No! not if Paul knew what he was talking about. A bishop should have only one wife. He should be the husband of one wife. “One that ruleth well his own house.” The husband is the head of the family, as Christ is the head of the church. “The same commit thou to faithful men.” Why did he not say men and women? It is a flagrant and open violation of God’s word for a woman to preach— occupy the place of a teacher in the church. Yet the so-called Christian world seem to care but little what the Bible says or teaches. They are for anything and everything that will tickle the fancy of the world and gain the applause and praise of men. May the Lord deliver His church and kingdom from such heretical and abominable practices. C. H. C.
MATTHEW 5:32
May 7, 1907
We have been requested to give our views of Matt. 5:32, which reads, “But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. “What is true with reference to the husband is also true with reference to the wife. If it is wrong for the wife to put away the husband, it is also wrong for the husband to put away the wife. If the Scriptures allow the wife to put her husband away and marry again, it will also allow the husband to put away his wife and marry another. Now, remember this, that what is admissible in the one is [pg 300] admissible in the other, for “they are no more twain, but one flesh.” Then, the question is simply this, Can a man for any cause, expressed in Scripture, put away his wife and marry another, and he not be an adulterer?
In the text quoted above the Saviour tells us that if a man shall put away his wife for any other cause than that of fornication, he causes her to commit adultery. If she has committed fornication, and for this cause be put her [pg 178] away, he does not cause her to commit adultery. If she has been put away for any cause, and then marries another man, the man commits adultery, in marrying one who has been put away.
Now, notice the Saviour’s language recorded in Matt. 19:9, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” If the wife commits fornication and the husband puts her away on this account, and marries another, he does not commit adultery. If the husband puts his wife away for any other cause except fornication, and marries another, he commits adultery. If the Saviour had said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, committeth adultery,” then a man would have no Scriptural reason whatever to put away his wife and marry again. But the Saviour gives only one exception to this universal rule, and that one exception is, “except it be for fornication.” So that if the wife commits fornication, and the husband puts her away on this account and marries another he is no adulterer. If the wife commits fornication she becomes dead to her husband, and if she thereby becomes dead to him, he may marry again and be no adulterer.
In Luke 16:18 the Saviour says, “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” In this place it is laid down as though it was a universal rule with no exception, but the Saviour expresses the exception, and the only exception, in Matt. 19:9, as quoted above.
If the husband commits fornication, and the wife puts him away on this account, and then she marries another man, she is no adulteress. Neither is the man an adulterer whom she marries. To try to make it plainer: B. commits fornication; on this account Mrs. B. puts him away; then Mrs. B. marries Mr. C. In this case Mrs. B. is no adulteress, and Mr. C. is no adulterer. This is true, by reason of the fact that Mr. B. is a fornicator, and thereby becomes dead to Mrs. B., and this gives her a Scriptural right to marry again. This is clearly the exception to the rule, as laid down by the Saviour, and none have this right, except for fornication.
The language of the apostle in 1Cor. 7:15 does not contradict [pg 301] the Saviour’s teaching. He says, “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. “If the unbelieving husband or wife departs, let them go; you are under no obligation to follow them. But the believing one should not help the unbeliever to go; but if they will depart, let them go. But if they do go, this does not release the marriage bond. It does not give [pg 179] the one left the privilege of marrying another, for the apostle says in verses 10 and 11, “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.” It is plainly taught here that if one departs the other has no right to put them away on this account, but they should remain unmarried — hold themselves in readiness at all times for a reconciliation.
If the wife puts the husband away for any other cause than for fornication and marries another, she becomes an adulteress, and the man she marries becomes an adulterer, and to continue to live in this state is simply to continue to live in adultery.
The woman who was brought to the Saviour, having been caught in the very act, is no example to resort to as an excuse, in our judgment. She was brought before the Saviour by those who were seeking to entangle and condemn our Lord. This lesson teaches us that the Saviour’s mission was not to administer the law, neither was He to sit as a judge to pass sentence on those who violated it. This was not His mission, which is clearly taught in this circumstance. His work was to fulfill the law, to render satisfaction to it.
These are our views on this subject. We do not propose to give them as a standard for our people, but we feel it is a safe position. We trust our brethren everywhere will study the matter carefully and prayerfully. Then may the Lord enable us to go in the right way, knowing no man after the flesh, but to have a true regard for the right, and give us Christian fortitude to walk in that way, and help us to always do that which is well pleasing in His sight. C. H. C.
CHRIST AND BELIAL
May 14, 1907
A Brother Moore, of Nolen, Miss., requests our views of 2 Cor. 6:15. That verse reads, “And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?” We may be wrong about the matter, but we think this language teaches us that the Lord’s children should keep themselves out of all the institutions that are partly composed of infidels. Verse 14 says, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” For a believer to be yoked with an unbeliever is to be unequally yoked. How can we engage with them in worship without being yoked with them? It seems to us that we should [pg 180] not do this. Then follows the language of the 15th verse, as quoted above. “And what concord hath Christ with Belial?” The word “Belial” means a vile, worthless person, reckless of God and man. It seems to us that we should hold ourselves aloof from all such characters. The institutions of the world, which are called benevolent, are largely composed of men who are reckless and who are infidels and who reject Christ. The orthodox Jew rejects Christ. So, also, does the Mohammedan. We do not say they are all bad, but many of them are not good men, many of them are “reckless.” The man who denies or rejects Christ is to that extent an infidel. Should we “brother” them, and meet on a common level with them in any kind of religious service or ceremony? It seems to us we should not. To pray a prayer the orthodox Jew will receive we must not approach the Father in the name of Christ. If we must not pray in the name of Christ, then we must deny Him just to please the one who despises our blessed Lord. Should we do this? We do not think so. Search the prayers and forms of service of the different institutions called benevolent and see how many of them have the name of Christ in them. Some of them have the altar erected to the “beloved. St. John.” May we not just as well approach the Father through the mediatorship of the virgin Mary? We think so.
Verse 16 says, “And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” Surely the temple of God hath no agreement with idols. Verses 17 and 18 read, “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” We would humbly beg our brethren, in the language recorded here, to come out from among all those things and be separate from them, and the Lord will receive us. We have no desire to unite with those things or to affiliate with them. The Lord’s kingdom is above them all, and we do not wish to go down to them. We would be so glad, and rejoice so much, if all our brethren would come out from all those things. We feel that we love our brethren and the church so well that we would be willing to give those things up for their sake, even if we were affiliating with them and thought there was no harm in our doing so. If our brethren thought it was wrong and thought we should quit it, we believe we love them so well that we would quit for their sake.
Jesus is our only Mediator, and He has promised, “If ye ask anything in my name I will do it.” We should pray in His name only. We can come to God in no other way. Dear brethren, “Let us draw near with a true heart, [pg 181] in full assurance of faith.” We cannot draw near any other way. The Lord will not recognize any other way. Let us all give our time of service in the Lord’s church, and draw near to Him there, and He will bless us. He has not promised to bless us in these other things. If we desire to perform acts of benevolence, let us remember to “Do good to all men, especially to the household of faith.” If we would give our time to the church and spend the same means that way that is spent in the other things, would it not be much better, and would not the church then be what some brethren say it lacks? Dear brethren, let us all try it for awhile. Is there one brother who will write us he will try it for a time?
May the Lord help us to know and do His will. C. H. C.
NEW WINE IN OLD BOTTLES
May 14, 1907
Brother J. H. Malone, of Watertown, Tenn., has requested our views of Mark 2:21-22, which reads: “No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse. And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles.” We think this has reference to the closing out of the old or law dispensation and the setting up of the gospel dispensation. The old or law worship is not to be engaged in now. The gospel service is to be engaged in now. This service is in the gospel kingdom, which Daniel said the God of heaven should set up. The new service is in the new gospel kingdom. This is the way we view the matter. The new or gospel service is not to be engaged in, as under the old or law dispensation, or in the national kingdom; but is to be engaged in the new, the church of Christ. C. H. C.
GOOD REPORT OF THEM WITHOUT
May 21, 1907
Brother E. D. Clayton, of Smithville, Miss., requests us to say to the brethren in the ministry who are traveling in his section that when they desire to cross Tombigbee River, if they will go to White Springs he will put them across free, as he owns the ferry there.
He also requests us to give our views concerning 1 Tim. 3:7, the expression, “Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without,” [pg 182] and also 2 Tim. 3:12, “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” He thinks there is a seeming contradiction. In the language first quoted the apostle is giving the qualifications a man should have before he is set apart or ordained to the office of bishop or elder. If a man does not possess these qualifications as recorded in verses 1 to 7 of this chapter he should not be ordained. Those without are those who are not members of the church. If a man’s character is not good his influence will not be good. He should have a good character; his character should be above reproach. If different kinds of evil reports are continually being circulated about him, as to his moral or upright standing, it is a bad omen. “Where there is so much smoke there is apt to be some fire” is an old saying, and often proves true. His life should be such that his neighbors and those who know him will speak well of him as a man, even though they may despise or hate the doctrine he advocates.
The text referred to in 2nd Timothy does not in any wise contradict this teaching. A man does not have to engage in card playing, whisky drinking, gambling, swearing, or other immoral practices in order that he be of good report of them who are without. If be engages in any of these things the wicked and profane man, even, who is without the church would not speak well of him. The drunkard speaks well of the man who is sober and temperate. The profane man who takes the name of God in vain will speak well of the man who refrains from all such evil practices. The servant of Christ does not have to engage in immoral practices in order to be of good report of them that are without; but if he engages in these things his character will not be good— he will be of evil report of them that are without. The servant of the Lord— even all His children— should live in such a way that no one can have an evil thing to say of his character. His character should be above reproach.
People are not persecuted for doing evil. They may sometimes be punished for it, but never persecuted. Those who live godly lives and contend for the doctrine of God our Saviour are sometimes persecuted because of the doctrine they hold to. Many of them have been persecuted in ages past. Paul was sorely persecuted, but not for unrighteous practices. No one could say aught against his character as a man. It was his doctrine or teaching that they objected to. The same may be said of many of the Lord’s servants since his day. History gives us an account of the burning of some of the followers of the Lord in the year 1022. In those days the Catholic church was united with and supported by state and those who refused to accede to the teachings of Rome were tried and punished by law. In the case referred to those persons “were charged, among other things, with holding [pg 183] that there is no washing away of sins in baptism, that in the Lord’s supper the bread and wine are not changed to the body and blood of the Saviour, and that it is unlawful to pray to the saints. These were unpardonable sins. The accused were men of learning and piety, whose unimpeachable characters and holy lives were well known, and by whose benevolence many poor were daily relieved; but they did not believe in baptismal regeneration, transubstantiation, and saint-worship, and therefore they must be burned alive, and burned they were on the very day of their trial.”-Cramp’s History, page 83. History abounds with other instances like this.
May the Lord help us to live so that no one can truthfully speak evil of our lives, even though we suffer persecution. It is better to suffer for well doing than for evil. May the Lord sustain us and give us all grace for our day and trial, and enable us to glorify Him, that we may be counted worthy to suffer for His sake. C. H. C.
TOUR IN INDIANA AND OHIO
June 18, 1907
We left home on Saturday night, April 6, on our tour in Indiana and Ohio. We went first to Pimento, and then to Crawfordsville, the home of Elder J. H. Oliphant. We saw three willing ones come home to the church at Crawfordsville. We visited the home of Elder John R. Daily in Indianapolis. We visited some of the churches in the White Water Association. Then we visited some of the churches near the home of Elders R. W. and John M. Thompson, including Greenfield, Ind. At Lebanon Church four were received for baptism. Elder John M. Thompson is pastor there, and he remained with them the next day to administer the baptism, and we have heard that another joined on that day.
From this section we visited some of the churches in northern Indiana, near the home of Elders W. L. Lines and Geo. A. Bretz. Then we went into northern Ohio, and filled appointments arranged by Elder A. F. Dove. Then we came into southern Ohio, and visited the church at Middle Run, in Miami Association, which we had promised some time ago to do. This was an annual meeting, embracing the third Sunday in May. During this meeting a Sister Collins came to the church and related a reason of her hope and was received. Then we were at Blanchester on Monday and Tuesday. Sister Bertha Smith united with the church here, and was baptized by the unworthy writer on Tuesday afternoon. After this we visited some other churches in the Scioto Association, and some perhaps in the Muskingum. We were [pg 184] kindly and heartily received. The brethren and sisters were all good to us— far better than we feel to deserve. Their many deeds of kindness will never be forgotten. We wish we could give a more extended account of this tour, but our space forbids it. We met a number of dear and faithful brethren in the ministry, too. May the Lord abundantly bless all the dear ones we met, and those who so kindly cared for and ministered to us, is our humble prayer. We trust they will remember us kindly, and that they will pray the Lord to sustain us.
C. H. C.
WHOM DID JOHN BAPTIZE?
June 25, 1907
A. O. Jones, of Chattanooga, Tenn., asks, “When John was baptizing in the river of Jordan, was he baptizing sinners?” He was not baptizing unregenerate sinners. He came to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. They were already prepared in heart before he baptized them. When the Pharisees and Sadducees came and demanded baptism at his hands he refused them. He told them to bring forth fruits meet for repentance — that is, they must bring fruits of repentance; they must give some evidence of repentance before he would baptize them.
Those he baptized confessed their sins. They realized that they were poor, sinful creatures. That person whose heart is untouched by the Spirit of God, or the sweet influence of the love of God, does not realize the exceeding sinfulness of sin; hence he does not confess his sins, is not sorry for his sins, thinks he is as good as anybody and better than most people, and is not a subject fit for baptism, and John baptized no such characters.
C. H. C.
SALOONS AND CHURCH MEMBERS
June 25, 1907
Some of our brethren seem to want to know what we think about church members visiting saloons or bar rooms. It does not seem to us that there is room for any discussion on such a point as this. We are positively commanded to abstain from every appearance of evil, and the very mildest thing that can be said of such places is that they have the appearance of evil. Gamblers, drunkards, and wicked, profane men frequent such places; and they are not fit places for church members to go. No brother should go to any place where he would be ashamed for his wife, or mother, or sister to go with him. Any church member who continually visits such places of vice and immorality should be admonished, and if he fails to heed the admonition and continues [pg 185] on in that course, we think he should be excluded from the fellowship of the church. The Arminian world has delighted to call the Old Baptists “whisky jugs” and such like names. We have always denied being guilty, and every church claiming to be an Old Baptist Church should prove that we are not whisky Baptists by excluding any member who engages in such practice. In our country the churches do not tolerate drunkenness. We suppose this is explicit enough for all our readers to understand what we think about such. C. H. C.
LIARS NOT ALL DEAD
June 27, 1907
A clipping from the Kansas City Star has been sent to us, in which the writer proposes to give an account of the feet-washing service at Hollow Rock Church, in Carroll county, Tenn., the first Sunday in May. We never saw more falsehood crowded into so little space in our life. Concerning the custom of washing each other’s feet the writer says, “The younger generation will not perpetuate the custom— which will cease with the passing of ‘Parson’ Stoker.” This is a prophecy like so many other prophecies made by the prophets the devil and his hosts have been sending out all along the ages. It is false. The bloodthirsty murderers of the humble followers of the meek and lowly Nazarene, like this stranger to truth, have been prophesying all along that these old soldiers and their ancient customs would soon die out— all pass away and be no more. People often prophesy what they desire, and if the writer of that article in the Star was not afraid of the law of the land he would not hesitate to destroy the life of every member of the “little flock” at old Hollow Rock Church.
He says, “Hollow Rock is probably the only place in the South where the Primitives have observed the feet-washing rite during the past twenty years.” Now the writer of that article knows this is as false as Satan himself. He knows there are other churches— several of them— of the Primitive Baptist faith within twenty miles of Hollow Rock that have practiced this ordinance ever since they were constituted. He knows this is the general and almost universal practice of the Primitive Baptist churches in this section of country. If he does not know these things, we are compelled to admit we did not know there was such lamentable ignorance in West Tennessee. Some of his ilk have said some people would get to heaven on their ignorance. If such a thing is possible, then we are of the humble opinion that scribe will enter the Portals. May the Lord pity such a piece of humanity as the writer of that article, if indeed he is human.
[pg 186] We have not space, nor an inclination to notice all the vile slander from the pen of this son of the lower region, but will simply brand his statement that the men washed the feet of the women and the women washed the feet of the men as a lie of the first water and the blackest hue. The devil himself could not, personally, invent more base, low, mean, vile, black falsehood and put it in smaller compass than the writer of that article has done. Not only do we say this, but the managers of the paper ought to know that such things as are contained in that article are untrue.
The father of lies and his cohorts will continue to speak all manner of evil against the Lord’s humble followers falsely. If there is any such place as an eternal hell— and we believe there is— “all liars shall have their part in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone.”
We are informed that an article appeared in the Memphis News-Scimitar about like the one in the Kansas City Star. C. H. C.
REMARKS TO J. H. HALL
July 2, 1907
Your feelings of unworthiness is an evidence that you should offer yourself to the church. The eminent apostle to the Gentiles said, “Unto me who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.” You could not feel to be less than he did. “Whosoever loveth is born of God, and knoweth God, for God is love.” If you love the cause of Christ and love the doctrine of God our Saviour, it is an evidence of the work of grace in your heart. If you would deny yourself and take up your cross and go to the church and relate to them a reason of your hope in the Saviour and follow your Lord in baptism, you would find that sweet rest the Saviour has promised those who follow Him.
May you be encouraged to do this is our humble prayer for you.
C. H. C.
CHRIST OUR SURETY
July 2, 1907
Since Brother Radcliff asked our opinion as to whether Christ is our security, or our surety (see his letter elsewhere in this paper), we will offer a few of our thoughts on the subject. We would say, however, that we understand Christ to be the surety for His people, and have always understood this to be the doctrine of the Primitive Baptists as a denomination.
[pg 187] The very idea of Christ making atonement for His people on the cross is evidence that He was their surety. It is generally understood that if A is security for the payment of a debt owed by B, the creditor will look to B for the payment of the debt just as much as he looks to A. He holds B responsible equally with A. But if A is surety for B, then when the debt is due the creditor makes demand of A for the payment or settlement of the debt. He looks to A for settlement. Thus the Saviour became surety for His people. All their sins were charged to His account. Their sins were not charged to them and to Christ jointly, as partners in the affair, so that demand for payment could be made upon both. “The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.”— Isaiah 53:6. All their sins, all their iniquities, were laid on Him; they were charged to His account, so that demand was made of Him for payment of the debt which they owed to divine justice. Thus He became their substitute; He was offered in their stead. In that sense He was their substitute. All their sins being charged to Christ and laid on Him, the law holds no demands against them. The demand was all against Christ, and He met every demand, and paid the debt in full. “The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all”— the demand was that he pay it all, and this was upon the principle that He had assumed the debt. If He did assume the debt, it then became His, and was not, therefore, a debt owed by them both. He took upon Himself all their indebtedness, paying what they owed and setting them free therefrom.
In Paul’s letter to Philemon (Philemon 18) he said, concerning Onesimus, “If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account.” If it was put on Paul’s account, it was not put on an account against Onesimus. Paul became his surety. He did not say, “If Onesimus fails to pay, or is not able to pay it all, I will pay what he lacks,” but he said “put it on mine account” — that is, charge it against me; do not charge it against him. Thus Christ became surety for His people. Their sins were all charged to His account.
This blessed truth is a comfort and consolation to us, but time forbids us writing more. Go on, dear brother, proclaiming the truth that Christ is our surety. C.H.C.
WOMEN HELPERS
July 2, 1907
Sister M. E. Mynatt, of Charity, Mo., writes us that she read our editorial some time ago concerning women preaching and endorsed the same; but that since reading that article she has read Phil. 4:3, and asks what pew [pg 188] we would place those women in. The text reads, “And I intreat thee also, true yoke fellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellow labourers, whose names are in the book of life.” The expression, we suppose, which is referred to is “help those women which laboured with me in the gospel.” We would call attention to the fact that people may labor in the gospel, and yet not be preachers. To do what the Lord requires in the gospel, to serve Him in the gospel kingdom, is to labor in the gospel. In Rom. 16:3, Paul says, “Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus.” Aquila was a Jew, born in Pontus, and Priscilla was his wife. (see Acts 18:2) Aquila was not a preacher, but he laboured in the gospel just as his wife, Priscilla, did. Aquila and Priscilla heard Apollos preach, he knowing only the baptism of John. “They took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.” They taught him privately” — they took him unto them.” Thus they laboured in the gospel. The apostle tells us, too, in Rom. 16:4, that they “have for my life laid down their own necks.” They put their own lives in danger to help him and to save him from dangers. Persecution was great, and they hazarded their own lives to save him from danger. Oh, how comforting and encouraging are such friends and helpers in the gospel! Do the poor servants have such friends and helpers now in the Master’s service? Yes, we believe there are some, even now, who would hazard their own lives far the sake of the poor tried minister and the cross of Christ. As poor and unworthy as we are, we have met with some dear saints of God who have manifested so much kindness and tender feeling for us, that we have been led to believe they would willingly endure severe trials for our sake, were it necessary. May the rich blessings of heaven rest upon them, is our humble prayer. Yes, they are helpers in many ways. Words of comfort and encouragement fall from their lips when the poor tried minister is in despair and is feeling as though he had as well “ground arms” and quit the field; but then he is encouraged to fight on a little while longer, realizing that though his efforts appear to him to be weak, yet there are some who appreciate them and who are his friends. No one knows the trials and conflicts of the life of a true minister of Christ only those who have had the experience. Though this is true, yet the true minister, who is faithful and earnestly contends for the faith will have true friends among the humble followers of the blessed Saviour.
C. H. C.
[pg 189]
HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED
July 23, 1907
We understand that the Missionaries have at last baptized Elders R. S. Kirkland and H. E. Pettus, who were at first received on their baptism from our people. We wonder if this will settle the stir among the Soft-shells in regard to what they term alien immersion. We suppose these two men have immersed quite a number since they were received by the Missionaries, and if the baptism they were received on was not good, the Missionary folks now have a good many unbaptized people among them that these parties immersed. We wonder what disposition they will now make of all these? If Elders Kirkland and Pettus did not have gospel baptism, then these people immersed by them are not baptized. Truly, “the legs of the lame are unequal.” What will they do? C. H. C.
LADIES’ AID SOCIETY
July 30, 1907
We see in the Apostolic Herald of July 15, 1907, that a “Primitive Baptist Ladies’ Aid Society” has been organized at Boonville, Ind. It appears that the organization was effected January 10, 1907. The names of officers given are as follows:
Viola McNeely, Secretary; Melvina Jones, Vice President; Nancy Powers, Treasurer; Almeda Williams, President. These names, as officers, are signed to a letter in the Herald addressed to Elder J. W. Richardson, in which they ask his advice in the matter. They also say they laid their plans before Elder Jno. T. Oliphant, who is the pastor of the Boonville Church, and that he approved of the same. A letter is published from Elder Richardson in reply, in which he approves of the society. It seems that these letters fell into the hands of Elder W. E. Williams, who sent them to the Herald with his approval.
In the name of our only King and Law-giver, the only Saviour of sinners, who has declared by inspiration that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works,” we would ask, where are we drifting? In the name of our King we ask, is it not time to call a halt?
This society cites Rom. 16:1, “I commend unto you Phebe [pg 190] our sister, which is a servant of the church,” as sufficient authority for a “Ladies’ Aid Society.” Why, yes, of course! What a pity the poor, ignorant, old fogy Primitive Baptists have never seen until now that this meant that they should have a Ladies’ Aid Society! Oh, yes! here it is: “I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church and President of the Ladies’ Aid Society!” “Greet Priscilla, who is secretary of the Ladies’ Aid!” And so on, and on! Oh, no, that is not in the whole blessed Book! Give us book, chapter and verse, please, where they organized a Ladies’ Aid in the days of the apostles. Until this is done, you will please excuse us if we condemn the baby and insist that it is an intrusion to bring the little thing into God’s house. We would humbly, yet solemnly, warn our brethren to “touch not, taste not, handle not the unclean thing” — and all the inventions of men in the affairs of religion are unclean. The ancient Waldenses regarded all the inventions of men in the affairs of religion as an unspeakable abomination before God.
Suppose we try a little more new translation to suit the Aid Society. Turn to 2 Cor. 1:1, and read and compare with this: “Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the members of the Ladies’ Aid Society which is in all Achaia.” Compare Gal. 1:1-2, with this: “Unto the churches and Ladies’ Aid Societies of Galatia.” Compare Eph 1:1 with this: “To the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the Ladies’ Aid Societies in Christ Jesus.” Compare Phil. 1:1 with this: “To all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons, and to the Ladies’ Aid Societies, with their presidents, vice presidents, secretaries and treasurers.” Compare Col. 1:1-2 with this: “To the saints and faithful brethren and Ladies’ Aid Societies in Christ which are at Colosse.” Compare 1 Thess. 1:1 with this: “Unto the church and the Ladies’ Aid Society of the Thessalonians.” Compare Tit. 1:5 with this: “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and organize Ladies’ Aid Societies, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.” It seems to us that a careful examination of the places cited above and a comparison with the above would be sufficient to convince any Old School Baptist who is willing to simply follow the Scriptures that there is no authority for a Ladies’ Aid Society, and that it should be let alone. May the Lord help us to follow Him and His teaching and not follow after the world and the inventions of men. C. H. C.
[pg 191]
MATTHEW 23:37
August 7, 1907
Sister J. D. Rodgers, of Warrensburg, Mo., has requested us to write our views on the above mentioned text, which reads, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not.” We have often heard this text used by the Arminian world, though they usually quote it wrong. They often change it to read “How often would I have gathered thee together.” And there is another sermon that a few years ago was preached among us, called the hen and chicken sermon, in which the application was, seemingly, somewhat twisted. The old hen was so anxious to gather the chickens under her wings, but the chickens would not— so the sermon ran. The chicken was made to represent the child of God outside the church, and we suppose the hen was to represent the church. The Arminian world applies it to the alien or unregenerate sinner.
It seems to us the language is very plain. The Saviour was talking to Jerusalem, who had killed and stoned the prophets. As a result, her children were scattered and not gathered together. This Jerusalem was God’s chosen nation, and they disobeyed the law, and her children were not gathered together.
Verses 38 and 39 read, “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” With national Israel, Jerusalem, this was literally fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem— “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” National Israel was typical of spiritual Israel; in this language we have a type of the church, so that it may now be rightly applied to the church of Christ, and to her only, when she kills or stones one of the Lord’s servants whom He sends unto her. Sometimes they do stone the Lord’s ministers— not with literal stones as they formerly did, but they do stone them in different ways, by lightly esteeming them as God’s servants and in not caring for them, and in not helping them to bear their burdens. And when a church thus stones one of the Lord’s servants they will suffer for the same. Not only so, but their children are not gathered together as they would otherwise be, for the Saviour says “ye would not.” Their house is finally left unto them desolate. They suffer for their wrong doing. Sometimes an humble servant of God is stoned, because a church thinks he is not a good enough preacher for them, he is not as able in expounding the doctrine as they want— which appears that they think they are too good for such an [pg 192] insignificant man to preach for them. Sooner or later their house is left unto them desolate. The Lord will not allow them to go unpunished. He will take away the manifestation of His presence, and they shall not see Him henceforth, till they say, blessed is be that cometh in the name of the Lord. When they are ready to say. and do say, “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord,” then may they see once more a sweet manifestation of His work and presence.
We offer the above remarks for the consideration of all our readers, and pray the Lord to enable us all to walk in the right way. C. H. C.
ANOTHER ONE GONE HOME
August 13, 1907
Rev. A. M. Kirkland, of Fulton, Ky., a Hardshell Baptist preacher, has united with the Missionary Baptists, and will continue his ministry with us. He is a brother of Rev. R. S. Kirkland, who some months ago took the same step. — Fleetwood Ball, in Baptist and Reflector, Aug. 1, 1907.
The above is an item of good news to our brethren. It would be so much better for our cause if all who are in line with the Missionaries on the commission and repentance questions, as well as some other points, would go on to the Missionaries where they belong. It does look to us like the good brethren who are following and clinging to these men, but do not believe what they advocate, ought to be able to see now where they are being led to. If you think the Primitive Baptist Church is the church of Christ and if you do not believe as do the Missionaries on the commission and repentance questions, we admonish you to cease following these brethren and come back to the old church and walk in the “good old way,” and you will find rest to your souls, and we may thereby have peace.
Just here we want to give our readers the benefit of a statement from Brother P. A. Walker which we have on file in our possession. The statement is as follows:
This is to certify that on the second Sunday in October, 1905, Elder J. V Kirkland said, in conversation with me, “The time has come when we do not know where the church is.”
Faxon, Ky.
Signed, P. A. Walker
If he cannot tell where the church is he is as likely to conclude that it is in one place as another. That expression doesn’t sound much like an Old Baptist to us. Elder J. V has lately been among the Burnham people in Indiana, and wants his national meeting held at a time next year that the Burnham [pg 193] people can attend. Some of the Burnham people are now doing some missionary work in connection with the anti-board part of the Missionary Baptists. “Straws show which way the wind blows.” The leaders of the Lord’s people cause them to err. May the Lord help us to forsake men and follow Christ. C. H. C
WITH OR WITHOUT MEANS
August 20, 1907
I want someone to answer the following questions:
Was the preaching of the gospel the means of Paul’s conversion? Was it the means of Cornelius’ conversion, and Zacchaeus, and the thief on the cross, and the lunatic in the tombs?
If the preaching of the gospel is the means of salvation, and the above were saved without hearing the gospel preached-what I want to know is, are some saved by means and some without means? Has God two ways of saving the people— one by the preaching of the gospel and others without it? Someone please inform me. D. C. Wacaser
Bangor, Ala.
OUR ANSWER
We do not know that Brother Wacaser expects a reply from us to his questions, but we offer a few remarks.
The preaching of the gospel was not the means of the regeneration of Paul, Cornelius, nor any other person. Paul was present when Stephen was stoned, and gave his consent to the wicked performance, for he held the clothes of those who stoned Stephen; but the preaching had no effect on him. John tells why Stephen’s preaching had no effect on Paul at that time. Paul was yet in an unregenerate state, he was of the world, only a worldly character. “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us.” — l John 4:6. Stephen was of God in his preaching, and that character who is not of God does not hear such preaching. They may, and do, hear the vocal sound of the preacher’s voice, but they do not hear understandingly, or to profit, while they are not of God. In order to hear understandingly they must first be of God. If they must be of God first, then the preaching is too late to be a means of regeneration or to make them of God.
The case of the infant cannot be reached by means of the gospel. The infant cannot understand the gospel, and the adult is saved the same way the infant is— both are saved one way. The Saviour says, “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.” — Mark 10:15. The adult receives the kingdom of God the same way the little child does, or be does not receive it at all. The infant does not receive the [pg 194] kingdom of God, or eternal life, through the means of gospel preaching. As both infant and adult are saved the same way, it follows, therefore, that the adult does not receive the kingdom through the means of gospel preaching either.
God does not have two ways of giving life to the dead. “As the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.”— John 5:21. The Son quickens the dead sinner into divine life, raises him up out of a state of death in sin into a state of life in Christ, the very same way and by the very same divine power that the Father raises the dead. Both are done the same way, and that is one way only. “No man can come to the Father but by me,” says Jesus, who had just affirmed that “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” If He is the way, and no man cometh unto the Father but by Him, then there is only one way of eternal salvation. Sinners receive eternal life, are regenerated, just one way. The Lord speaks to them, as He did to Saul of Tarsus when he was on his journey from Jerusalem to Damascus, and when He speaks to the dead sinner He imparts life. He regenerates the sinner. “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life,” says the Redeemer.
Life is imparted by a direct touch of life; it is not imparted through a means or medium. Hence, sinners are regenerated, born of God, or born from above, or quickened into divine life, by the Spirit of God coming into direct touch with their spirits. When they have thus been made “new creatures” in Christ they are capacitated to hear and understand the gospel, and they never are until then. We are sure that the reason why many of the Lord’s children in this country of ours do not believe the gospel, or do not believe the truth, the doctrine of God our Saviour, is because of false teaching. They are blinded and led astray by false and judaizing teachers, men who are teaching for doctrine the commandments of men. There are so many, who manifest that they are willing to teach most anything, if the money flows, freely their way. They “corrupt” the word of God, or handle the word of God deceitfully for the money there is in it— making merchandise of the people, so that many of the Lord’s dear children are blinded by them and are spending their money for that which is not bread and their labor for that which satisfieth not. The gospel is for the benefit of the Lord’s children, for their comfort, encouragement and instruction. It cannot benefit one who does not receive it, and the natural man does not receive it. So, if it benefits any, it is the Lord’s children, those who have been born of God.
May the Lord help us all to contend earnestly for the doctrine of God our Saviour. We should be aggressive, but not progressive. The same old faith and practice of the apostles is good enough. Let us not try to progress and [pg 195] thereby depart from that same old teaching and practice, and thereby be on the retrograde. But let us, by the Lord’s help, be aggressive. Let us be ready to contend for the good old way. Let us remember to always face the enemy. The Lord has not given us a covering to protect our back from the enemy of truth. So let us be careful. May the Lord help and sustain us all, is our humble prayer.
C. H. C.
JONAH 3:10
August 20,1907
Brother W. R. Moore, of Luxomni, Ga., and Brother J. D. Musick, of Walnut Grove, Ala., have requested our views of Jonah 3:10, which reads as follows: “And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way, and God repented of the evil, that He had said that He would do unto them; and He did it not.”
We would say, first, that the Scriptures do not contradict themselves. If we place a construction upon any portion of Scripture which would make that portion contradict another, it is necessarily true that the construction is wrong. This being true, it follows that any construction placed upon this text that would contradict any plain statement in the Scriptures would necessarily be wrong.
In Malachi 3:6 the Lord says, “For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.” Here we are positively told that the Lord changes not. If the Lord ever changes, then this statement of the Lord Himself is not true. But the statement is true, and the Lord does not change. If He did change, then the sons of Jacob would be consumed. The sons of Jacob are all the heirs of promise. “The Lord’s portion is His people; Jacob is the lot of His inheritance.” — Deut. 32:9. Jacob was a representative character, hence the heirs of promise are called the sons of Jacob. Not one of them will ever be consumed, because the Lord does not change.
Not only is it true that the Lord does not change, but He is without variableness or shadow of turning. “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” — James 1:17. The Lord is without even the shadow of a change. He does not vary. Men may, and do, vary, change and turn, but the Lord does neither. He is the same yesterday, today and forever more. The Lord’s dealing in the case of the Ninevites was in perfect harmony with His dealings with His people. Nineveh was in wickedness and rebellion, and were not living as God required under the law. Jonah [pg 196] was sent to preach to them, and his preaching was a proclamation of the result of their wicked rebellion and disobedience. Their disobedience would bring destruction and ruin upon them. This was in perfect harmony with the declaration of the Lord Himself, as recorded in Ezek. 18:25-30, “Yet ye say, the way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; is not my way equal? Are not your ways unequal? When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and cornmitteth iniquity, and dieth in them, for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because be considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Yet saith the house of Israel, the way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? Are not your ways unequal? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord God. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions so iniquity shall not be your ruin.
The Lord’s way is equal, but their ways were not equal. Nineveh had departed from the Lord’s commandments, they were His people in rebellion. A continuation in that wickedness and rebellion would bring death. “For his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.” But Nineveh repented in sackcloth and ashes, and “when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive, he shall not die.” So Nineveh turned from her wickedness, and the Lord did not inflict the punishment of death or destruction of the city, but spared them, which was according to His promise.
The Lord’s people turn away from the right way, and thereby their peace and happiness, in this age, is destroyed. When we all engage in doing what the Lord requires and what He has commanded us as His children to do, we have peace and fellowship abounding. Doing what the Lord requires does not bring strife and confusion among the Lord’s people; that is always brought about by something the Lord has not commanded. Our peace is destroyed by doing things the Lord does not command. Let us all try to engage in doing what He requires and nothing more. Let us thereby “strive to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace.” “Let brotherly love continue.” May the Lord help us to be faithful and true to His service, is our humble prayer.
C. H. C.
[pg 197]
KNOW AS WE ARE KNOWN
August 20, 1907
Brother James H. Mitchell, of Sturgis, Miss., asks if we think we will know each other in heaven. There is a great difference of opinion on this question, and we think much of what is said about it is only speculation. The apostle says “we now see through a glass darkly,” or dimly. We only know in part now. Then may we not be safe in saying that no living man on earth today knows just how it will be in heaven, or how we shall know each other there? We are sure that when all the Lord’s children reach heaven they will know each other as the redeemed of the Lord. Fleshly ties and affections will be done away.
“Henceforth know we no man after the flesh.” “`I shall know, even as also I am known.” We should know no man after the flesh here in the service of God. But we know only in part. After awhile perfect knowledge will be ours, and we will all know each other as the redeemed. We will know Jesus as our elder Brother and Redeemer, and we will know God as our heavenly Father. This will be enough, with heaven so arranged and fixed as to give all the redeemed perfect and eternal happiness and bliss. It will be enough, and that should satisfy us. It is a place of perfection, and all our imperfections will be left behind and done away. Surely the Lord’s mercy is great to prepare such a home for us and then prepare us for such a home. Sometimes we feel a longing desire to pass over the river into that blessed home. Oh, is it for us? C. H. C.
ISAIAH 14:12
August 27, 1907
Elder W. J. Leonard, of Laurel, Miss., requests our views of Isaiah 14:12. It reads as follows: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations.” The language has direct reference to the falling of Babylon and to the King of Babylon. Verse 4 says, “That thou shalt take up this proverb against the King of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased.” The word Lucifer has no reference to Satan, but to Venus, the morning star. Satan is never in Scripture called Lucifer, though it is said that he transforms himself into an angel of light. It refers to a Babylonish King, who shone in all the splendor and glory of false worship, and who was exalted greatly in his heaven, a heaven of outward splendor and happiness and authority, then possessed by him. He weakened the nations “by subduing them, taking cities and towns, plundering the inhabitants of [pg 198] their substance, carrying them captive, or obligating them to a yearly tribute, by which means he weakened them, and kept them under. This, although referring to Babylon of old, and to King Belshazzar, in all probability typifies Romish anti-Christ, for as they weakened the nations, so Romish anti-Christ got the power over many nations of the earth, reigned over the kings, and by various methods and measures drained them of their wealth and riches, and thereby greatly enfeebled them. The one who weakened, or killed, the people was cast down to the earth. Rome has slain thousands of the Lord’s children because they would not deny their Redeemer. But Babylon will finally be destroyed, overthrown, cast down.
These thoughts are offered for the consideration of our readers.
C. H. C.
REPLY TO M. C. COLE
September 3, 1907
On another page of this paper will be found a letter from M. C. Cole. He sent a letter containing some questions to the editor of the Sword and Shield, a Missionary Baptist paper, and it seems that the editor of that paper made no reply to Brother Cole’s questions, so he now sends the letter to us with the request that we comment on the same. It seems to us that Brother Cole has already given a Scriptural and logical answer to his own questions, and it is our judgment that he will be disappointed if he expects his positions to be overthrown. We will answer his questions by number as follows:
1. Yes, the sinner in his unregenerate state is totally dead to spiritual things.
2. The gospel was given for the spiritual benefit or comfort of the regenerate, those who are born of God.
3. The commission, as recorded in Matthew and Mark, was given directly to the apostles. The commission was not given to the church.
4. The lost sinner, or the unregenerate sinner, cannot partake of spiritual food. The unregenerate sinner is not in possession of spiritual life. In order that one partake of natural food, he must first be in possession of natural life.
Just so, in order that one partake of spiritual food, he must first be in possession of spiritual life. The gospel food is for the regenerate character, that one who has the spiritual life.
5. There is no difference between spiritual quickening and the giving of spiritual or eternal life. To quicken is to give life, to make alive from the dead.
[pg 199] 6. The receiving of eternal life does not depend upon the written or preached word. Sinners are regenerated in all ages the very same way and by the very same power. “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.” So says the Saviour. Hence the adult is saved the same way the infant is saved— both are saved the same way. The infant is not saved through the instrumentality of the written or preached word, and neither is the adult.
7. Christ did that which He came into the world to do. The angel said He should save His people from their sins. He came to make reconciliation for their sins, to redeem them from under the curse of the law, and He finished the work. “By His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”— Heb. 9:12. “When He had by Himself purged our sins, He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”— Heb. 1:3. He did not leave this work to another. God does not leave His work to another. If He did not do the work He came to do, and left it for another, as no other is able to do the work, He not only did not fill His mission, but no one of Adam’s race could ever be saved in heaven.
8. The gospel was not given that life might be imparted through the preached word. “As the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.”— John 5:21. “The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth.”— John 5:28-29. The dead will not be raised from the graves through the preached word or proclamation of the gospel; and “as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.” The Son quickens the dead sinner into life the very same way that the dead will be raised from the graves; so it is not done by the preaching of the gospel. The word gospel means good news, and is good news to no others only those who have been quickened into life; hence is for the child of God, and is not for the unregenerate. To find a statement of the object of the gifts in the ministry see Eph. 4:11-12,13. They are given for the perfecting of the saints— not to make saints.
9. The natural child, after birth, is a child of its parents by birth.
10. No, Christ did not die that all the human race might be saved. If He had, then all the race would be saved. He died for the Lord’s elect. “For the transgression of my people was He stricken.”— Isa. 53:8.
As we understand it, Brother Cole is right on these points. This doctrine does more than give you a chance, Brother Cole, for this plan of salvation is sure. As the natural man does not receive such teaching as this, it follows that you are a child of God. Therefore this makes salvation sure for you. If we had to render obedience in order to be saved in heaven, none of us [pg 200] would ever enter the glory world. Sinners are saved in heaven by grace only. We are sure you are not at home among the Missionary Baptists, and we would admonish you, as one that loves all those who believe and love the doctrine of salvation by grace, to come to the Primitive Baptists, who love and teach this doctrine, and ask for a home with them. We believe it would be a sweet home for you. May the Lord bless and direct you, is our humble prayer. If we can be of any service or help to you, feel perfectly free to write to us. C. H. C.
IN EAST AND MIDDLE TENNESSEE
September 10, 1907
We left home on Thursday, August 15, to fill the appointments as published for us. We arrived at Cedar Springs Church, in Marion county, Tenn., near Condra Station (Cedar Springs post office), the place of meeting of the Sequatchie Valley Association, at about noon on Friday. At this meeting we met Elders R. O. Raulston, M. A. Hackworth, A. G. Sharp and H. L. Golston, who are members of this association; and Elders J. G. Woodfin and H. F. Agee, of the Elk River; D. H. Cordell and C. H. Dykes, of Collins River. This was a pleasant meeting, and peace and harmony prevailed throughout. Brother B. F. Condra, who is a member of our home church, was with us at this association and at South Pittsburg on Monday night following. His former home was at Cedar Springs Church, and he met many of his relatives and old friends. He returned home on Tuesday.
After the association closed we filled appointments at South Pittsburg on Monday and Monday night, Sweetens Cove on Tuesday and Wednesday, Jasper Wednesday night, at the home of Brother Wilson Condra, near Cedar Springs Church, who is afflicted and not able to go to the church, on Thursday, and then at Dunlap on Thursday night. Elder Raulston was with us at all these places except Sweetens Cove, and is yet with us. We are going with him in his buggy from place to place.
On Friday morning we went to the Collins River Association, at Yellow Springs Church, on the mountain. The following ministers were in attendance: Elders C. H. Dykes, D. H. Cordell, Peter Anderson, and T. B. Lankford, of the Collins River; L. F. Evans, of the Round Lick; H. L. Golston and R. O. Raulston, of the Sequatchie Valley. This was another pleasant meeting. The Collins River is the association our father, Elder S. F. Cayce, was attending when he died two years ago. On Sunday night we tried to preach at a meeting house near the home of a Mr. Moffitt, a brother in the flesh to Brother Venus Moffitt, and then spent the night with Mr. Moffitt. He lives [pg 201] at the old home place of his father, who was an Old Baptist minister, and who is lovingly remembered by many in that country.
On Monday we went to Sulphur Springs Church, near Irving College, where our father died. We saw where the stand was erected, a part of which yet remains there, and saw about where be stood just before he fell. We saw the spot where the cot stood upon which he lay when he breathed his last. It was in the public road and under a large poplar tree which stood near. We saw the house where his body lay on Sunday night, and went into the room. No one who has never had the experience can imagine our feelings as we viewed these things for the first time since our dear father passed away. It seemed to us that we could almost feel his presence and hear his voice proclaiming the sweet and glorious truth that “as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly,” as we stood there beholding the spot where he fell in the service.
Oh, that God would enable us to be faithful as he was. And we do pray that heaven’s richest blessings may be bountifully bestowed upon the dear brethren and friends who were so kind and attentive to our dear father and to us.
From Sulphur Springs Church we went to Bildad Church, in the bounds of the Round Lick Association, and were there on Wednesday and Wednesday night. At this church we met Elders P. G. Byers and L. P. Potter. Brother Potter came with us to Mt. View Church today— Thursday, Aug. 29, where we had meeting today and tonight.
It is now 11:25 p. m. We are at the home of Brother T. R. Vaughan.
The brethren are kind and good to us, and we have been kindly received by them at every place we have gone. We are enjoying the company of Brother Raulston, who expects to be with us until the close of the Round Lick Association next Monday, which will be before this paper is printed or mailed. We desire an interest in the prayers of all the brethren, that the Lord may keep us humble and at the feet of our brethren, who are all so good and kind to us. C. H. C.
REMARKS TO V P. FERGUSON
September 10, 1907
We do not know that we fully grasp the meaning of your question. If you mean by “preparing questions and answers,” the preparation of Sunday school literature, or such as is used in Sunday schools, will say that our chief objection is to the present avowed object of the Sunday school— that of teaching people to make children of God of them. Another objection is that the Sunday school is of recent origin, and Christ gave all that is necessary in connection [pg 202] with His church and its organization.
We think our brethren in the ministry are always ready to answer any question put to them by any enquirer after truth. We would suggest, dear brother, that you take the Bible as the man of your counsel, and “pin your faith to no man’s coat sleeve.” The Bible is a safe guide, and our opinions are worthless unless they are in harmony with it. May the Lord bless you, and give you the sweet influence of His Holy Spirit, and bless THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST to your comfort and instruction, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
MISSIONS A FAILURE
November 5, 1907
A remarkable case of apostasy has occurred in the missionary field of the United Brethren. A missionary in Africa took a native baby and reared it, and when he came to this country gave the boy a high school and medical-college education; then the young man was sent back to his own tribe to do missionary work. He married in this country, and took his wife from Dayton, O., with him to his former home. Their four children are now in school in this country, but the man has renounced Christianity, has turned to heathenism, and now, at the age of nearly fifty years, has become chief of his tribe, a devil worshiper, contracted plural marriages, and taken on the habits of a heathen. What is the matter? It seems to us that the mistake was in undertaking to educate a human soul into Christianity. The human appliances were all right. They did the best they could. They kept the man for half a century; but they could not get the heathen out of him, nor fortify him against heathenism when brought into direct contact with it. There is but one way to make Christians. God alone can create the soul anew and make it a new creature in Christ Jesus. God alone can take the heathenism out of the human soul. Let us never forget that man must be born again.-The Methodist (Fulton, Ky)., Oct. 23, 1907.
The above clipping from The Methodist is only another evidence of the truthfulness of the claim made by the Primitive Baptists that the “human appliances” are a failure and do not result in the salvation of sinners. Our position all along has been that “God alone can create the soul anew and make it a new creature in Christ Jesus;” that “God alone can take the heathenism out of the human soul.” The editor of The Methodist has admitted our claim on this, and it is next in order to renounce all the ponderous machinery and human appliances of the modern religious world, invented by men in the name of Christianity to make merchandise of the people. The whole missionary scheme to evangelize and Christianize the world is the invention of Rome, and those who are engaging in it are following the footsteps of Rome. We are sure many are doing so unwittingly, and we believe many are honest, but deceived. Such occurrences as the above should have a tendency to open the eyes of some of the Lord’s children who are deceived, and on that account fostering and aiding those enterprises.
C. H. C.
[pg 203]
GENESIS 6:1-4
November 12, 1907
Brother H. F. Holley, of Purvis, Miss., has requested our views of Genesis 6:1-4, which reads as follows: “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”
We think the “daughters of men” represent the institutions or inventions of men. The sons of God, or God’s children, married or united with the inventions of men; they engaged in such worship as was invented by men. Long before this Cain made an offering unto the Lord of the fruit of the ground. The offering he made was produced by his own labor, and was the fruit of the ground, from “beneath” and not from “above.” Abel “brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.” His offering was of the right kind, it representing the offering which Christ should make, in which there was shedding of blood. But the “sons” of God did not continue to make such offerings as Abel made” they took them wives of the daughters of men. They united with and joined in the offerings and services that were invented by men. Like many of God’s children do now, they were married to or united with and joined in service that God did not accept.
The expression, “My Spirit shall not always strive with man,” has no reference whatever to the work of regeneration. There is no reference to regeneration in the whole connection. “Yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.” Just one hundred and twenty years from that time the flood came and man was destroyed from off the face of the earth. That the destruction of man is what is referred to is clearly seen by reading the entire chapter. Verse 7 says, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth.” This was done in just one hundred and twenty years— “yet his 2 days shall be an hundred and twenty years.” If the expression, “My Spirit shall not always strive with man,” has reference to the work of the Spirit in regeneration, then it would follow that the work of regeneration ceased at the expiration of one hundred and twenty years from that time. But this was not under consideration, as we have seen.
These are a few of the thoughts we have had in connection with the passage [pg 204] referred to. We have not time or space to go into a more lengthy discussion of the same, but submit these to our readers, trusting they may be blessed of the Lord to the good of some of the Lord’s children.
C. H. C.
GREENFIELD-PHILESIC ASSOCIATION
November 19, 1907
Our association, the Greenfield-Philesic, was held with the church at Greenfield, Tenn., on Friday, Saturday and third Sunday in October. There were thirteen ministers in attendance, besides those who were members in this association. Besides the preaching at the stand every day, there was preaching at different places every night. The preaching was all a unit, no one seemed to have a hobby to ride, and there was much rejoicing among the saints. Love and fellowship prevailed throughout the entire meeting.
Brother Latnay Miller, son of Brother L. V Miller, who has lately moved to Martin from Illinois, offered himself for membership on Saturday night after preaching by Elder C. F. Stuckey, of Norris City, Ill., at a schoolhouse about four miles west of Greenfield. He was heartily received into the fellowship of the brethren, and was baptized by the writer on the fourth Sunday in October, our regular meeting here in Martin.
Our association was a very pleasant meeting, and will be long remembered. We feel to thank the Lord for His wonderful mercies, and to press on a few more fleeting months in His delightful service. May His grace sustain us all, and may He give us all the Christian courage and fortitude to press forward all the time in praise and honor to His name, doing what little He requires of us as His children. We often feel discouraged and cast down; but we often feel to take courage from His blessed and enduring and sure promises, and are willing to go on enduring the trials of life. May the Lord help us all so to do, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
QUESTIONS OF ORDER
November 19, 1907
Dear Editor of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST-Will you for the good of Zion answer the following queries:
No. 1. If a man is an admitted adulterer and comes to the church claiming that God for Christ’s sake has forgiven his sins, and the church receives him, would it be gospel order for him to live as he was living before?
No. 2. If a brother involves himself in debt and lets his notes and accounts go unpaid until [pg 205] his creditors lose confidence and offer his notes or accounts for less than one-fifth face value— is it gospel order for the brother to put money into the hands of another and buy in his notes or accounts for less than 20 cents on the dollar?
No. 3. Is it gospel order for one or two churches of an association to charge a sister church with disorder in practice, when they are from twenty to forty miles away and have not visited or investigated her?
M. L. Barrett. Bonham, Tex.
OUR ANSWER
In reply to No. 1, will say we do not consider it gospel order for a church to retain a brother or sister in her communion who continues to live in adultery. The Scriptures are very clear on this, it seems to us. See 1 Cor. 5.
In answer to No. 2 will say that we certainly consider it, not only contrary to gospel order, but contrary to common honesty for a man to refuse to pay his just debts if he can pay them. A man may be unavoidably involved in debt so that he cannot pay. Or he may be involved so that he cannot pay at a certain time; yet if he endeavors to pay, and if he does pay when he can, we do not think he is to be condemned. Of course he should be careful about going in debt. If one does become involved so that he is unable to pay what he owes, dollar for dollar, and can honorably procure a compromise from his creditors, which is sometimes done, we do not think he should be condemned. We do think, however, that he is doing wrong to pay only a part of the amount he owes, if he could pay all. It has been a distinguishing mark of the Old Baptists that they pay their debts, and we think they should tenaciously live up to that reputation.
Replying to No. 3, will say that in our judgment no one certain rule could apply in all cases. Circumstances could be such that what would be right in one instance would be wrong in another. It is not always absolutely necessary to visit a church in a certain locality to know that the church in that locality is in disorder. If a church is in disorder, and a sister church is aware of it, we do not see that they are necessarily compelled to visit the disorderly church in order to charge them with the disorder. It is right to endeavor to reclaim those who enter into disorderly practice, but we do not think it is always necessary to visit them before they can be charged with the disorder. We know nothing about what gave rise to the above queries, but have tried to give a brief answer to them, according to our humble judgment, as we understand the questions. Let us all try to do right, and do as we would be done by. C. H. C.
[pg 206]
ROMANS 10:13-15
November 19, 1907
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother in Christ— Will you please explain Romans 10:13-15? I ask for information, and I feel that, with the help of God, you could give us some light on the subject. Yours in much love,
W. B. Screws. Aline, Ga.
OUR ANSWER
We are always willing to give what views we may have on any passage of Scripture. If we are not right we want to be. The passage Elder Screws asks our views on is one much relied on by the whole Arminian world to prove that no one can enter heaven without first believing on Christ, or believing the gospel, and that therefore the gospel should be preached for this object— hence, that no one can be saved in heaven where the gospel is not preached. The passage reads: “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!” Verses 16, 17 and 18 read, “But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes, verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.”
The apostle starts out in this chapter by saying, “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” This shows us clearly that Israel, or the Lord’s people, were under consideration, and not unregenerate or alien sinners. Many of God’s people now, the Israel of God, are ignorant of God’s righteousness, and are going about to establish their own righteousness. They seem to expect to reach heaven on their own obedience or right doing. They are not submitting themselves to the righteousness of God. They are ignorant of the way of salvation. They have zeal, but not according to knowledge. The zeal is all right, but it is expended in the wrong way. The zeal is of God, but false teachers lead them astray, and they are zealous in the inventions of men, endeavoring to establish their own righteousness, instead of being zealous in what God commands and requires. They have been taught the doctrines and [pg 207] commandments of men by false teachers, hence they are ignorant of God’s righteousness. Although this is true, yet they have an experimental knowledge of the Lord in the pardon and forgiveness of their sins, for the apostle says in verse 8. “The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach.” The same apostle says, “We preach Christ crucified.” The same Christ that is preached by the true minister dwells in the heart of His regenerated people by the Holy Spirit. This being true, there is an agreement or harmony in the experience of the child of God and the gospel, good news, glad tidings proclaimed by the minister of Christ. So when the child of God hears this glad tidings, there is a witness within testifying to the truthfulness of what he hears — hence the comfort and encouragement in hearing the good news. It bears witness with what we have experienced. All this shows clearly that the first work is the inward work of grace the Lord performs in the heart, the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. That is the first thing requisite to calling on the name of the Lord. If this is not the first thing necessary, then one must call on the name of the Lord from the heart while he yet has a bad heart. If the heart is changed, or made good, in order that he be able to call on the name of the Lord from a good heart, and those who have a good heart are in a saved state, or are children of God, then it is too late for him to call on the name of the Lord in order to become a child of God. That those who have a good heart are children of God is very evident from the Saviour’s teaching in Matt. 5:8, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” Then if they do not call on the name of the Lord from a bad heart, the heart must be made good first. If the heart is made good before they call on the name of the Lord, they have the promise before they call that they shall see God. Then their calling on the name of the Lord cannot be in order to their seeing God or entering heaven. But if God’s children were calling on the name of the Lord instead of missionary boards, men, and measures invented by them, they would be saved from many of the gins, snares, and pitfalls set by men to delude, deceive and seduce the Lord’s children and to draw disciples after them.
Certainly, they will not call on Him in whom they have not believed. Inwardly, or experimentally, deep down in the soul of all the Lord’s children, there is a cry which goes out to the Lord, having been taught a lesson experimentally which cannot be taught any other way. But outwardly, or doctrinally, or practically, they do not call on the name of the Lord unless they believe the doctrine of God our Saviour. And to believe the doctrine in its fullness it is necessary that they hear it. Then, “how shall they hear without a preacher?” If the Lord had no use for the preachers He would not call and send them out. Surely, the Lord has a use for His ministers. He commands [pg 208] them to teach; to feed, to comfort His sheep. In order that the minister do this, the subject to be taught or comforted must first be a living subject.
“And how shall they preach, except they be sent?” The preacher usually preaches the power that sent him. If he is always preaching about money, telling about how many souls are going to hell because they lack money to send the gospel to them, or if the burden of his discourses is money, it is evident money is the moving power or authority for his going. If he preaches the power of man, it is evident he is sent by the authority of man. If the power of God and love and mercy of God is the burden of his discourses, it is evidence that God sent him. Yes, the Lord sends His ministers. They are not to be sent by a board, church, society, men or set of men. “Pray the Lord of the harvest, that He would send forth laborers into His harvest.” This is the language of the Saviour as recorded in Luke 10:2. Why pray the Lord of the harvest, if the men are ready and willing, and can’t go, because the people will not give?— the Lord has called, the college has qualified, and the board, or society, or association, or church, can’t send because the people are too stingy and covetous! May the Lord deliver us from such a theory! Truly, the harvest is plenteous and the laborers are few. There are many laborers, but oh how few are the true and faithful ones. Dear brethren, do you realize how few they are? Then “pray the Lord of the harvest, that He would send laborers into His harvest.” The Lord does the sending— and how shall one preach the truth if the Lord does not send him? “How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things.” His walk must be in harmony with his preaching. If he preaches the truth, but lives a life not harmonious with his preaching, then his preaching will have no good influence. Did you ever hear one preach in whom you had no confidence because his walk was not right? Did you enjoy the preaching? His preaching was not glad tidings to you. His walk must be upright if his preaching benefits those who know him. Oh, how beautiful should his walk be! How careful the minister of the gospel should be of his walk. If his walk is such as becometh sound doctrine, and the doctrine he preaches is sound, then the hearts of the saints are comforted, edified and built up, and the Lord’s little children are united together in love and fellowship, and there are no divisions. Oh, that the Lord would send forth true and faithful and humble laborers into His harvest!
Let us strive, dear brethren, to live humble and devoted to the cause of our Master and devoted to one another, and help one another and not try to destroy; let us endeavor to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. The Lord will provide. Let us go in obedience to Him, not trusting in men, but in the Lord alone. C. H. C.
[pg 209]
QUESTIONS FROM J. H. KUYKENDALL
November 26, 1907
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Please answer the following questions in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST:
Is salvation conditional or unconditional?
If unconditional, why did Christ come to call sinners to repentance? Luke 5:32.
If unconditional, can a Gentile be saved?
If unconditional, what will become of the infant that dies and is not one of the elect?
Hillsboro, Texas, R. 8.
J. H. Kuykendall
OUR ANSWER
Eternal salvation is unconditional on the part of the sinner. No one can act in order to life; so if any ever received eternal life, it could not have depended on a condition performed by them. If it is conditional on their part, and no one can act without life, or in order to life, then no one could ever be saved.
If salvation had been conditional there would have been no need of Christ coming to call sinners to repentance. If this repentance is a condition in order to the receiving of eternal life, the life depending on their repenting, they could have performed the condition as easily without Christ coming as with it. So, if this salvation is conditional, the coming of Christ is in vain, and He accomplished nothing by His coming. The text referred to says Christ “came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” It does not say He came to call on them to repent, but to call them to repentance. He calls them to repentance. When He calls the sinner, therefore, He calls him to repentance— the sinner thus called repents. The call precedes the repentance. If God calls the sinner, He calls him out of nature’s night into the marvelous light and liberty of the kingdom of His Son. This is done in the call then repentance follows the call. Repentance, then, follows after life has been given, and is not in order to the receiving of life.
Yes, eternal salvation is unconditional, and Gentiles can be saved. They could not be saved if their salvation depended on conditions to be performed by them.
Eternal salvation is unconditional, but you cannot, nor can any other man, ever prove that an infant dies that is not one of the elect. Your question on this point is based on a mere supposition that an infant dies not being embraced in God’s election. And that’s the foundation for the whole Arminian fabric— it is based on the sandy foundation of human supposition and the inventions of designing men to make merchandise of the people.
Now suppose we ask a few questions:
[pg 210] Is eternal salvation conditional or is it unconditional, on the part of the one saved?
If it is conditional, what are the conditions?
Does it depend upon obeying the gospel?
If one obeys either law or gospel does he not act?
Can one act without working?
If one cannot act without working, and cannot obey without acting, and his salvation depends upon his obedience, is not salvation by works?
Now will you compare and reconcile your position with that of Paul in Eph. 2:8-10, “For by grace are ye saved through faith: and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them;” Rom. 9:16, “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy;” 2 Tm. 1:9, “Who hath saved us and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began;” Tit. 3:5,6, “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour.”
If eternal salvation is conditional, does it not follow that one must act in order to life?
Can the dead act in order to life?
If the dead cannot act in order to life, and the salvation of the dead sinner depends upon his act, does not his salvation depend upon an impossibility?
If the salvation of the sinner depends upon an impossibility, can he ever be saved? If so, how?
If the sinner is not so dead as Old Baptists say he is, then how dead is be? Is he as dead as Paul says be is? If he is as dead as Paul says he is, is he not as dead as Old Baptists say he is? How many degrees are there in death?
If eternal salvation is conditional, and depends upon obedience to the gospel, how can anyone be saved who never bears the gospel preached?
How can the heathen be damned for rejecting Christ or the gospel, when he never heard the gospel, therefore had no opportunity of rejecting it?
If the heathen is damned because he does not believe the gospel, when he has never heard it, and you have the means to send the gospel to him (therefore, you have the means of his salvation), yet you do not send it to him, are you not to blame for his damnation?
[pg 211] Is God just if He damns the heathen and allows you to enter heaven, when the blame for the damnation of the heathen rests on you?
Would not the wrong party be sent to hell?
Can the infant obey the gospel?
If the infant cannot obey the gospel, and salvation depends upon obedience thereto, can the infant be saved?
If eternal salvation depends upon obedience to the gospel, how could any be saved before the gospel dispensation?
Many more questions along the same line might be asked, but we will just give a little argument, which no Arminian theologian can ever answer. We give it in the form of syllogisms, taking their own position as the second premise in the first syllogism, thereby placing them in a dilemma from which they can never escape.
FIRST SYLLOGISM
1st. Whatever is essential as a condition of salvation is absolute, universal and without exception.
2nd. Obedience to the gospel is a condition of salvation.
3rd. Therefore, obedience to the gospel as a condition of salvation is absolute, universal and without exception.
SECOND SYLLOGISM
1st. Obedience to the gospel as a condition of salvation is absolute, universal and without exception.
2nd. Infants cannot obey the gospel.
3rd. Therefore, the damnation of the infant is absolute, universal and without exception.
This is the inevitable result of every Arminian theory under the sun. Try it all you please and you can never escape the conclusion. But the second premise is wrong— salvation does not depend on obedience to the gospel, nor on conditions to be performed by the sinner.
May the Lord bless these thoughts to the good of our readers, and to the good of all into whose hands this may come; and may He graciously grant an understanding that His children may see and understand the truth.
C. H. C.
[pg 212]
GALATIANS 5:4
November 26, 1907
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— Please give me your views on Gal. 5:4. In what sense have they fallen from grace? May the Lord’s richest blessings rest upon you, is my humble prayer. Your little brother in hope of eternal life,
Murray Fly.
Paris, Texas.
OUR ANSWER
The text reads, “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” Paul was writing to the Galatian brethren, and he recognized them as brethren. This fact is sufficient to show conclusively that they had not “fallen from grace” in the sense that apostasy is taught by the world— they had not lost their eternal life or spiritual relationship with God. These brethren had been deluded by false teachers, and were claiming justification by the law. They did not claim this before they were deluded, but since they had been deluded this was their claim. Now, if you are justified by the deeds of the law “Christ is become of no effect unto you.” What Christ has done amounts to nothing if you may be justified by the deeds of the law. In claiming justification by the law you set aside all the work of Christ in your salvation. You once rejoiced in salvation by grace, you claimed salvation through the work of Christ alone. But you have fallen from that— you now claim justification by the deeds of the law. Notice verses 1 to 3 of chapter 3. The third verse says, “Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” In verse 1 of chapter 5 he says, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” Many of God’s children are entangled with the yoke of bondage and are, seemingly, expecting justification by the deeds of the law instead of resting from law worship and law service in gospel worship and service. Some who once did rest in gospel service have departed from it— they have fallen from grace— and are trusting in their own deeds in obedience to law for justification. Let us “stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.” C. H. C.
VALID BAPTISM
November 26, 1907
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Friend— Please answer the following questions through your paper: Suppose I join the church, and the preacher is sincere at the time of my baptism, and afterwards he turns out a public [pg 213] drunkard and swearer— should I fear I had not been baptized by a legal administrator? When I see this I am persuaded to say (or almost) that such was deceived in the beginning, hence all would be false. This is my idea about it. Yours truly,
J. R. Freeman
Eufaula, Ala.
OUR ANSWER
We do not think Brother Freeman’s conclusion is correct every time. Such a conclusion would be equivalent to saying a minister could not be so overcome by the temptations of Satan as to give way to them through the weakness of the flesh. A child of God— a true minister of the gospel— may yield to temptation and go far from the path of rectitude and right, so far that there may be but little outward evidence that he is a child of God.
Indeed, we do not know how far wrong the Lord may sometimes suffer one of His children to wander away in sin and wickedness. We think that if one is called of God (and the best evidence we have that a man is called to preach is that he does preach) and is set apart by the church to administer the ordinances, so long as he is in order, baptism administered by him to a proper subject in water is gospel baptism.
We do not think that what the minister may do after the baptism is administered could in any way affect the validity of the baptism. If it could, then it is very doubtful if there is one living today who has valid baptism; for if the wrong doing of the minister would invalidate the baptism administered before the wrong was committed, the wrong would also invalidate all the other official acts which he may have performed.
This would result in no one having gospel baptism or valid ordination. If an officer does a wrong for which he is impeached and deposed from office, that does not affect the acts performed by him while in office before; they are all just as valid as though he had not done the wrong. These things are worthy of careful thought. C. H. C.
PRIMITIVE
December 3, 1907
A few days ago a copy of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, published at Martin, Tenn., fell into our hands. While it had a great deal to say about experimental religion, there was an air of self-appropriation about it that was very noticeable to us. But it is more particularly the “Primitive” that we wish to say some things about.
The word primitive means “original,” and of course they claim to be the original, or first Baptists. But is their claim valid? or can it be sustained? There is no doubt but what the church which Jesus Christ instituted was a Baptist church, but was it identical with the faith and practice of the so-called Primitive church of today? We are willing to admit that their faith in part is in accordance with Scriptural teaching, yet in practice they are in many things far from it. If the first Baptist churches had held in full to the same faith and practice as held to by them today, there would long since ceased to have been any Baptist churches in the world.
[pg 214] Their systems have the seeds of death in them, and they would long since have perished, had it not been for the Missionaries. As much as they decry us their own existence depends upon the Missionaries.
They have appropriated to themselves the wrong name. Their real name is Anti-Missionary. To prove that they are not the original Baptists, they deny the commission of our Saviour, when He said, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” It is true some of them claim that the commission was fulfilled by the apostles, and is no longer in force upon the churches. The promise of the Saviour to be with them “unto the end of the world,” proves this to be erroneous.
The commission was given unto the churches, and the church will exist unto the end of time, and hence “to preach the gospel to every creature” is a part of her mission in the world. Again, our Saviour says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you into the world.”
Christ’s mission into the world was to preach His own everlasting gospel, and He says this is the church’s mission also.
No people who deny the commission can be Primitive Baptists, and it is wrong for us to call them that. It always makes us feel sad to hear our people call them by that name, for we virtually thereby admit that we are not Scriptural Baptists. James says faith without works is dead, being alone, and this is verified in them— Mississippi Baptist (Newton, Miss.), July 3, 1907.
The above clipping from the Mississippi Baptist, a Missionary Baptist paper published at Newton, Miss., was sent to us by one of our brethren.
Of course there “was an air of self-appropriation about it.” Of course it is an “air of self-appropriation” for one to tell what the Lord has done for him. David says, “Come and hear, all ye that fear God, and I will declare what He hath done for my soul.”— Psa. 66:16.
To such people as the editor of the Mississippi Baptist, to tell what the Lord has done for one’s soul is an “air of self-appropriation.” It is very noticeable to him to read a paper that declares what the Lord hath done for poor sinners. He is not accustomed to reading such.
But if the writers for THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST had been telling of wonderful things they and others were doing for the Lord, it would not have been so noticeable to this editor of the Missionary Baptist persuasion. He is accustomed to reading and writing along that line. When he reads things that are so unusual to him, and which he so seldom sees, of course he notices it.
He says, “of course they claim to be the original, or first, Baptists.” Of course we do. But we claim nothing more than what is ours and belongs to us. All well informed people belonging to other orders know we are the original Baptists; and honest well-informed men among the Missionary Baptists have admitted it. You know that the first missionary society among the Baptists was formed in 1792, by Fuller, Carey, and some of their fellow laborers. Those were new societies and new inventions introduced among [pg 215] the Baptists. They were unknown in the apostolic age and for centuries after among the Baptists. You know this to be true, and that your people— the Missionary Baptists— are following after and practicing those new things that were introduced by those men among the Baptists. Hence your people have departed from the original faith and practice of the Baptist Church. You know this is true; hence you must also know you cannot be the original Baptists.
He further says, “they would long since have perished, had it not been for the Missionaries.” Yes, it was prophesied before you were born, perhaps, that these despised Old Baptists would soon all be dead. But they would live on if there were no missionaries of the modern sort. They lived until 1792 without any of the modern missionary soul-saving machinery now in use by the Missionary or New School Baptists; and they will continue to live, notwithstanding your deceptive efforts to make people believe you are the original order of Baptists, and your bloodthirsty desire, born of a corrupt heart, for their death. The system of salvation taught by the Primitive Baptists is the only system sufficient to reach the case of poor sinners. They can be saved in heaven no other way than by grace through the all-sufficient work of Christ, and that is the system they teach. Indeed, it is the seed of death to the blasphemous heresies taught by the Roman sprout, who call themselves Missionary Baptists. But to the heaven-born soul who understands the truth, the system taught by the Primitive Baptists is joy and peace.
Your charge that the Primitive Baptists deny the commission of our Saviour is false. We do not deny it. But “He said unto them,” the eleven, “Go ye into all the world,” etc. He did not say to the whole church “go,” but to the eleven. “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” Jesus came into the world by the authority of the Father, and these were to go by the authority of Christ. But your preachers go by the authority of the boards and other societies. None of the so-called soul-saving work you are engaged in is authorized by the Son of God, and you are not going by His authority. Your society is no more the church of Christ than is Rome. Your modern men-made machinery is borrowed from Rome, and your doctrine is largely borrowed from her, and you are more like the mother of harlots than the chaste bride of Christ. May the Lord have mercy on His poor deluded little children who are deluded by you and entangled with the yoke of bondage put upon them by those who “teach for hire” and “divine for money.”
If your people are so sure you are the original Baptists, why doesn’t your brother come to time for a discussion we were to have with him on this question in Mississippi? We have been waiting two years for him to set the [pg 216] time, but it seems that he is “clean gone.” You, seemingly, want to be called by our name to take away your reproach, but you can’t even have the name. Poor fellows!
C. H. C.
FOOTBALL AND MISSIONS
December 3, 1907
Saturday 40,000 people paid $68,000 to see Yale and Harvard play football. And to think that all that money would have kept thirty missionaries in China for a year — Nashville (Tenn.) American, Nov. 26, 1907.
Yes, and the poor Chinese dying and going to hell every day because the missionaries don’t go! Just think how many poor Chinamen will go to hell because these “Christian” people spent this money to see a football game, instead of using it to send the gospel to them! And these same “Christian” people tell us, too, that the heathen are going to hell for the want of the gospel!
In the minutes of the Tennessee Baptist Convention of 1906 we are told that this people contributed for state missions (Tennessee) for the year, $16,582.63, and that they had 2,986 conversions. Each convert, therefore, cost them $5.55 each. At this rate, the $68,000 spent for the football game would have saved 12,241 souls in Tennessee! Is it not horrible that 12,241 people in our own state of Tennessee are to suffer the torments and vengeance of eternal fire because the people who profess to be engaged in the soul-saving business spent this money to satisfy their own fleshly desires and pleasure? Does it not look like the wrong party is sent to hell? Lord, deliver us from such blasphemous and damnable heresy. C. H. C.
SOME DIE IN DISOBEDIENCE
December 10, 1907
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother in the Lord— Will you kindly give me, through the columns of your paper, your views on Rom. 10:17?
Will the Lord suffer one of His children, one of the elect, to wander off into sin and die in that condition? Have we such a case on record? I know that the Lord saves His people with an everlasting salvation, that there is no final falling away, or falling from grace, as some term it.
There are some Campbelites here who claim that if a child of God wanders off in sin and dies in that condition, he will be lost. I know that nothing can separate us from the love of [pg 217]God which is in Christ, but the point I want to know is, Will the Lord suffer one of His children to die in disobedience— in Babylon. Your views on the subject will be greatly appreciated. Yours in an humble hope,
Charles W. Lyens.
Holt Ave., Macon, Ga.
OUR ANSWER
In our issue of Nov. 19 we gave our views on Rom. 10:13-15, and in the article we quoted also the 17th verse, which reads, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” The faith referred to in this text is, we think, the historical, or rather, the doctrinal faith produced by hearing the gospel or doctrine of Christ preached or proclaimed in its purity and simplicity. But that does not produce hearing. “The word” that “is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart,” produces or gives the hearing. Unless the hearing has been given by the Word of God, the character does not hear the preaching understandingly— hence no faith. We offer the above in connection with our editorial in Nov. 19th issue.
We think some of the Lord’s children have died in sin or disobedience. See Heb. 3:7-19. Turn to your Bible now and read the entire chapter. Verse 17 says, “But with whom was He grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcasses fell in the wilderness?” These were God’s chosen people— national Israel— and they were a type of God’s spiritual Israel. They died in rebellion in the wilderness. We think many of God’s children are in other orders— in Babylon— and many of them pass away from this world without ever having united with the true church or visible organized kingdom which Christ set up here in the world. Hence many of the Lord’s children die while in Babylon. The command is to come out of Babylon, but we think many of God’s people do not obey this command. Many who have an experience of grace do not believe the doctrine advocated by the Primitive Baptists, which is the doctrine of the Bible, the doctrine of God our Saviour, and live and die with membership in the different societies called churches. We think they die in Babylon, but they will be, and are, as happy in heaven as others of the redeemed. Their home or happiness in the glory world does not depend upon them having membership in any church here, but alone upon the finished work of Christ. While this is true, yet there is a sweet rest and comfort enjoyed and realized by those who believe the truth and have membership in the church of Christ, which is not felt or realized by any others. The Saviour instituted this church or kingdom here as a home and resting place for His children while they are in this world, and no one can enjoy the rest in that home unless they have membership there, or unless they are living in the home.
May the Lord help us all to live as becometh His children; and may we [pg 218] show by our life that we appreciate the precious home our Saviour has prepared for us here in His church. Let us be satisfied with it and with what He has put in it. C. H. C.
CLOSE OF VOLUME
TWENTY-TWO
December 24, 1907
The twenty-second volume of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST closes with this issue. Another year, with all its joys and sorrows, is gone. Oh, how swiftly time is passing! Twenty-two years ago the first issue of this paper was sent out by our beloved and sainted father, who continued as editor until his death, Aug. 27, 1905. Many changes have been wrought since the first issue of this paper was sent out to its readers. Many of those who were then living and enjoying the sweet fellowship and company of the saints on earth have crossed over the river. They are now resting from all their labors. Not only is this true, but even during the past year many changes have taken place. Loved ones, and dear and faithful friends, have fallen. We have seen them cross over the river one by one, and we sometimes wonder who will be the next to pass over. Many of us have endured sore afflictions, sad bereavements, heartaches, and deep sorrows. We look around us and miss the presence of loved ones and listen in vain for the welcome sound of their voices. No, we cannot hear them now— they are hushed in death. Then we wonder if we may not also soon pass over the river and meet our loved ones who have gone on before and join with them in perfect and everlasting praises to our blessed Saviour. We are sure it will not be long until we, too, shall come to our journey’s end and shall step off the stage of action.
Through all our sorrows, afflictions and bereavements the Lord has been good to us. His grace has been sufficient in all our sorrows. It has seemed sometimes that the waves of trouble and billows of distress would surely overwhelm us; but the sustaining and preserving grace of the Lord has been sufficient, so that we continue to the present. His ever gracious presence and all-sufficient power and grace has preserved us through the sorrows and trials of another year, and we feel to be under renewed obligations to adore and praise His blessed name. Surely His mercies endure forever. His blessings are innumerable, and are showered upon us all every day and every hour.
We are well aware that we have made many mistakes during the past year. We humbly trust all our readers will throw the mantle of charity over our many imperfections, and help us overcome them. It is our sincere desire to conduct the paper in such a way that it may be for the comfort and consolation of the Lord’s humble poor. We desire that it be a medium of friendly [pg 219] and Christian correspondence, and a welcome visitor every week to the homes of its readers. We know there has been some writing on disputed points and on things that are causing trouble in our beloved Zion. It is almost impossible to keep all these things out of the paper, but we trust the brethren will help us to keep them out of this paper by not writing concerning these things. There are local troubles, and these should all be settled at home. Do not write to the paper about them. Tell of your hopes and fears, and tell the dealings of the Lord with you. And if you have an exercise of mind on some Scripture write your views. Make your letters short as you can, so as to express your views as briefly as possible. But, above all, write on such things as will have a tendency to unite the dear children of God in love and fellowship. Let us all try to do more good and less harm next year than the past.
We have received many words of encouragement from the dear brethren and sisters during the past year. This has been a wonderful help to us. We have often felt like giving up in despair, but the comforting words from the dear saints of God have encouraged us to press onward in the battles of life. We appreciate these things more than we can tell, and we humbly pray the Lord’s richest blessings may rest upon every one of you, and that His presence may be continually manifested to you.
During the past year several names have been added to our editorial staff. It is a source of consolation and encouragement to us to have such able and faithful soldiers of the cross associated with us as corresponding editors as those dear brethren whose names appear on the editorial staff. We trust they will do more writing for the paper than they have been doing.
Asking an interest in the fervent prayers of all our readers, that the Lord may sustain us and keep us in the right way, through all the journey of life, we bid you farewell for the year 1907. C. H. C.
INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME
TWENTY-THREE
January 7, 1908
With this issue we begin the publication of the twenty-third volume of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. Twenty-two years have passed away since the first Issue was sent out. To us these twenty-two years have passed quickly. It seems to us that it has been only a very short while since our sainted father sent out that first issue of the paper. Though the time seems to have been so short, yet many changes have been wrought. Some who were then comparatively young in the service of the Master are now looked upon as the old veterans in the warfare, while many of them have been called away from this [pg 220] world of sorrow to their long eternal home. Most of those who were old in the service then have crossed over the river of death and their warfare is ended. Many of the dear saints who read the first issue of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST are numbered with the pale nations of the dead, and but few who were subscribers then are subscribers now— that is, comparatively few. They are few as compared to the number who are now subscribers for the paper. But while so many changes have taken place there are some things that have not changed. Principles are eternal and never change. The doctrine of God our Saviour has not changed. It will always be the same. Men may change, and invent new theories and new practices, but the doctrine of God never changes. God made man upright, and man sought out many inventions. Every doctrine and theory of salvation taught in the world today, except the doctrine of God, is an invention of man, and there are many of these inventions.
It is our desire that THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST be published in defense of the doctrine of God our Saviour. Our humble desire is to heed the admonition given in Jer. 6:16, “Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein.” If all would do this, the promise is “and ye shall find rest for your souls.” It is our desire to be found faithful to our heavenly Master and faithful to His cause. Our humble prayer is that we may be so guided and directed of the Lord and influenced by His Holy Spirit in the publication of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST that it may be a blessing to the cause and not a curse.
We realize that the blessings of the Lord have been wonderfully bestowed upon us, if we are not deceived. Although we have had sore trials during I the past year, yet the Lord has wonderfully blessed us. He has blessed us both temporally and spiritually. We have been blessed with food and raiment, and have not had to suffer want. Besides the many temporal blessings that have been bestowed upon us, we have had the pleasure of enjoying many sweet meetings with the Lord’s children, and have been blessed of the Lord to enjoy their sweet association and fellowship. Perhaps there are many of them whose faces we shall never see again in this world, but we separated from them with the blessed hope of meeting again where separations never come.
As we stated in the close of volume twenty-two, THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST has a larger circulation now than ever before. Many of the dear brethren, sisters and friends have taken a great interest in procuring subscribers for the paper and in helping us to extend the circulation. We appreciate all this more than we can tell, and humbly pray the Lord to abundantly bless you all. We humbly trust each of you will continue to do all you possibly can in this way [pg 221] during the present year. It is not simply for our benefit that we make this request. We trust our desire is for the good of the cause of Christ.
Simply making money is not our object in the publication of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. If we are not altogether deceived in our own heart, our first object and aim is for the good of the cause and to try to comfort and encourage the Lord’s dear children. This being our sincere desire, we want, with all our heart, to continue to publish the paper every week and to give all the reading matter it is possible to give, and at as low a price as possible.
Now, again we wish to say that we do not want to publish anything more about troubles and confusions among the brethren. Brethren, please do not send articles of that kind to us. We want you to write for the paper, but we think enough has been said for the present about organs, secret societies, federal government, etc. Tell something about your hopes and fears— how the Lord has led you along and preserved you by His grace. Tell of your good meetings. Send us all the good church news you can. Help us to make the paper more interesting than ever before. Write about the good things of the kingdom, so that everyone will eagerly look for the coming of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST and be glad to read it. We do not mean by what we say here that we do not want to be faithful to the cause, but simply that we think enough has been said about those things for the present time. It is our desire to he found faithful and ready to contend against every false way, and to warn our dear brethren against any measure that is not in harmony with the teaching of Holy Writ; and to humbly and lovingly plead with them to walk in the good old ways of our beloved Zion, doing what our only King and Law-Giver has commanded, and leaving undone everything He has not commanded.
We greatly realize our weakness and insufficiency for the task that apparently lies before us for the year 1908. We realize the great responsibility resting upon us. We have before us now a letter dated October 23, 1906, from a dear and precious brother, J. D. Huffman, who crossed over the river soon after that letter was written. In this letter he said, “Now our God has said He would never leave Himself without a witness. Dear brother, He has raised you up and qualified you to defend His cause and feed His sheep. Dear brother, the responsibility is great on you. May the God of all grace ever be with you and give you wisdom and understanding to teach His people aright in all things that pertain to His glory.” We surely feel that great responsibility, and humbly ask all our dear brethren, sisters and friends to pray for us as this dear and precious brother assured us he did. Will you pray earnestly that the Lord may guide and direct us in wisdom’s ways, that what we do or say may be for the comfort and encouragement of His [pg 222] dear children and to the honor and glory of His own name? If we could only know beyond doubt that our feeble efforts were of some benefit to the Lord’s dear children we feel that we could be content. Again, dear brethren, pray for us. C. H. C.
1 CORINTHIANS 8:8-13
January 7. 1908
Brother S. T. Johnson, of Greenfield, Tenn., has requested us to give our views on the above Scripture through our columns. We have more requests of this kind than we can possibly comply with, it seems, so that we will be compelled to offer only a few thoughts in answer to requests of this kind. The apostle
in this chapter is writing about the eating of meat offered unto idols. It was a custom of those who worshiped idols made of stone or wood, graven images, to offer meats unto them as sacrifices. Those who worshiped the idols would eat this meat with reverence to the idol. The Christian, or child of God whose trust was in Christ, knew that these idols were false gods, and that the eating of the meat, therefore, amounted to nothing. The brother who knew this, being strong in the faith and doctrine of Christ, could eat this meat with no reverence whatever to the idol. But some weak brother, who was not so well established in the doctrine of Christ, seeing the strong brother eating the meat, and not knowing but what he was eating in reverence and fear of the god to which it was offered, might be thereby emboldened to also eat— but in reverence to the idol; eat it as offered to an idol. Thus the weak brother may be led astray, led to think he should engage in that as a service to the idol, and thereby become an offender. For the strong brother to engage in such a thing, whereby he may lead a weak brother astray, is a sin against the brethren. See verse 12. Simply eating the meat, as such, is not a sin; but to eat it as a sacrifice to an idol, or with reverence to the idol, is a sin. Hence, though the thing the strong brother may engage in, may, of itself, be no harm, yet if it is liable to cause a weak brother to go astray, it is wrong for the strong brother to engage in it. In doing so he sins against the brethren and against Christ. This being true the apostle says, in verse 13, “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.” Lest be make his brother to offend, he would refrain from doing that which of itself was no harm— no wrong in it. Yet, for the sake of his brethren be would not do it. Oh, that we all might be possessed of such a spirit. C. H. C.
[pg 223]
SIN UNTO DEATH
AND FIRST RESURRECTION
January 21, 1908
The sin unto death in 1John 5:16 is not final apostasy. The Saviour says in John 10:28, “They shall never perish;” and Paul teaches in Rom. 8 that there is nothing that can separate one of God’s children from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Though this is true, yet a child of God may so live after the flesh as to die to the enjoyment of the salvation of the Lord and die to the fellowship of the church. This is what John is teaching, we think. It is not what is spoken of as sin against the Holy Ghost.
As to the two resurrections mentioned in Rev. 20, or the first resurrection and second death, will say there is a difference of opinion among brethren on that question, and we do not desire to express a positive view regarding it, for we do not deem it of sufficient importance to have controversy on it. Some hold that the teaching of the passage is that the saints will be resurrected first and that Christ will reign over them on earth for a thousand years, and at the expiration of the thousand years the wicked will be raised. Others hold that the first resurrection is the raising up of the sinner from a state of death in sin to a state of life in Christ. It is certain that the work of regeneration is spoken of as a resurrection in more than one place.
In the latter part of the chapter it is evident that those whose names are written in the book of life are not judged out of those things written in the books according to their works. Those who are judged out of those things written in the books are those whose names are not written in the book of life, and they are all cast into the lake of fire, and not one of those whose names are written in the book of life are cast into the lake of fire. C. H. C.
THE PRODIGAL SON
January 21, 1908
Elder J. W. Parker, of Quill, Ga., has requested our views on the parables in Luke 15, especially the parable of the two sons, beginning at Luke 15:11.
The first is the parable of the lost sheep, and reads as follows: “What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the finery and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth his friends and neighbors, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, [pg 224] more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.”
Just as there is joy in the home of the shepherd when he finds the sheep that was lost, so is there joy in heaven when the sinner repents. The word heaven does not always refer to the place of ultimate bliss and glory. Paul speaks of the third heaven; and if there is a third, there is also a first and second. The church is sometimes spoken of as a heaven, we think. And the term “sinner”does not always refer to the unregenerate— not by any means. See James 4:8 and James 5:19-20. Children of God are here called sinners, as is the case in many other places. We think there is joy in the church when one of the Lord’s children repents who has been in disobedience and sin. We think the parable teaches this. “Likewise, there is joy.” We think the next parable, recorded in verses 8 to 10, teaches the same lesson.
As to the parable of the two sons, will say they were both sons. The elder was no more a son than the younger; but the latter said to his father, “Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me.” Then the father divided his living unto them unto the sons. The younger son gathered all together and took his journey into a far country— not into a fair country, but a far country. Every time one of the Lord’s sons, or children, takes a journey away from the home the Lord has prepared for them here in this world, which is the church of God, and the true service of God, he goes to a far country; but he does not go to a fair country. The younger son spent all he had, wasted his substance with riotous living, and there arose a mighty famine in that land. That far country — far away from the sweet service of God, is a land of famine to a child of God who has realized the sweet pleasures of gospel service and the fellowship of the saints in the church of Christ. Then he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country He did not join himself to a citizen of the land of Canaan— the land of joy and delight, but to a citizen of the far country. He did not join himself there to the service of God. Yet he was a son, just as he was before he took the journey to that country. The husks that the swine did eat was no food to him. Swine food and sheep food is very different. “But no man gave unto him.” In the Lord’s economy, the gospel, he says, “Freely ye have received; freely give.” But not ftlineso in the land far away from the service of God not so among the swine-feeders. But when he was pinched with famine he said, “How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger.” So many of the Lord’s children do this. “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labor for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let [pg 225] your soul delight itself in fatness.”— Isa. 55:1-2. This is spoken to Israel— not to unregenerate persons. The son says, “I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father. I have sinned against heaven and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.” He is ready now to make full confession of all his wrongs, and is content and willing to have a very low place in the home.
He does not ask now for a high place; he has been brought low. Oh, how proud he was before! But how humble now! He was a proud son before, lifted up with vanity. But “pride goeth before a fall, and a haughty spirit before destruction.” But what joy when the wanderer returns and confesses all his sins! True, sometimes there are some who are jealous, as was the elder son; still it is true that there is joy over the return of the wanderer.
Afflictions, though they seem severe,
In mercy oft are sent;
They stopped the prodigal’s career,
And caused him to repent.
Although he no relenting felt,
Till he had spent his store;
His stubborn heart began to melt,
When famine pinched him sore.
What have I gained by sin, he said,
But hunger, shame and fear?
My father’s house abounds with bread
While I am starving here.
I’ll go and tell him all I’ve done,
And fall before his face;
Unworthy to be called his son,
I’ll seek a servant’s place.
His father saw him coming back;
He saw, and ran and smiled,
And threw his arms around the neck
Of his repenting child.
David says, “Before I was afflicted I went astray.” Psa. 119:67. How prone we are to go astray, but afflictions serve to bring us back. Some of the most humble and devoted Christians we have ever seen were sorely afflicted. Afflictions will cause us to realize our own weakness, and then we are brought low before the throne of grace, acknowledging our sins and wickedness, and pleading for an humble place in the service of God.
The prodigal son has no reference whatever to unregenerate characters. There is nothing in the whole parable about regeneration or unregenerate characters. C. H. C.
[pg 226]
IS OUR FAITH WRONG?
January 28, 1908
We have before us a minute of the seventy-ninth annual session of the Conecuh River Primitive Baptist Association, held in 1906, which contains the Articles of Faith of the association. Elder C. W. Hardin was moderator. Elder J. E. W. Henderson, who is well known among our people, especially in the South, as a sound and able minister of the gospel, and who has been many years engaged in the warfare; is a member of this association. The second item in their Articles of Faith reads: “We believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the revealed word of God and the only rule of faith and practice.”
We also have before us a minute of the seventy-ninth annual session of the Echeconnee Association, held in 1907. Elder S. T. Bentley was moderator. The second item in their Articles of Faith reads: “We believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the word of God, and the only rule of faith and practice.”
We also have before us a minute of the sixty-ninth annual session of the Harmony Primitive Baptist Association, of Georgia, held in 1907. Deacon B. F. Markett was moderator and Elder R. H. Jennings clerk. The second item of their Articles of Faith reads: “We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the word of God, and the only rule of faith and practice.
We also have a minute of the Upatoie Association, of Georgia, held in 1907. Elder J. M. Murray was moderator. The second item in their Articles of Faith reads: “We believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the word of God, and the only rule of faith and practice.”
We might go on and on quoting from the Articles of Faith of different associations in different sections of the country; but these are sufficient. They are all practically the same. Now, if language means anything, the teaching of this article of faith is that the Scriptures teach all that we should believe or practice religiously. If the Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice, then it follows that the Scriptures teach everything we ought to practice. If there is one single thing a church should practice, or may rightly practice, that the Scriptures are silent upon, then the Scriptures do not furnish a sufficient rule, and are not the only rule.
This article of faith, or tenet, is not new among the Baptists. In the London Confession of Faith, put forth in 1689, we find this language, Chapter 1, Section 1: “The Holy Scriptures are the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience,” etc. The same chapter, [pg 227] section 6, says: “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scriptures; unto which nothing is any time to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word, and that there are some circumstances. concerning the worship of God and government of the church common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed.” The same chapter, section 7, says: “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them.”
In this language quoted from the London Confession the same idea is taught as is embraced in the second item of the Articles of Faith of the different associations quoted above. Please notice carefully section 6, “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scriptures.” Notice, also, carefully section 1, “The Holy Scriptures are the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.” If the Scriptures are an “infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience,” it follows that every thing to be practiced in obedience is contained therein. Every thing commanded therein is to be observed, and nothing is to be observed which is not commanded, if the Scriptures are an infallible and certain rule.
Monsieur de Vignaux, who was forty years pastor of one of the churches of the Waldenses, and died at the age of eighty years, wrote a treatise concerning their life, manners and religion. He gave a summary of their doctrinal principles, for the sake of which they were persecuted, such as “that the Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to our salvation, and that we are called to believe only what they teach, without any regard to the authority of man— that nothing else ought to be received by us except what God hath commanded.” See Jones’ History, page 294. This was long before the London Confession was framed— a hundred years or more. These people expressly held that “nothing else ought to be received by us except what God hath commanded.” In the year 1120 they put forth a Confession of Faith, the tenth article of which reads, “Moreover, we have ever regarded all the [pg 228] inventions of men (in the affairs of religion) as an unspeakable abomination before God,” etc. The eleventh article reads, “We hold in abhorrence all human inventions, as proceeding from Anti-Christ, which produce distress, and are prejudicial to the liberty of the mind.” These people held that all the inventions of men in the affairs of religion-that is, everything not commanded in the Holy Scriptures— were an unspeakable abomination before God; and that they proceeded from Anti-Christ and produced distress.
On January 1st, 1886, Elder S. F. Cayce sent out the first issue of this paper, THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. Since that time this paper has been published and sent out in the interest of the Primitive Baptist cause and in defense of their faith. The Articles of Faith appear elsewhere in the paper, and have been inserted in our columns from time to time since the first issue. The second item says: “That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God, written by inspiration, and that they are the standard of faith, and the only rule divinely authorized for Christian practice, teaching, as they do, all that we ought to believe, know, or practice religiously.” When the first issue of this paper was sent out twenty-two years ago, with the express avowal that this was one article it would defend, no Old School, or Primitive Baptist objected to it. It was received by them then. If there is one now who will not receive it he is not like they were twenty-two years ago; he is not like those were who framed and adopted the Articles of Faith of the Conecuh River, Echeconnee, Harmony and Upatoie Associations; he is not like those who framed and adopted the London Confession of Faith; he is not like the ancient Waldenses. If these people were all Baptists of the Primitive or first order, then the man who will not or does not accept the teaching of that article is not a Baptist of the Primitive order.
Now, we believe that whatever is Baptistic is Scriptural. If whatever is Baptistic is not Scriptural, then the Baptist Church is not Scriptural and is not the church of Christ. If whatever is Baptistic is Scriptural, then the Baptist Church is Scriptural and is the church of Christ. That which is Baptistic is that which has been set forth as a belief, doctrine, or tenet, of that people. We have seen that it has been declared by them all along the line that the Scriptures are a sufficient rule of faith and practice: that what the Scriptures teach or command should be practiced, and that all things not commanded or taught therein are the inventions of men and should be avoided. This has been taught by them all along the ages; it is therefore Baptistic. Then if it be true that whatever is Baptistic is Scriptural, it follows that this teaching of theirs is Scriptural.
We would ask in all candor and earnestness, and in love, who will dare deny that whatever is Baptistic is Scriptural, and at the same time claim to [pg 229] be a Primitive Baptist? For one to deny that proposition or statement is simply to admit that the one making the denial is either not a Bible Baptist or that the Baptists have not been Biblical all along the ages.
Is it true that they have been wrong all these years in holding to this point? Our answer would be, most emphatically, No. But some say, if that is correct, then why do you have associations, hymn hooks, meeting houses, moderators, clerks and church record books? Well, now, that’s easy to answer. We are commanded to meet often together, to forsake not the assembling of ourselves together. An association is nothing more nor less than a meeting together for, worship and mutual edification. We are commanded to sing; “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.”— Eph. 5:19. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.”— Col. 3:16. In these places we are commanded to sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. To do this it is necessary now, as it was then, that they be either written or printed, that the songs or hymns be collected together— hence a hymn book. Did you know a part of the Holy Scriptures might, with propriety, be called a hymn book? The Psalms of David were written in metre-hence hymns, a book of hymns. Yet some have discovered so much “light” that they have found that those who have a book of hymns (a hymn book) are practicing something that is unscriptural and for which they have no precedent. But meeting houses—what about them? Mark 3:13-19: “And He goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto Him whom He would: and they came unto Him. And He ordained twelve, that they should be with Him,” etc.; then the names of the twelve are given, and verse 19 says, “And they went into an house.” Then it is Scriptural, is it not, to “go into an house?” Numbers of times we read of the Saviour entering into the synagogue to teach and to preach. A synagogue is a meeting house. Too many instances are mentioned of meeting together and worship being conducted in houses for any well-informed person to try to “make a play” on such as that.
“Let all things be done decently and in order.”— l Cor. 14:40. If all things are to be done decently and in order, it is necessary that one be appointed to preserve order— hence a moderator, and a clerk to do what writing is to be done. Does it not look as though a Baptist is “hard pressed” who will resort to such as this to justify himself in unscriptural teaching?
Again, we ask, Is it true that they have been wrong all these years in holding to this point? Again we answer, emphatically, No. The Holy Scriptures themselves pointedly declare the correctness of this principle, which has been [pg 230] so tenaciously held to by the humble followers of the Lord from the beginning of the gospel dispensation, on down through the dark ages of bloody persecution and death to the present time. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”— 2 Tim. 3:16-17. If there is one thing a man ought to practice religiously which the Scriptures say nothing about, then the Scriptures do not thoroughly furnish him unto all good works. No man under heaven is able to make it appear that there is one single thing we should practice religiously, or as a religious service, about which the Bible is silent, and let this statement of the apostle remain true. The Scriptures are given that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished unto all good works— not simply some good works, but all good works. Then all the works taught in the Scriptures are good works; and all the good works are taught therein. Then the works not taught, or commanded, or required, by the Scriptures are not good works they are not acceptable to God as religious service. If one does all that the Bible requires of him, he would be perfect in the sense of that text. He would not have reached a state of sinless perfection, for that is not under consideration, and no man can do that in this life; but the Scriptures are given “that the man of God may be perfect,” that he may be “thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Then if he should do all the good works the Scriptures require of him, and one more good work that the Scriptures say nothing about, then he would be more than perfect, A would he not? If not, why not? If he would not, in that case, be more than perfect, then he would not be perfect in the sense of the text when be has done all that the Scriptures require of him. If that declaration of the apostle be true, and it is true, it follows that it is just as much a violation and a transgression of the teaching of the Scriptures to practice anything in the name of Christianity, or as a religious service, that the Bible says nothing about, as it is to leave undone anything that it expressly commands. This is an unalterable truth, and no man can gainsay it. No sort of “begging the question” or trying to mystify will change this truth.
Teaching or practicing those things which the Scriptures authorize or command does not cause strife and confusion, or distress, in the church of God. It is the teaching or practicing of things the Scriptures are silent upon that brings distress, sorrow, strife and confusion in the church. When people decide to reform the church and “start right up-to-date;”or when they decide that the Baptists have been wrong along the line, and start out to carry them back to “primitive” doctrine and practice—in either or both such cases, they usually bring trouble and distress in the church.
[pg 231] If the things the Scriptures are silent upon “are matters of privilege, and are to be used, or not used, as circumstances require,” why not have an “ankle show,” or a “cake-walk,” or an “ice cream festival,” or an Epworth League, or a Baptist Young People’s Union, or Christian Endeavor Society, or “a living curiosity show,” or any or all the many different inventions of men practiced “as circumstances require” in the name of religion and Christianity?
Oh, that the Lord would grant unto all His ministers a spirit of humility and devotion to His blessed cause, that they might love peace and harmony upon gospel principles too well to advocate or practice or teach anything not required by the Holy Scriptures. May we all contend earnestly, in love and humility, for those things, and those only, that make for peace, and thus be bound together in love and fellowship. Our heart bleeds when we see distress and sorrow in our beloved Zion. We humbly ask of our dear brethren and sisters to pray the Lord to sustain and uphold us, that we may never depart from the right way.
C. H. C.
WHAT DO THEY THINK?
February 18, 1908
In the Apostolic Herald of Feb. 1, Elder J. V Kirkland asks us a question concerning the basis of agreement which was written in April, 1906— the question being if we still endorse a certain part of it, etc. We reply that if you had been as good as your word and had kept the agreement we would have abided by it. You know this, and there is no necessity of your making further show of pretended humility and sounding the false and misleading cry of persecution. But of course Elder J. V Kirkland never says anything that is wrong! Oh, he is so good, and so gentle, and so kind, and meek, and humble, and loving, and tender, and forgiving, and so filled with the Holy Spirit—-he must be inspired and proof against mistakes and wrongs! And, oh, he is so sincere— and no one who differs from him can possibly be sincere; they are all blasphemers, and hypocrites, and persecutors, and liars, and have no respect for piety, gray hairs, nor learning; they are all a set of ignoramuses and fools! Oh, yes, of course. Why, he says, “Any sincere person would enjoy reading the Apostolic Herald.” Now, if you don’t enjoy reading that paper, and clap your hands for joy every time you read a column of it, and become so overjoyed that you are lost in heavenly wonder and amazement when you read a page of the editorials— you are, of course, insincere, a simpleton and a fool! Oh, Lord, do please deliver us!
[pg 232] Will Elder J. V Kirkland now please tell us about Elder R. S. Kirkland, Elder A. M. Kirkland and Elder H. E. Pettus? How do they stand now on the “Basis of Agreement?” What did you say, Elder?
And, say, Elder Kirkland, was not Dr. Eaton disappointed that you did not go with your brother R. S. to Louisville to join the Missionaries with him? Oh, you don’t know? Oh, no, of course you don’t know anything about it, and Dr. Eaton is dead now and can’t tell us! But, wait, Elder K., Sam can tell, and it seems that some who are in a position to know do tell some things. And now, tell us, Elder K., why was Dr. Eaton disappointed in your not going, if there was no understanding that you would join with Sam? Can you answer these things truthfully— or will you deny them as you have other facts?
And now, one more question— are you not uniting your forces with the faction of Pence, Burnam & Co.? At least, are you not making an effort to do so? And do you not ask all to meet with you in a meeting at Marion, Ky., next June who are opposed to the money basis of representation in the modern missionary boards? And does not this invitation embrace and include the anti-board faction of the Missionary Baptist Church? And is it not your desire and aim to finally unite with them if you can?
Now, answer like a man— no dodging or denying.
C. H. C.
QUESTIONS FROM W. M. CROSS
February 18, 1908
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother—- By chance I came in possession of a copy of your paper of July 2, 1907, partly mutilated by handling, in which I find what is purported to be your “Abstract of Principles;” but as before stated, partly mutilated. Having been a Baptist minister for thirty years, and anxious to know the truth, I wish to ask you a few questions for information. My grandfather, William Cross, a predestinarian and preacher of some note in that order, taught that Christ died only for the elect but exhorted all to repent, and I never could understand properly his position.
QUESTIONS
1. Do you teach that God, from eternity, ordained that Adam should eat the forbidden fruit, together with the motives and circumstances by which he (Adam) was coerced to violate the law?
2. Do you teach that Christ died only for such as will be saved?
3. Do you make a distinction between the death of Christ and the atonement? If so, what distinction?
4. Do you teach a universal, or a restricted, atonement?
5. Do you teach the doctrine of eternal justification?
6. Upon what is man’s responsibility predicated?
7. Are the elect children, children before they repent in Christ?
[pg 233] 8. Do you teach that God through Christ made no provisions for those that will be lost?
These are questions in which I feel a deep interest. Will you please publish them in your paper, together with your answer, or write me giving the information desired?
I belong to the Pulaski County Association, and judging from a discussion of the subject of election the other day at Somerset, Ky., there are no two of our preaching brethren agreed on it, some taking one view and some taking another. It is only the truth that will do us all good and stand the consuming fires of the last day.
William M. Cross. Burnside, Ky.
OUR ANSWER
We are always willing to give any information we can to an honest enquirer after truth, and as Elder Cross says the truth is what be desires we will try to answer his questions, though we do not expect to argue our position at great length. We would suggest to him first that it may be possible that he did not exactly understand the position his grandfather occupied on some points.
In answer to your first question will say that we do not teach that God ordained from all eternity that Adam should eat the forbidden fruit in the same sense that He ordained the salvation of sinners. We do not think God’s predestination bears the same attitude to sin as it does to holiness. God permits, or suffers, or allows sin and wickedness, but does not approve or sanction it; but does punish, overrule or restrain sin and wickedness. God’s purpose is to punish sin. We do not teach that Adam was coerced to violate the law, but that he did so freely and willingly. “After God had created all other creatures, He created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, rendering them fit unto that life to God for which they were created, being made after the image of God, in righteousness, knowledge, and true holiness, having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it, and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject to change.”— London Confession of Faith, Chapter 4, Section 2.
Although God created man upright and perfect and gave him a righteous law which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof; yet he did not long abide in this honor. Satan, using the subtlety of the serpent to seduce Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who without any compulsion did willfully transgress the law of their creation and the command given unto them in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.”— London Confession of Faith, Chapter 6, Section 1.
In answer to question 2 will say, yes, we teach that Christ died for all those who will finally be saved, or for the elect, and for those only.
To the third question will say, no, we make no particular distinction [pg 234] between the death of Christ and the atonement. “Without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” When Christ died, or shed His blood, He satisfied the law; made reconciliation, satisfaction, atonement for sin.
To the fourth question will say we teach a special atonement— that Christ died for those the Father gave Him. “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory some men and angels are predestinated or foreordained to eternal life, through Jesus Christ, to the praise of His glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of His glorious justice.”— London Confession, Chapter 3, Section 3.
“These angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished.”— London Confession, Chapter 3, Section 4.
“The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of God, procured reconciliation, and purchased an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto Him.”— London Confession, Chapter 8, Section 5.
We do not know that we fully understand your fifth question. If you mean to ask if the justification procured by Christ is eternal, will endure throughout all future ages, and that none who are justified by Christ can ever be condemned, we answer yes. But if you mean to ask if these characters were always justified, or always in a justified state, we answer no. They were involved in sin, as all Adam’s race. But in eternity God made choice of a certain number whom He gave to His Son, and purposed or predestinated their justification— so that they were justified in the mind and purpose of God. Then when Christ died for them they were justified in the eye of the law, satisfaction having been rendered to the law for them. Then in regeneration the work of Christ in the atonement and in His death is applied to them, purifying their hearts or souls— that justification being actually applied to them. “Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ till after His incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof was communicated to the elect in all ages successively, from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein He was revealed and signified to be the seed of the woman which should bruise the serpent’s head; and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, being the same yesterday, and today, and forever.”— London Confession, Chapter 8, Section 6.
In answer to your sixth question will say man is responsible for his violation of God’s law. By his violation he is condemned, and he alone is responsible for it. He has fallen into a pit of condemnation, and is responsible for [pg 235] being in the pit. The only way he can ever be taken out of the pit is by the work of God, which is purely a stoop of mercy.
In answer to your seventh question will say that regeneration precedes belief in Christ as one’s personal Saviour. See John 1:11-13, “He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name; which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
Your eighth question is answered in the answer to the second. We have tried to be explicit and plain, and trust you, and others, may gather some light from this as to what we teach. C. H. C.
PRIMITIVE AGAIN
February 25, 1908
We are in receipt of a leaf from the Mississippi Baptist, published at Newton, Miss., of Jan. 8, 1908, on which appears an editorial under the above heading. It is an attempt at a reply to our editorial in our issue of Dec. 3, 1907, in which we replied to an article from this same paper headed “Primitive.” The editor is now begging the question, and saying that some things we said were unworthy the pen of a Christian writer, etc. Yes, of course; that’s all very nice of you— Of course it was nice of you to say concerning the contents of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST that “while it had a great deal to say about experimental religion, there was an air of self-appropriation about it that was very noticeable to us.” And now, the aforesaid editor would try to “wheedle”out by saying he had reference to the name! Shame on such! Your language had it about the religion and not about the name. And it was so “awfully nice” for you to say the other things you said. It was so nice in you to say we deny the commission!
But suppose you tell us what board sent Paul to Rome? By the authority of what board was he being sent when he was shipwrecked and escaped on the island of Melita? (See Acts 27 and Acts 28:1) What board sent Peter to the house of Cornelius? Give us book, chapter and verse for your Sunday school, B. Y. P. U., and various other societies you have? You are not Bible Baptists unless you have Scripture authority for these things— and this you do not have. Will you please tell us where and when the first missionary board was formed among the Baptists? Did we not tell the truth about it being in 1792? Can you show one before that date? If you could [pg 236] we suppose you would have done so. Unless you can show it, it follows that you are not the old order of Baptists— hence not primitive.
Did you not say in a certain sermon that Peter was a “Hardshell” until he was converted? If he was a “Hardshell” until he was converted, then he was at first what we are now. Then our sort of Baptists existed before your sort, by your own admission. Verily, the “legs of the lame are unequal.”
No, your people are not the original order of Baptists, and it is a vain effort to assert it. C. H. C.
ELDER MAYO
March 10, 1908
On Sunday night, Feb. 23, Elder G. T. Mayo, who lives in our town, united with the Missionary Baptist church here. Elder Mayo’s name has been on the editorial staff of Elder Kirkland’s paper, the Apostolic Herald. It seems that Elder Kirkland’s corresponding editors are leaving him one by one.
Elder Mayo first united with the Primitive Baptists; and was with them for several years. Some years ago he left us and united with the Missionary Baptists, and we think the day was set for his baptism by them; the day and hour arrived, but Elder Mayo changed his mind and sent them word he would not be there. Then he came back to the Primitive Baptists, and remained with them for a time. Again he united with the Missionary Baptists. This time they baptized and ordained him, and he preached for them about a year— possibly not quite so long, or perhaps a little more, we do not remember the exact length of time. Then again he came back to the Primitive Baptists, making full confession. He said be had found that the Old Baptists could get along without him, but he could not get along without them. But now he has gone back to the Missionaries again. Perhaps he has now learned that he can get along without the Old Baptists. Whether he can do this or not, they will continue to move along in the even tenor of their way. We like Elder Mayo as a man, and trust he may sometime become satisfied and contented religiously. C. H. C.
[pg 237]
INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC
April 7, 1908
We clip the following from the Gospel Advocate, a Campbellite paper published in Nashville, Tenn. We think this little piece is so true and logical that we desire to give it to our readers. It was written by Mr. David Lipscomb, the editor of the Gospel Advocate. The use of organs has caused divisions among the Campbellites, and Mr. Lipscomb gives truthfully their tendency. C. H. C.
THE CLIPPING
I think it is wrong to use an instrument in connection with worshiping God “in psalms and hymns and tunes and spiritual songs” anywhere at any time. The wrong is more emphasized from the tendency to substitute an entertainment of instrumental music for the service of God in song, making melody in the heart unto the Lord. Teaching singing with a musical instrument is on a par with using a crutch to teach a child to walk. When he is taught to hobble along on a crutch he does not know how to walk. If he ever learns to walk it must be done after he lays aside the crutch. When a person is taught to carry the tune along with an instrument, be does not know how to sing. The instrument, instead of teaching him to sing, hides the deficiencies of his singing and becomes a substitute for singing. A person that has to teach singing with an instrument cannot sing himself and cannot teach singing. He is like the man with a crutch teaching walking or dancing. The universal cry for girls to learn instrumental music is a hurtful and expensive fad. It is hurtful in different ways. The girls learn to thrum the piano; the boys do not learn music at all. The trouble is, neither men nor women, as a rule, can sing. Before the rage for instrumental music became so general, much of the time of the young people when they met together was spent in singing; and all sung. Now nobody sings. The study of instrumental music is expensive, both of money and time, with no return in nine cases out of ten. There is no probability that nine out of ten of those who take music lessons will become sufficiently proficient in the practice to interest themselves or others. I once knew an excellent music teacher that gave lessons for a number of years in one of our best educated county towns. She left the town, and after some years returned on a visit, and concluded she would look up her old music pupils. She found about eighty, as I remember, that had taken lessons from her, and out of this number only two ever pretended to play. She said that she felt that her time had been greatly spent in vain, and the time of these girls and the money of their parents had been wasted. If parents would study these questions for themselves, and not be carried away with a fad of the young people, we would have better singing and better Christians generally.
KIND WORDS
April 14, 1908
THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, of Martin, Tenn., came in last week in its new dress, which adds to the appearance of the paper in many respects. They have put in up-to-date machinery of different kinds. We congratulate our young brother, Elder C. H. Cayce, in his efforts and success in giving his readers a neatly printed and a sound Old Baptist paper. May the Lord continue [pg 238] to bless him in his efforts to serve Him and to follow in the noble examples of his lamented father, who spent his life in the service of God and like Daniel, kept his face toward Jerusalem. So many of our young ministers have fallen by the wayside of late years that when we see one who is content to walk in the good old way in which our fathers trod, our hearts go out in praise to God in their behalf, and our prayer to God is that these young men may have an abundance of grace to enable them to bear hardness as good soldiers of Jesus Christ.— W, in Baptist Trumpet.
REMARKS
We feel to appreciate these kind words from Brother Webb so much. We feel our own unworthiness and insufficiency for the task of editing and conducting THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, and also our inability to preach the gospel of the grace of God. Oh, how unworthy we feel to occupy the sacred desk to endeavor to speak in God’s name. And what great responsibility rests upon us as editor of an Old Baptist paper! How needful it is that we be careful that what is advocated and contended for in the paper be according to sound doctrine and in harmony with God’s word. We realize our dependence upon the Lord that He would guide us by the influence of His Holy Spirit and sustain us by His grace, that we stay in the right way.
If we are not deceived in our poor heart, the cause of our Master, and the comfort and benefit of His people, and the glory of His name, is our first aim— we feel
that these are first and above all else with us. We desire to “know no man after the flesh.”
Our humble desire is to know the right course to pursue, regardless of men or their opinions. What we desire is that which is right in the sight of God, and we believe God approves of His children asking “for the old paths” and walking therein, for He has commanded it. We are satisfied with the old way— the old paths are good enough. Men have sought out many inventions, but they have never improved upon God’s way.
By the Lord’s help we desire to continue to defend the Lord’s way and to expose the inventions of men, no matter where found— even though they be introduced among the Old Baptists. We humbly ask all our brethren and sisters, who love the good old ways of Zion to remember us in your prayers, that the Lord would direct and sustain us. And we humbly ask all to stand by us in the publication of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST.
The brethren and sisters have done this, and we appreciate it. We believe they will patronize and support the paper that stands by the true principles of the doctrine of grace. Hence we have had no fears but what the paper would be sustained if we were pursuing the right course; and if we do not stay in the “good old way” it ought not to be sustained.
Our dear Brother Webb has spent many years in the service of our Master and such expressions of approval and encouragement from old soldiers of the cross like him are a great comfort to us. We desire to continue in the same [pg 239] old way. “it was good enough for our fathers,” and it is good enough for us. We desire to live and die having an humble place among the dear Old Baptists and in their hearts. Brethren, pray the Lord to grant it.
C. H. C.
JOHN 3:16-17; HEB. 2:9;
ROM. 9:15-25
April 21, 1908
Brother J. L. Harder, of McKenzie, Tenn., has requested our views of the above passages. We have not space or time now to write at great length on these, but will state our views briefly.
John 3:16-17 reads: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved.” This text tells us plainly that God gave His Son for the believer. He did not give His Son for the unbeliever. If God did not give His Son for the unbeliever, then Christ did not die for all the race, unless all the race are believers. To argue that the term “world” in this text embraces all Adam’s race, is to make the text contradict itself. As the text does not contradict itself, it follows that the term “world” does not embrace all Adam’s race, It necessarily follows, therefore, that it refers to the believers— the world of believers. Again, to make the term “world” embrace all Adam’s race would be a positive contradiction of Rom. 9:13, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” This tells us positively that God hated Esau. Then if Esau was a part of Adam’s race, He did not love all the race. Now, notice John 3:18-19, “He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil.” The Saviour here tells us plainly that the condemnation is that men loved darkness rather than light. The condemnation does not rest in their unbelief, but in the fact that “light is come into the world, and they loved darkness rather than light.” This is where the condemnation rests.
Heb. 2:9 reads, “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man.”Verses 10, 11 and 12 read, “For it became Him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause He is not ashamed to call them [pg 240] brethren, saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in Him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.” The word “man” in the ninth verse in the King James translation is not in the original Greek. In translating any passage, if a word is lacking and needs to be supplied, a word should be supplied that will agree with the context. This is a universal and invariable rule. In verse ten these characters are called “many sons,” and in verse eleven they are called “brethren,” in verse twelve they are called “brethren,”and “the church;” in verse thirteen they are called “children,” and in verse fourteen they are called “children.” These are all the same characters, or persons, that are referred to in the ninth verse as “every man.” Hence He tasted death for “every son” (many sons), for every one of His “brethren,” for “the church,” for every one of His “children.” He died for these, and these only.
Our opinion is that Brother Harder wished the foregoing passages harmonized with Rom. 9:15-25. There is a seeming contradiction to some in these, but there is no contradiction, and the seeming contradiction vanishes when the foregoing passages are rightly applied. In Rom. 9:21 the apostle says, “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour?” This refers to the case of the prophet going down to the house of the potter and seeing the potter at work. A vessel was marred in the hands of the potter. Then be took clay of the same lump and made another vessel as seemed good to the potter to make it. In the beginning, or in the morning of creation, God made the man. The vessel was marred in the hands of his Creator by sin. Now, God takes clay of the same lump (for all are alike by nature) and makes vessels unto honor, as seems good to Him to make them. He does not make a vessel unto honor provided the clay becomes willing, but as it pleases Him. He does not save one man and not another because the one man is better clay than the other, but He saves as it pleases Him. Verse sixteen says, “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.” Salvation is of God, and He shows mercy in saving. It is His work to save. “It is not of Him that willeth.” Our will is not consulted as to whether they will be saved, yet He makes them willing by the regenerating power of His Holy Spirit. They are shown the awful depravity and corruption of their own hearts, are given a new and higher order of life, and then they begin to hate and to abhor sin and to love righteousness and holiness; and their will is now sweetly inclined to that which is holy and righteous.
These few thoughts are submitted in love for truth, and we trust they will be blessed to your good. C. H. C.
[pg 240]
ACTS 22:16
April 21, 1908
We have been requested to give our views of Acts 22:16. It reads, “And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” This language was spoken by Ananias to Saul. Ananias was one of the Lord’s ministers, and dwelt in Damascus. Saul had left Jerusalem with letters of authority to bind and cast in prison all who were calling on the name of the Lord, or all the followers of Christ. As he journeyed and came nigh unto Damascus, at about noon, a great light from heaven suddenly shined round about him. Saul fell unto the ground and heard a voice saying unto him, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” Saul answered, “Who art thou, Lord?” “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”— John 6:63.
When Jesus speaks life is imparted, and the dead are brought to life, and answer, always. The divine life was imparted to Saul when the Lord spoke to him, and he was awakened to his true condition in nature. Here was something he had never realized before, hence he cried out, “Who art thou, Lord?” The Lord answered, “I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.” Then Saul enquired, “What shall I do, Lord?” Saul now has a will and a desire to follow and serve the Lord. He has a new will and new desires.
Will and desire spring from life. He now has a new life from which springs the new will and new desire to serve the Lord. This being true, it is too late for him to be baptized in order to his regeneration. The work of regeneration has already been completed in his case. The inward washing, or inward cleansing, we see, was done for him before be reached Damascus. He is now a praying character. The Lord was also working with Ananias, for He appeared to him and told him to go to Saul. Ananias was afraid, but the Lord told him that be was a chosen vessel, and “behold, he prayeth.” Ananias was afraid no longer, when he had the evidence that the Lord had appeared to him and that he was a praying character. He then went to Saul and called him “Brother Saul.” He told him that the Lord, even Jesus, that had appeared to him while he was on his way to Damascus had sent him to him, and then used the language of the text, “Why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” This washing away of sins is, therefore, an outward washing, representing or showing forth the inward washing or cleansing that had been performed in his heart before be reached Damascus. It is a showing of one’s [pg 242] faith by his works. It declares outwardly the work of grace that has already been performed by the Lord in the heart. These are our views, to some extent, expressed in a brief way on the text. C. H. C.
ROMANS 7:24-25
April 28, 1908
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— I want your views on Rom. 7:24-25, as I do not understand its meaning.
OUR REPLY
We will try to give a few of our thoughts on this text. But it would be well to read the twenty-third verse also. The three verses (23, 24, 25) read as follows: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
In the twenty-third verse the apostle presents the thought that there is a warfare going on in his life. There is a warfare going on in the heart and life of every child of grace. In regeneration the old or sinful nature was not taken away. He still has the nature that is poisoned with sin. But in regeneration he received another nature; he was made partaker of the divine nature. So he now has two natures, and they are contrary to each other. They are no more alike than midday is like midnight, than bitter is like sweet, than light is like darkness, than good is like bad. These two natures being possessed by the one man, there is a warfare going on in his heart and life all the time-or nearly so. The old nature is called the flesh in many places; it is also called the old man. The new or divine nature is called the new man, the spirit, the inner man. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would— Gal. 5:17. Here one is called the flesh and the other the Spirit, and they lust against each other. That man who does not find this warfare in his members is not a child of God. Oh, how bitter the conflict! It is a warfare enduring for life. There is no discharge from it while we continue to live in this unfriendly world. But blessed thought, this world is the Christian’s battle ground. He receives an honorable discharge from the warfare and goes to a blessed home prepared for him when he lays his armor by in death. Sweet rest awaits him there. Oh, how he longs to be free from sin! yet he daily finds himself brought into captivity by it. No wonder then he often cries out in his daily life and experience, O wretched man that I am! No wonder he would ask, Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? Or, Who shall deliver me from the body of death? This is a question so often asked by the heaven-born soul. He realizes that the arm of flesh is too short and that the poser of man is too weak to deliver a poor sinner like he realizes himself to be. He knows he is not redeemed with corruptible things, such as silver and gold. He realizes that all the gold of Ophir, and the silver of Peru, and the cattle of a thousand hills, all together, are insufficient to buy a home in heaven for a poor sinner like him.
He knows that father and mother, brothers, sisters, friends, preachers, churches, societies, are all unable to deliver a poor sinner like him. Then who shall deliver me from the body of this death? In the very depths of his soul he is enabled to exclaim, with joy and thanksgiving, as did the apostle, I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. The Lord can, does and will deliver. Blessed be His holy name. Who delivered us from so great a death, and doth deliver: in whom we trust that He will yet deliver us— 2 Cor. 1:10. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. With the mind, or divine nature, the new man, he serves the law of God; but with the flesh, or the old, sinful nature, he serves the law of sin. That sinful nature will continue with us as long as we remain here; but after a few more toils, pains, dark and cloudy days, after a few more storms, a few more battles, and the warfare will be over. We shall lay our armor by. The Lord alone, through Jesus Christ, will finally give us the victory. He will deliver all His children. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ— 1 Cor. 15:57. May it be yours, dear reader, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
[pg 244]
ELEVENTH ARTICLE OF FAITH
April 28, 1908
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— For the benefit of a friend of mine who is a subscriber to your paper, I desire you, through the columns of your paper, to give an explanation of the eleventh article of the Abstract of Principles (the clause, “are all under law to Christ”). The word “law” is the objection.
Your unworthy brother,
O. P. Poore
Robards, Ky., R. 2.
OUR REPLY
The eleventh article of our Abstract of Principles, as published in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST nearly every week, reads as follows: “That the children of God (those already born again) are all under law to Christ, and that it is obligatory upon them to obey this law; that in doing so they enjoy the blessings promised; but in disobedience thereto they suffer the penalty thereof, while here in this world.” Brother Poore says the word “law” in this article of our faith is the objection. Well, we suppose if the Bible says this is true, Brother Poole’s friend will accept it. The Bible is our standard of faith, and we are willing for this article to be tried by the Standard. “To the law and to the testimony.” Let us go there and see if we can find anything like a statement that somebody who has been born again is under law to Christ. Turn to 1Cor. 9:20-21, and you will find this language: “And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ), that I might gain them that are without law.”
Here the apostle says plainly, “being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ.” These are nearly the same words as are contained in the article of our faith. If the brother objects to the article of faith saying we are under law to Christ, we suppose he would object to the apostle saying the same thing. The apostle did say, “being under the law to Christ,” and we are sure the brother cannot object to that. If he cannot object to that, then he can no longer object to the article of faith.
“For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”— Rom. 8:2. This being true, he is delivered from the law of sin and death, and is under law to Christ. This law proclaims freedom and liberty, while the law of sin and death proclaims bondage and death. To obey the law we are under to Christ is a loving and willing service; and the one who does this is “blessed in his deed.”— James 1:2. “If ye love me, keep my commandments.”— John 14:15. “If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.”— John 13:1. “The law of the Lord [pg 245] is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold; yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.”— Psa. 19:7-11. “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.”— Heb. 8:10-11. This is the new covenant, and it is the claim of the Old Baptists that we are not worshiping under the old covenant. Then if we are now under the new covenant, God does write His laws in the hearts of His people; and if He does this, we are under obligation to observe those laws. To do so is not a slavish service, but a loving service. May the Lord help us to render that service, is our prayer.
Much more Scriptural testimony could be given, but we deem this to be sufficient.
C. H. C.
ACTS 8:16-17
April 28, 1908
Brother W. M. Moore, of Bellefontaine, Miss., requests our views of Acts 8:16-17, and asks if they received the Holy Ghost before baptism. Brother Moore says he heard a man who claimed to be holy in body and spirit preach some time ago on this text, and that he said those people were regenerated but had not received the Holy Ghost. He says the preacher also used Acts 19:2 to prove his position.
The text in Acts 8:16-17 reads, “For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” It is an immutable law in nature that everything partakes of the nature of that from which it springs. God gave this immutable law in creation. The same law holds good in grace. The work of regeneration is one in which the person regenerated is made a partaker of the Holy Spirit, or of the divine nature, in which he receives the Holy Spirit. “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which He shed on us abundantly [pg 246] through Jesus Christ our Saviour.”— Tit. 3:5-6 This shows clearly that there is a work of the Holy Spirit performed in the work of regeneration. The apostle emphatically declares, in Rom. 8:9, that “if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.” If the man who has been regenerated is not in possession of the Spirit of Christ, or the Holy Spirit, then he is not a child of God; and if a regenerated man is not a child of God, then whose child is he? People sometimes talk about Old Baptists being ignorant; but it is very evident that all the ignorance is not in the Old Baptist Church, not by any means. Old Baptists are not so ignorant as to say that a regenerated man is not in possession of the Holy Spirit, and therefore not a child of God.
Those persons upon whom Peter and John laid their hands after they had been baptized were children of God already; and the Holy Ghost was poured out upon them in a miraculous way by the laying on of the hands of the apostles. The same is true of those characters spoken of in the nineteenth chapter upon whom Paul laid his hands. The sixth verse of that chapter says, “And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. “The Holy Ghost coming on them in this way was such as enabled them to speak with tongues and to prophesy. Any man who claims to have such a gift of the Holy Ghost now should be able to demonstrate the fact by speaking with tongues, and be able to tell the future for as long as one day, if no longer. The Holy Ghost fell on Cornelius before baptism. See Acts 10:44-48. Cornelius was regenerated —born of God— accepted with Him— before Peter went down to his house. He was one that feared God, and the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. He worked righteousness, “and ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of Him.”— John. His prayers were heard and “the effectual prayer of a righteous man availeth much.”— James. And Peter said, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation be that feareth Him and worketh righteousness, is accepted of Him.” — Acts 10:34-35. Then after this the Holy Ghost fell on Cornelius and his household in such a miraculous way as that they of the circumcision, or Jews, were astonished, for they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. But we have seen that Cornelius was in possession of the Holy Spirit by being regenerated before this.
“Try the spirits,” is an admonition John gives; and we should do so with diligence and care.
C. H. C.
[pg 247]
BACKED DOWN
May 19, 1908
A big Missionary Baptist “divine” of Chattanooga, Tenn., made a great challenge for a debate with our people some time ago. Brother D. M. Raulston, who lives in Chattanooga, accepted his challenge and wrote us asking if we would meet the Missionary champion. We replied that we would if our brethren desired us to do so. But, lo, the boastful gentleman’s voice has suddenly become so impaired that he cannot debate, and they have failed to get another man!
Poor fellows! A toad sometimes “swells” to wonderful proportions, and sometimes suddenly shrinks to small size. The Primitive Baptists are such an insignificant set in the estimation of some of them, and they can boast wonderfully of what they would do to these Old Baptists if they could only have the opportunity— but when the opportunity is presented, it is astonishing to think about how their voices have become impaired. If some people would strain their voices less in their boasting, perhaps they would be in better condition to do what they boasted they would do. Some folks might do more and talk less.
C. H. C.
SIN UNTO DEATH
May 19, 1908
Brother Joe T. Hawkins, of Arp, Texas, asks us if the death mentioned in 1 John 5:16 is the same death as that mentioned in James 5:20; 1John 5:16-17 reads. “If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and He shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.” James 5:19-20 reads, “Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death and shall hide a multitude of sins.” Yes, we think it is the same death, it is a death to the enjoyment of the fellowship of the church and to an enjoyment of the manifest presence of the Lord. It does not refer to eternal death, or to everlasting banishment from the presence of God in eternity. One might act in such a way that he should not be retained in the church, that his exclusion would be absolutely necessary— sin unto death— and there be no other way but to exclude the member: On the other hand, one might do very wrong, and yet the nature of the wrong, or sin, be such that he may be reclaimed from the sin and he retained, and thus a soul saved from death.
C. H. C.
[pg 248]
2 PETER 2:2
May 19, 1908
Elder C. H. Cayce:
I want your views on 2 Peter 2:2 and oblige,
Wash Hinson
REMARKS
The text reads, “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” There were false prophets among the people during the prophetic dispensation. So, in the gospel dispensation there are false teachers among us. Some of the false prophets were Israelites, of God’s chosen people as a nation. So, some false teachers, some who are God’s children, teach false doctrine, and deny the Lord that bought them. “There shall be false teachers among you. They will rise up in the church and will “draw away disciples after them.” They deny the Lord that bought them in the false doctrines they teach. They bring upon themselves swift destruction. Sooner or later they are cut off from the fellowship and communion of the true followers of our Lord and Master. They are cut off from the church, and lose the fellowship and love the brethren once had for them. They are cast out, as the unprofitable servant. They are thus destroyed, and they bring it all upon themselves. They have no one to blame but themselves, for they “bring upon themselves swift destruction” by their false teaching. This truth uttered by the apostle has been abundantly exemplified during the past few years, and we fear there are others. Lord, help us all to contend for the right way, that we may never lose the fellowship and love of our brethren. C. H. C.
THE SLOTHFUL SERVANT
May 19, 1908
Sister J. S. Swicord, of Climax, Ga., requests us to give our views concerning the servant who hid his Lord’s talent in the earth. The parable is recorded in the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew. This servant received one talent; he received according to his ability, but instead of improving the talent he hid it in the earth. He said that his lord was a hard task-master. If we say that we cannot do what the Lord requires of us in His service, we say that He is a hard task-master, that He requires more of us than He gives us the ability to perform. But the Lord is not a hard task-master. He gives His children the ability to do what He requires them to do in rendering gospel service to Him. The unprofitable servant, who hides his talent instead of [pg 249] doing as the Lord requires, is cast into outer darkness. Oh, how dense that darkness is! Many of the Lord’s children have realized to their sorrow how dreadful the darkness is. When we disobey our loving Saviour’s commands, we are soon groping our way in the darkness. “There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” How bitterly we weep then! It is so much better to use our ability and our endeavors to improve the talent our Lord has given us, and endeavor to do what He lovingly commands us as His children to do, than to hide the talent, refuse to keep His commandments, and say by our disobedience that our blessed Saviour is a hard task-master. We are commanded to let our light so shine-let it shine as a lighted candle on a candle-stick— that it may give light to all that are in the house— let our light so shine before men that others may see our good works. Others do not see our good works when we disobey our Lord. We are not then letting our light shine. The light is thus hid by our disobedience. Our talent is not put to use. Let us all try to do what our Saviour requires of us. Peace and fellowship would then reign in our beloved Zion, and the approving smiles of our adorable Redeemer would be ours to enjoy. We would then be letting brotherly love continue. May the Lord help us to do so, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
WOMEN PREACHERS
May 19, 1908
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— We as Primitive Baptists, believing we are the church of God, believe a woman is out of her place to attempt to preach the gospel, as some are trying to do, for it is said in the word of God, 1 Cor. 14:34-35, “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak (that is, to preach); but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak (to preach) in the church.”
Can we find a woman in the Primitive Baptist Church, if they are true Baptists, trying to preach?
When the twelve apostles were called why didn’t Christ say, “You go, John, Mary, Susan, James,” and so on, until the twelve were named? I am giving you what I think about this. It is not much, on account of me being no Bible scholar. One Sunday I was at an Arminian’s for dinner and this subject came to our minds. I directed her to 1 Cor. 14:34-35, and she directed me to Phil. 4:2, “I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.” These were two women who were church workers at Philippi. Being no Bible scholar, I could not give an answer to her proof. Will you please compare through THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST 1 Cor. 14:34-35 with Phil. 4:2 as soon as you can? Your brother,
Wadesville, Ind., R. 20.
Lester E. Records
REMARKS
We know of no Primitive Baptist woman posing as a preacher. It makes no difference what the Arminian world may say, nor how much they may [pg 250] endeavor to make it appear that Phil. 4:2 justifies a woman preaching, it still remains true that it is positively forbidden in God’s word. The place referred to in Corinthians not only forbids it, but 1 Tim. 2:11,12 also positively forbids it. The apostle there says, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” The apostle here plainly says, “I suffer not a woman to teach.” The church that does suffer it now is not like the apostle, and therefore is not the church of God. These women mentioned in Phil. 4:2 were not preachers. There is not even the shadow of an intimation that they were. Preaching is not the only kind of church work there is to do. The third verse of the same chapter says, “And I entreat thee also, true yoke-fellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellow-laborers, whose names are in the book of life.”
These women helped the apostle in bearing his burdens, and encouraged him on his way. So do many of the sisters now help the poor ministers along the way; they speak words of encouragement to them and in different ways help them in their ministry, yet they themselves do not pose as preachers. In Rom. 16:3-4,5-6, the apostle says, “Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my well-beloved Epaenetus, who is of the first fruits of Achaia unto Christ. Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us.”
This shows how some of the sisters helped the apostle— but no intimation that they were preachers. There is absolutely no Scripture authority for a woman to preach; there is no precept nor example for such a thing. There is no authority for it, either express or; implied. We can see only one reason for a woman posing as a preacher, and that is she wants a name, or excitement, or wants to act “smart.” The Lord in His personal ministry, never sent out a woman to preach— not one. Neither does the Lord send them now. C. H. C.
JOHN 3: 5
May 26, 1908
Elder T. M. Hood, of Dickson, Tenn., requests our views of John 3:5, and asks why the water is spoken of first. The text reads, “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Bear in mind that the subject the Saviour had under consideration was the new birth, in the third [pg 251] verse He says, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” It may also be correctly rendered, “Except a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” The Saviour, then, was talking about being born again, or being born from above. The word “and” in the fifth verse may be correctly rendered “even”— thus, “Except a man be born of water, even Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Again in the seventh verse He said, “Ye must be born again”— or born from above. In the sixth verse the expression, “that which is born of the flesh is flesh,” does not mean that one who is born of flesh is nothing more than a lump of flesh, for the man is a being composed of soul, body and spirit. Neither can the expression, “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit,” be taken in an abstract sense. The Saviour teaches in these expressions the great truth that everything partakes of the nature of that from which it springs. Thus in being born of an earthly parentage one partakes of the nature of that parentage, and in being born of the Spirit one partakes of the divine nature. In this birth of the Spirit there is a washing or cleansing of the soul. In that sense the Saviour here uses the word “water,” as denoting a washing or cleansing. Tit. 3:5 says, “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” Here it is called a washing. Water signifies the same. “Born of water and of the Spirit,” and “washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” It is the work of the Holy Ghost or Spirit of God to renew the sinner, and this is done by regeneration, in which there is a washing. “That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.”— Eph. 5:26. Here the work of regeneration, that work which prepares us in soul for heaven, is called “washing of water by the word.” This is not the natural water, which is filthy at best. Take a powerful magnifying glass and look at a drop of clear water through it and you will see a living, working mass. But this water, or washing of regeneration, is a cleansing work.
The water does not refer to baptism, for if it did baptism would, sure enough, precede regeneration; and baptism would be the turning point upon which the eternal destiny of the sinner is hinged. Neither does it refer to the natural birth, for two good reasons. If it refers to that, it would also follow that the natural birth must precede the spiritual birth in all cases, but John the Baptist was born of the Spirit before his natural birth into the World. Besides, the text says, “Except a man be born of water.” A man is one who has already been born of the flesh. Hence the Saviour was talking of those who had been born of the flesh, and if the water referred to the birth of the flesh, then the man must again be born of the flesh then of the Spirit in order to enter into the kingdom of God. C. H. C.
[pg 252]
HEBREWS 2:2-3
May 26, 1908
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother in the Lord, as I hope— We are strangers in the flesh, but if I am what I profess and hope to be, we are not only acquainted but kin in the spirit. I have been taking your valuable paper, THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, since March, 1907, and am well pleased with it. It sets forth the doctrine of the Bible, or what I understand as the doctrine. As I have read some of your views on questions asked you to my satisfaction, I would be pleased to have your views on Heb. 2:2-3, “For if the word. spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him.” What salvation is under consideration, and what is it we will not escape if we neglect the salvation? Some say we cannot neglect a thing we are not in possession of, and then say the salvation spoken of is common or time salvation, which I understand to be our reward in obedience, which we are not in possession of until we obey. This view seems inconsistent to me. Please answer through the paper, or privately, if you think worthy of answer.
May the God of all grace bless you and uphold you in your good work, is my prayer. Remember me and mine, if not asking too much. Your brother, I hope,
D. M. Still
Dickson, Tenn.
OUR REPLY
The opposite of salvation is condemnation. The question, “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?” is a stronger way of saying, “If we neglect that salvation, we cannot escape the opposite of the salvation.” If the salvation here spoken of is eternal salvation, then it necessarily follows that our escaping eternal condemnation depends largely upon our not neglecting our eternal salvation. Eternal condemnation is the opposite of eternal salvation. A farmer may neglect his crop. If he does neglect it, he will have no crop— he will not reap a harvest. He must sow the seed, and not neglect to cultivate, if he reaps a harvest. “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” If the farmer sows wheat, he will not reap corn from that sowing. After he sows the wheat, it is necessary that he cultivate the crop in order that he reap a bountiful harvest. “Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.” “If ye sow to the flesh, ye shall of the flesh reap corruption.” If the farmer sows bad seed he will not reap a good harvest, If he sows burrs he will not reap wheat. “Beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith, virtue; and to virtue, knowledge; and to knowledge, temperance; and to temperance, patience; and to patience, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, charity.” — 2 Pet. 1:5-6,7. To sow as we should and to cultivate properly in the Christian life requires diligence. It is necessary to give earnest heed. If we neglect, then we are not giving [pg 253] earnest heed and are not diligent. If we are not giving earnest heed and are not diligent, then we “let them slip”— we are neglecting the salvation, and cannot escape the condemnation, which is the opposite of the salvation.
Our escaping eternal condemnation does not, in any sense, depend upon what we do or fail to do. This depends altogether upon the mercy and grace of God, and what Christ has done for us. “Not according to our works, but according to His mercy He saved us,” says the apostle. “Not of works, lest any man should boast,” he says again. When he said this, he was talking about that work which will give us to live with God in glory. “But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus.”— l Cor. 1:30. It is the work of God that one, is in Christ. He escapes eternal condemnation by the work of God— what God does for him— only and alone. It is the work of God only and alone by which one escapes eternal condemnation.
If the man who has natural life is slothful and neglectful of the duties of that life, he fails to enjoy the blessings of the life. He is not saved from the curses, or the opposite of those blessings. He cannot escape the opposite. So, the child of God, that one who is in Christ and who has the life of Christ implanted in his soul, who neglects the duties of that life, cannot escape the condemnation— cannot escape a guilty conscience. If he does not take heed, does not give diligence in that life, he is not saved from the pitfalls and snares set for him by Satan. It is necessary that he take heed and give diligence in doing what the Saviour requires in order that he escape those things and be saved from them. It is necessary that he give diligence and take heed, in order that he escape false doctrine and false practice. May the Lord help us to take heed, to be diligent in the discharge of our duty, that we may thereby save ourselves from the untoward generation, that we may be saved from the inventions of men and from their false doctrines and practices, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
WONDERFUL HISTORIAN
June 2, 1908
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Esteemed Sir— The enclosed clipping was taken from the Weekly Commercial Appeal, of Memphis. If you have the time, I would be glad that you would put the illustrious ancient historian and perambulating encyclopedia, that turns out made to order answers for every conceivable question, for the column in the Commercial Appeal, right as to date. With best wishes, I am yours very truly,
J. W. Delk
R. I Coffeeville, Miss.
THE CLIPPING
Q.— Where, when and by whom were these religious denominations founded: 1. Presbyterian; 2. Methodist; 3. Missionary Baptist; 4. Primitive or Hardshell Baptist. Reader.
[pg 254] A— 1. John Calvin, 1509-1564, is called the father of Presbyterianism. His great work was done during his exile at Geneva. John Knox (1507-1572) was the leader in establishing Presbyterianism in Scotland, and the first presbytery was organized in England in 1572. 2. Methodism grew out of the movement led in England by John Wesley (1703-1781,) and the first organization was in 1739. The government of the church took practically its present form in 1743. Thomas Coke organized the church in America in 1784. 3 and 4. The name Baptist was first given in 1644 to an organization of English Separatists. The England Baptist Missionary Society was organized in 1792 under the leadership of William Carey. The “Hard-shell,” or Primitive, or Anti-Mission body was organized about 1835 in the United States. They claim to he the original Baptists, while all others have departed from the correct principles and practices.
REMARKS
We shall not notice all of the above statements of this wonderful historian. We will simply say that the people known now as Primitive Baptists, called “Hardshells” by the enemies of truth, can trace their identity by history through the centuries to the days of the apostles by their doctrine and teaching. It makes no difference what they were called in different places and at different times, they were the same people.
The above historian (?) admits that the England Baptist Missionary Society was organized in 1792. That is true, and it was the first missionary society organized among the Baptists. This is admitted by all informed persons, be they Baptists or anything else. After that, the mission question was introduced in this country and societies begin to be organized here. The first one in this country was organized several years after 1792. For years the churches groaned and labored under these departures, until finally in 1832 a convention met at Black Rock, Md., and formally declared against the new measures and departures from the old order and simplicity of the gospel. The separation was final in about 1840. Thus the Missionary Baptist denomination came into existence. The admission that the Baptists existed prior to 1792, and that the mission system began in their ranks that year, which system the Missionaries now have, is an admission that they are the new order, and they have been adding new theories and inventions all along since their birth at such a rapid rate that their “daddy” (Andrew Fuller) would not know his “baby” if he could be brought back to earth now. C. H. C.
PRAY FOR LABORERS
June 9, 1908
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— Our little band of brethren and sisters met last first Saturday, but as we have no pastor we had no preaching. We sorrowfully turned our faces homeward, thinking all along the way, “Have we done our duty?” Tell us, Brother Cayce, should we have sung some songs and then all prayed for the Lord to send laborers, for the harvest is great, or was that command to the minister alone?
[pg 255] Will not some brother send us an appointment? We are few, but I believe all are faithful, but my own imperfect self.
Brother Cayce, may the good Lord sustain you and give you of His wisdom from on high to proclaim the merits and the power of a never-dying Saviour to save the vilest sinner without the help of man. Dear brethren and sisters, please pray for me and my dear family. Your sister in hope of a better, brighter, world, S. A. Carruth
R. 3. Tupelo, Miss.
REMARKS
We think it would be right for the church to hold conference whether a preacher is present or not. We think one great trouble and cause of so much coldness among the brethren is that they depend too much on the preacher. It appears sometimes that the preacher is depended on to do all the singing, praying and preaching; and sometimes it looks as though the preacher is depended on to do all the hearing too. Yes, it would have been right if you had engaged in singing some hymns in praise to the Lord. The Lord is worshipped in song as well as preaching, and sometimes that is a very sweet part of the service. And if you felt your need of a laborer in the Lord’s vineyard, why should you not bow in humble prayer to the Lord of the harvest and pray Him to send laborers into the harvest? It seems to us that those who feel and realize the need of true gospel laborers could very consistently pray the Lord to send them. The Lord gives ministers to the church. See Eph 4:8-13. As the ministry (laborers in the vineyard) are gifts of the Lord to the church, why should they not pray to the Lord for them? Yes, pray the Lord of the harvest to send laborers into that part of His vineyard, as well as into other places. C. H. C.
INFORMATION WANTED
August 4, 1908
Is salvation by grace or of works? My Bible teaches me that salvation is by grace and not of works. Eph. 2:8-9. But I notice that many of our preachers teach salvation by grace and works, especially during the protracted meetings. They will preach salvation by grace and practice salvation by works. They will preach salvation by grace in the pulpit and then come down and introduce works and make all kinds of propositions to sinners and get all they can to take the anxious seats, as they call them. (Where is the Scriptural authority for it? Book, chapter and verse, please.) Then they will turn to the Christians and begin to make propositions something like these: “If any of you have children or a friend back in the congregation, go to them; and if any of you have a son or a daughter at these anxious seats, come and bow by them.” Next, “Let all the Christians come to the altar and bow with these anxious ones; get as close to them as you can.” Just as if the Lord could not or would not save the people by themselves or without a lot of help. Now will some preacher or preachers that follow these practices tell me where I can find a Scriptural authority for such practices? I can’t find it. Please give me book, chapter and verse, if it is in the Bible. If not, why practice some [pg 256] thing that the Lord never taught us? Is it for the purpose of creating an excitement in order to get people into the church to count numbers? Is there not great danger of creating an excitement and through animal magnetism or mesmerism, cause people to be deceived and cause souls to go to hell? I think many of our preachers ought to get back to the Bible and quit preaching after Rome and her grand-daughters— C. S. Gregory, Ratiiff, Miss., in Baptist Flag, July 23, 1903.
REMARKS
If you will examine the twenty-third chapter of Revelation carefully perhaps you will find the authority for such practices as you mention, as well as many other things engaged in by the Missionary Baptists. If you do not find the authority there for the practice you mention, you will not find it in the Bible.
Here is another point our friend Gregory may consider: The preacher will often tell the sinners that Christ is standing there at the altar ready, willing and anxious to save them; and that all that is necessary for them to be saved is for them to come to the altar and give themselves to the Lord. Then when the sinners come to the altar to give themselves to the Lord, the preacher will kneel in prayer and beg the Lord to “come now and save these poor penitent sinners.” Now the question: Was the Lord there when the preacher said He was? If so, did He leave when the sinners came? If He was there at the first, then left, was He ready, willing and anxious to save them? If He was, did He change His notion, and leave when the sinners went there? If He did not leave, why does the preacher pray for Him to come? Why do they preach one way, and pray another? Why do they preach, sometimes, that salvation is by grace, and then tell the sinners they will go to hell unless they do thus and so? Do not some men judge for reward, teach for hire, and divine for money? See Micah 3:11. Do not some people teach that they could take the world for Christ if they had money enough? Does not this make the eternal destiny of men and women depend upon money and the liberality of the people? Does your home in heaven depend upon this, or does it depend upon the mercy and grace of God? Can your home in heaven depend upon the mercy and grace of God, and the home of another in heaven depend upon something else? Is God dependent upon money and the liberality of the people to save His people? Is not the world and all its fullness His? If He was hungry, would He tell you? Does not God do His will? Is it not God’s work to save? Then, will He not save all that it is His will to save? If not, why not?
These questions are only a few of the many that often arise in our mind. We give them to our readers and trust they may ponder them in their hearts. Oh, that the Lord’s people might see the truth and be blessed with the holy boldness to contend for the same, and to come out from among the false religionists of the day. C. H. C.
[pg 257]
CONVERTS FOR NINE DOLLARS
August 18, 1908
Elder C. H. Cayce: Here is a clipping from today’s Memphis Commercial. This is the first time I ever saw anything like it in newspaper print, however I’ve heard of such at divers times and it just made my poor heart throb at the idea of such. I read it to a friend of mine who was sitting near by, and he just remarked: “It’s the first time I ever heard that it cost money to bring men to Christ,” and stated he did not believe in such and that from all appearances, he said, it looked like the way religious services are being conducted is a money machine. He is not a member of any church. Make a note of the clipping some time if you deem it proper. With much love,
E. A. Gulledge
THE CLIPPING
Oklahoma City, Okla., May 23— Converts to the Baptist faith are won in Oklahoma at a cost of but $9 each, a record in economy surpassing that of any other state or territory, according to a statement made at today’s session of the Northern Baptist Convention by Rev. C. J. Stalcup, representing the Home Mission Society of Oklahoma. Dr. Stalcup recounted the history of the mission work in Oklahoma, beginning with the Christian crusade in 1865, and said it had been continued up to the present time without interruption and with very gratifying results.
REMARKS
According to the minutes of the Tennessee Baptist State Convention for 1905 and the Baptist and Reflector, converts in Oklahoma cost four dollars more than they did in Tennessee that year. They would do more good by spending their money where it costs less to save a soul. We wonder if they will sing in heaven, “Thank the Missionaries and the liberal people for spending money to save our souls.” Such perversions of God’s word is common in these days. It seems that the people love to be humbugged. C. H. C.
PREDESTINARIAN BAPTIST
September 8, 1908
We have before us Vol. 1, No. 1, of a paper called “Predestinarian Baptist,” published by Elders C. M. Weaver and W. I Camel. Elder Weaver is connected with a disorderly faction in Illinois, and was a leading figure in a division in the Bethel Association in that state a few years ago. Elder Camel was born and reared in West Tennessee, and we have known him for years. He was a leader in an unholy and sad division in our churches some years ago. The Baptists in our country nearly all know him, and he has no standing among our people. Neither of these men would be received by or in any of our churches. We note some of the principles they propose to stand for and teach in their paper, which have always been a source of strife, confusion, discord [pg 258] and division in every place and at every time they have been taught and advocated among them. We also note some of their inconsistencies. We feel it to be our indispensable duty to call the attention of our brethren to these things, and to raise a note of warning and cry of approaching danger to the brethren in sections where these things are likely to be introduced and bring more trouble into our beloved Zion.
This paper (the Predestinarian Baptist) proposes to advocate the doctrine of the absolute and unconditional predestination of all things that come to pass, the annihilation of the wicked, and that an experience of grace is the only thing necessary to obtain and retain membership in the church of Christ.
In an article copied from the “Advocate of Truth,” and endorsed by Elder Weaver, this statement is found: “Now with these facts confronting us, witnessed by inspiration, we should not wonder that the Lord said to Daniel, ‘The wicked shall do wickedly.’ This is an expression of the decree of God. In this chapter and the one preceding it, the word shall, in speaking of the future acts of His creatures, is used as directed by Jehovah more than 150 times, and he prefaces the whole of it by saying, ‘and now will I shew you the truth.’ There is no uncertainty attending these shalls; and linguists tell us that ‘will’ used with the first person or ‘shall’ with the second or third person expresses determination.” According to this statement, every time God says “you shall” or “they shall” or “thou shalt,” it expresses God’s determination— that God has determined it to be that way. If that be true, then some of God’s determination fails. The Lord said to Adam, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it.”— Gen. 2:17. If the term, “thou shalt,” or “you shall,” expresses God’s determination, as that article says, then God determined that Adam should not eat of that tree; but he did eat, and therefore God’s determination was a failure. The Lord has also said. “Thou shalt not kill. Neither shalt thou commit adultery. Neither shalt thou steal. Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbor.”— Deut. 5:17-20. According to the statement of the paper referred to above, God determined that these people should not kill, nor commit adultery, nor steal, nor bear false witness. Yet some do these things; hence, according to that position, God’s determination or predestination is a failure.
Now, the truth of the matter is that the statement made in the paper is not correct. The word shall is sometimes used in making a statement of a fact, and sometimes in giving a command. In Gen. 2:17 and in Deut. 5:17-20 it is used as a command. These were commands given by the Lord. In the statement, “the wicked shall do wickedly,” is no expression whatever of God’s determination or predestination. It is simply a true statement of a [pg 259] fact. Upon this principle the Scriptures harmonize. The predestination of God does not bear the same relation to sin and wickedness as it does to righteousness and holiness, and when no distinction is made in one’s preaching or teaching on this line, trouble and confusion always follows.
If their position regarding the annihilation of the wicked be true, then the Baptists have been wrong all along the line. Our articles of faith are wrong, and the whole denomination, as a body, is wrong. This is the first and only paper we know of among us that in its first issue comes out squarely against our articles of faith, and openly repudiates an article which is accepted by nearly all who claim to be Old School Baptists. It is true that some have held this view as their private opinion, which has been allowed, and no quarrel raised. But in every case where it has been advocated, it has caused division. Many churches in Kansas were torn to pieces by the introduction and teaching of that doctrine among them. If that position be true, our whole denomination would have to be reformed and reconstructed. This cannot be done. They may be divided and their peace and union destroyed by the introduction of new measures and heresies, but they cannot be reconstructed. The Saviour said, in Matt. 25:46, “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” The same word which is translated eternal with reference to the life of the righteous is the word used in the original with reference to the punishment of the wicked. “These shall go away into aionion punishment: but the righteous into aionion life.” If the life of the righteous is eternal, then the punishment of the wicked is eternal. If the punishment of the wicked ceases, then the life of the righteous will cease, for one is as lasting as the other.
If their other contention be true, that an experience of grace is all that can he required of one in order that membership be had and one be retained in the church of Christ, then the church has no right to discipline her members. The position is in direct opposition to the very idea of discipline. If one has an experience, according to their position, no matter how badly he might conduct himself, the church would have no right to exclude him from their fellowship. When Elder Camel lived in our country and helped to divide our churches, we thought then that the doctrine he advocated was a cloak for wrong doing, and this looks to us as though it is the same thing.
The doctrine of grace presents no such things as this. The doctrine of the Bible teaches that we should live as becometh children of God, and that we should not have fellowship for those who do not. Such teaching as they have put forth in the first issue of their paper can only cause strife and division in every place where it obtains a footing, and it is the indispensable duty of the brethren everywhere to let the teachers of such things alone. It grieves [pg 260] us to feel the necessity of raising a warning cry against these things, but we feel that it is our duty, which it is if we are what we profess to be. Dear brethren, we beseech you, in the name of Christ, and for the sake of the peace, and union, and fellowship of the churches, to take warning.
C. H. C.
2 CORINTHIANS 4:3
September 8, 1908
We have been requested to give our views on 2 Cor. 4:3, which reads, “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost.” The next verse reads, “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” We think the apostle has reference to the children of God whose minds are blinded by the god or gods of this world. The good news of Christ is hid to them. They do not believe the gospel. They have an experimental knowledge of the Lord; but their minds are so blinded by false teachers and their teaching that the gospel in its purity and sweetness is hid to them. The Saviour says in Matt. 13:15, “For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.” It is God’s people whose heart waxes gross, and whose ears become dull of hearing, and who close their eyes to the truth. The heart of the unregenerate is desperately wicked, and does not become gross. He has no spiritual ears nor eyes to become dull or to close. The heart of a child of God may become gross, his ears dull of hearing, and his eyes closed. When he is in this condition the gospel of Christ, the glad tidings, is hid to him, and he is lost to its sweetness. When one is in this condition he is not converted from his errors, or from the ways of the world, and the light of the glad tidings does not shine unto him. It is hid to him, and he is lost in the darkness of the world, false theory, false religion, false doctrine, false practice, doubt and despair. Yet, notwithstanding his losing so much while journeying here as a pilgrim, he shall not be utterly cast down nor destroyed, for the Lord upholdeth him with His hand, and will at last take the poor wanderer home to Himself, where sorrows and troubles and afflictions will be no more. C. H. C.
[pg 261]
REVELATION 22:18-19
September 8, 1908
We have been requested to give our views on Rev. 22:19. Verses 18 and 19 read, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” The book of life referred to in verse 19 may be the same as the tree of life referred to in verse 2 of the same chapter, and also in verse 14. The city, or holy city, is referred to in verse 14. The holy city is the church. The tree of life may be Christ in His manifest presence to His children in the church. Their part in the church is to have sweet delight in the realization and manifestation of His presence. They feed upon His promises, and sit with Him. But when they “take away from the words of the book of this prophecy,” their part is taken away, and they have not the enjoyment of the presence of Jesus nor the comfort and sweetness of His presence to feed them. They have no place in the church or holy city. They do not sit with Jesus in His kingdom or church. The plagues are added and the joys and comforts of the Christian life are taken away. C. H. C.
[pg 262]
2 PETER 2:22
September 8, 1908
We have been requested to give our views on this text, which reads, “But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned unto his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.” Peter says it happened unto some people according to the proverb, which he says is a true one. A dog will turn to his vomit and again eat that which he vomited up. A sow may be washed forty times, yet will wallow in the mud at every opportunity. Their natures are not changed. They have only the one nature, so with the unregenerate. They may make great professions and much outward show of cleanliness, but when convenient opportunity presents itself, and they think they may not be found out or caught in their wickedness, they will wallow in the filth again and will again eat the sins that they have professed to hate. It is their nature, for the nature has not been changed, and they have no holy nature. God’s people are sheep. A sheep will not wallow in the filth and mire. C. H. C.
1 PETER 2:13
September 8, 1908
We have been requested to give our views on this text, which reads, “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;” verse 14, “or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by Him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.” This teaches us that God’s people should be a law-abiding people; that we should be subject to kings and governors, and obey their laws, commandments and ordinances in all things and in all matters not contrary to the commands of our God. We should obey the laws of our country in all respects where conscience is not interfered with. C. H. C.
ROMANS 8:1
October 6, 1908
We do not think Paul’s expression in Romans, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit,” has reference to obedience, or that the Lord’s people are not condemned because they walk after the Spirit. We believe it is true that there is a sense in which the children of God are condemned when they disobey, but we do not think this text is treating upon that subject. The apostle continues the expression, and tells why there is no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”
This is why they are not condemned. We offer this in kindness.
C. H. C.
IS IT TRUE?— SOMETHING NEW
October 20, 1908
I am told that the long agitated question among Missionaries as to whether the boards control the churches or the churches control the boards a year ago at New Albany, Miss., assumed a new shape.
E. L. Wesson, former editor of The Expositor and Journal, of Memphis, which paper was sold to J. B. Cranfill, the leading editor of the Board party, who at that time was editor of the Baptist Tribune, to which Elder E. L. Wesson became field editor, and afterwards pastor. While pastor at New Albany this same F. L. Wesson, endorsed by all the leading board people, ordered a former member of New Albany Baptist Church to sit down. The member of the church turned to the church and said, “I appeal to the church.” These five words and no more. The episode is too long to record. The Lowreys, of Blue Mountain College, I N. [pg 263] Penick, and the Baptist Flag endorse and honor F. L. Wesson. The question I want to ask THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST to answer is, Is that the private opinion of these great men, or will they publicly say what they have privately done, namely, “No man has the right to say to a Baptist church, ‘I appeal to the church’?” Or, in other words, Is the authority in the preacher or in the church?
E. L. Wesson is counted authority, and his associates stand high, too. An open debate might be healthy, too, as lawyers are not informed and differ about the legal phase of the case. This was done in regular conference under a regular motion.
A Subscriber.
REMARKS
We do not know what these men will say publicly, but we do know what the practice of the Missionary Baptist Church is. The boards control the churches, and the preachers are the bosses. It is true also that they have usually claimed that the church controls, but their practice has not been that way. Read the constitution of the Southern Baptist Convention for evidence that the churches do not control. C. H. C.
NO MISREPRESENTATION
October 20, 1908
Elder C. M. Weaver says in the Predestinarian Baptist of October 1: “Now before you undertake to injure us and the Predestinarian Baptist, I think it would be more becoming of you and would look much more like the right spirit for you to first take up our articles of faith and prove them untrue by the Bible, and show that we are not occupying primitive grounds. Will you do this, or will you continue to misrepresent us and poison the minds of the brethren against us?” In this you charge us with misrepresenting you. We deny the charge and demand the proof.
It is not necessary to take up one’s articles of faith and prove them untrue in order to prove that he does not teach the truth, for some people sometimes teach things that are not in harmony with their articles of faith. We did refer to statements you made and some you endorsed, and if those statements were not your teaching then there is nothing in language.
But Elder Weaver teaches that God absolutely and unconditionally predestinated from all eternity all things that come to pass. He now accuses us of misrepresenting him. If we did as he accuses us. and if his teaching is true, then God absolutely and unconditionally predestinated from all eternity that we should misrepresent him. Then why complain at us? Are you not complaining at God’s predestination?
He says that it would be more becoming of us to do another way than the way he says we did. Then we suppose it would have been more becoming of [pg 264] us if we had done differently to the way God predestinated we should do. If God predestinated that we should do the way we did, then we suppose He predestinated that we should not do some other way. So Elder Weaver thinks it would have been becoming of us to do what God predestinated we should not do. He seems to think it was unbecoming of us because we were carrying out God’s predestination.
Elder Weaver indirectly accuses us of believing the Missionary Baptist doctrine, which he knows is untrue. He knows that the Missionary Baptists teach that the receiving of eternal life is conditional on the part of the alien sinner, and he also knows that we do not teach this. Hence his charge is without foundation, and he certainly knows it.
Elder Weaver also intimates that he would like to have a debate. Have you a man that your brethren will endorse as an honorable man and able to set forth your doctrine and defend it? And will he affirm that “The Scriptures teach that God absolutely and unconditionally predestinated from all eternity all things whatsoever cometh to pass, both good and bad?” If you have the man and he will affirm that proposition, and you want a debate, we are sure you can be accommodated. C. H. C.
FAIRCHILD PEACE PROPOSITION
October 27, 1908
Some time ago we received a copy of a “Peace Proposition,” by Elder J. W. Fairchild, editor of the Footprints of the Flock. Several brethren have asked us what we think of it, so we feel called upon to express our opinion of it publicly. We would have done so before this time, but we have been so far behind with our work that we could find little time to write.
We will now say plainly that we do not endorse the move, and do not endorse some of the points brought out in the proposition; besides the proposition does not appear to us to be in harmony with itself. Not only is this true, but Elder Fairchild has been a leader in advocating the things that caused the division among us on predestination and common or time salvation. In 1905 Elder Fairchild made a trip to Texas and went among those who denounce our brethren as “Bildads,” “Arminians,” etc. The following is a sample of what Elder Fairchild himself said of our brethren in Texas:
There was one addition to the church at this association, and another one baptized who had joined some time before. The one who joined was L. E. Skinner. Brother Skinner had been a Missionary Baptist preacher, but becoming convinced that the Old School Baptists are the church of God, he sought a home among them. Not understanding the difference between [pg 265] the true and so-called Baptists in Texas, he joined the “Bar Baptists,” or Webb faction, but soon found that they are more bitter enemies to the truth and its advocates than the Missionaries themselves.
This is a short extract from what Elder Fairchild said of our Texas brethren, and as we stand with them in doctrine, so far as we know, we feel that it includes us. Here he calls the true and faithful advocates of truth in Texas a faction, and “more bitter enemies to the truth and its advocates than the Missionary Baptists.” We do not understand why Elder Fairchild would want fellowship with us while he considers us such bitter enemies to the truth. Does he want fellowship with the Missionaries too? If not, why not— seeing he asks us to fellowship him, while he considers us more bitter enemies to the truth than the Missionaries.
In another place in this paper is an article written by Elder Fairchild in 1896 and a reply written by Elder Lemuel Potter. We copy them from the Church Advocate of June, 1896. We think Elder Fairchild should retract a little before asking the brethren to fellowship him with his teaching.
When Elder Fairchild asks us to fellowship him and his teaching, with those who stand with him, and who advocate the same doctrine he has been advocating, we are asked to fellowship such teaching as the following: In the Bethel church trial in the Circuit Court of Graves county, Ky., Elder R. H. Boaz’ deposition was taken in February, 1897. This question was put to Elder Boaz: “You will please state whether or not you believe that man has the power to will or to do sinful acts unless God purposed and predestinated that he should do those sinful acts?” His reply was: “I answer again that the purpose or predestination of God, according to our belief on the subject, has nothing to do with the shaping of man’s will; but that man has not the power to will or to do anything that thwarts God’s purpose or predestination.
I ANSWER THAT MAN HAS NOT THE POWER TO WILL OR TO DO A SINFUL ACT UNLESS GOD PREDESTINATED AND WILLED THAT HE SHOULD DO IT. For I believe that God purposed or decreed all things whatsoever cometh to pass.” [The emphasis is ours.] When it comes to this, we must beg to be excused. If we must believe this in order to be a Primitive Baptist, we confess we are not one.
In Elder Fairchild’s article concerning his trip in Texas, from which the above extract is quoted, he says they have been persecuted and falsely accused. In his peace proposition he says, “We unconditionalists (a great many of us at least) have learned that we were mistaken concerning the views of our conditional brethren: that they do not hold that God’s regenerated people have the ability to obey independent of the Spirit, and by obedience merit blessings.” In all candor we would ask why has anyone ever understood us to [pg 266] teach that God’s people had the ability to obey independent of the Spirit? Elder Fairchild and those who have stood with him have charged us with believing and teaching this, but we have always denied it, and have always argued that it is THROUGH THE SPIRIT that they are able to obey.
He also says in his peace proposition that the bars of fellowship were set up by those who believe in limited predestination and conditional time salvation. This may be true so far as he knows; but if so, his knowledge is limited.
In our country we begged and plead and labored for peace; we begged that these things not be made a test of fellowship nor made a hobby of, but our pleadings were all in vain. It was said that we were heretics and should be rejected. If we were heretics then, we are heretics now, for we stand now just where we did then.
We would like to know if Elder Fairchild believes as Elder Boaz stated his belief in his deposition quoted from above? We do not believe what Elder Boaz said he believed, and beg to be excused when we are asked to fellowship it. Elder Fairchild says in his peace proposition that “so long as real differences exist between us there will be confusion, and peace will never be brought about by crying, “Peace, peace, where there is no peace.” If he believes as Elder Boaz, then there is a real difference existing between us, and Elder Fairchild says “so long as real differences exist between us there will be confusion.”
Then, why not let us alone and let us have peace? Do you want to be among us again in order to have more confusion? As sure as the doctrine is preached among us again that caused the confusion before, it would cause the same thing again. The churches in our country are in peace, and they do not want that doctrine preached among them.
Elder Fairchild further says in his peace proposition, “But there can be no acceptable service rendered to God only that which is the fruit of the Spirit; therefore their obedience depends not on their own volition, but upon the Spirit of God. We ‘work out our own salvation with fear and trembling’ We do the work; but the reason we work out our salvation is because ‘God works in us, both to will and to do of His good pleasure.’ “If the child of God has no volition in rendering obedience, then there is no obedience rendered. The windmill turns, but it does not do so voluntarily. It does not obey. The service which God accepts is a willing service, rendered from a principle of love. “If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord.”—Lev. 1:3. This was for the children of Israel. True, the offerings and sacrifices made under the law represented the offering which Christ should make for the sins of His people, yet it is necessary for us to make a sacrifice now in order that [pg 267] we render true and acceptable service to the Lord. As the sacrifices made then must he made willingly, so must they be thus made now.
If they are made grudgingly they are not acceptable before the Lord. He requires a willing service. Hence there must be some volition. It is also true, however, that volition, or will, springs from life. A will for natural things springs from the natural life; so a will for holiness and righteousness springs from the divine life which God implants within the soul by the direct work of His Spirit. When this is done we are required to render this willing service.
Again, Elder Fairchild says in his proposition, “And should any do what Christ commands, hoping thereby to obtain a reward, they would be the servants of self, seeking their own welfare and not the glory of God. All such service is selfish, and can never be well pleasing in the sight of God.” David says, “The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.
More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned, and in keeping of them there is great reward.”— Psa. 19:8-11. If there is no sense in which we should render service to the Lord in hope of reward, why would David use this language? The reader will please turn and read Pro. 11:18; 25:21-22; Matt. 10:41-42; 1Cor. 3:8; Col. 3:23-25; Heb. 11:6. The Saviour says, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”— Matt. 11:28-30. The reward or rest is what the weary and heavy laden is longing for, and in this text he is expressly told by the Saviour to take His yoke and he shall find that reward of rest which he is longing for.
We wonder if Elder Fairchild was not laboring under a heavy burden before he went before the church and related what he hoped the Lord had done for him? And we wonder if he did not go to the church hoping to find relief there? If so, was he not hoping for a reward or rest in doing this? And we wonder if the Lord was pleased with this act of his? Again, we wonder if he did not begin preaching hoping to find rest— hoping for a reward? We wonder if he would continue preaching if he was as well satisfied when he is not thus engaged? Then, does he not continue preaching in the hope of continually finding that rest— hoping to continually receive the reward?
Unless he can receive our views, then there is a difference existing between us. These things are what Elders Boaz, Perkins & Co., have continually called Arminianism in this country. There are certainly a great many [pg 268] commandments, admonitions and exhortations in the Scriptures. The Arminians have always applied them to the alien or unregenerate sinner. The Old Baptists have always said they belong to the child of God. Instead, therefore, of being Arminianism, it is what we have always used to defeat them and to overthrow their positions and arguments. We stand on the same old platform, and have no other place to go, neither do we desire any. May the Lord help us all to stand in that way, and help us to watch as well as pray. C. H. C.
NO FELLOWSHIP
October 27, 1908
The Predestinarian Baptist of Oct. 1, 1908, has an editorial over the signature of W., which we presume to he Elder C. M. Weaver, which says: “We never met Elder Fairchild, but have known of him for several years; and have always known him to be a Baptist of the old sort and one that would stick.” He put out a declaration of his faith on predestination and time salvation some time ago and requested all who could stand with him to notify him. I have read his declaration of principles and find them to be just what I believe and teach, and I take this method of saying to him, I join you heart and hand on the doctrine of unlimited predestination and salvation unconditional and all of grace. * * * I am ready to walk with any of God’s children in the truth, but I cannot and will not walk a single day on this earth with ‘conditional time salvation,’ the doctrine of chance, or any other that seeks to rob God of His glory. I want to walk with him who walks with God.” Now, Elder Fairchild, there you have it, precisely! Do any of the “unconditionalists” declare non-fellowship? What do you say now? And does not Elder Weaver’s statement have in it that those brethren who believe what they call “conditional time salvation” also believe in a chance system, and a system that seeks to rob God of His glory? Is not this enough? C. H. C.
INFANT SALVATION
November 17, 1908
In this issue of this paper is a letter from Brother James A Leake, in which he requests our views on infant salvation. He says the Arminians argue that the Primitive Baptists preach infant damnation. This old story has been told on the Primitive Baptists until it has become stale and gray-headed. No honest well informed person makes such a charge against the Primitive Baptists.
The person who does it is either willfully ignorant or maliciously falsifies.
[pg 269] In Mark 10:15 the. Saviour says, “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.” This teaches us that the adult is saved the very same way that a little child is saved. Some may say that it teaches that we (adults) must become just like a little child in order that we be saved. Very good; if it teaches that, then it follows that when we become as a little child, there is nothing that will prevent our salvation. If there is nothing that will prevent our salvation when we are just like a little child, then there is nothing that will prevent the salvation of the little child. The little child is perfectly helpless and dependent. So are we. The little child is saved because of the blessing which Jesus bestows. We are saved the same way. C. H. C.
GENESIS 3:22-24
November 17, 1908
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother in the Lord— Will you kindly give me your views on Gen. 3:22 through the columns of your paper?
Daniel Miller.
Louisville, Miss., R. 5.
REMARKS
Gen. 3:22-24 reads, “And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever: therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” In verse 5 the tempter had said, “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
Notice, “ye shall be as gods,” not as God, but as false gods, which are plural, more than one. The Lord is God of gods, Lord of lords, and King of kings. Now, since man has violated the law, he knows evil. He knew the good before, but now he knows both good and evil— hence “is become as one of us”— not as I am, but as one of us. Then the Lord God sent him forth from the garden to till the ground, “lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.” Then the Lord placed the Cherubims and flaming sword to keep the way of the tree of life. These have never been removed, and to this day they keep the way of the tree of life, so that man cannot put forth his hand and take of that tree and eat and live forever. Hence the sinner cannot be saved by his own effort. C. H. C.
[pg 270]
A DOUBLE MINDED MAN
November 24, 1908
Brother Dan Revis, Capital Hill, Okla., requests our views on James 1:8, “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.” A double minded man is one who is wavering; he is always changing; he is unstable; undecided. He is not settled in his mind. He tries one position a short time, then another. He may stay with the Old Baptists a while, then go to another church or denomination; but he doesn’t stay long— he soon comes back. But he is not fully decided; he soon goes again to the other denomination. Still, he is not settled. He may soon come back again; and so, on and on. He is unstable, unsettled in his mind as to who is right or as to where he belongs. This is a double minded man. C. H. C.
THE SOUL AFTER DEATH
November 24, 1908
Elder C. H. Cayce:
I would like to have your views about the soul after the death of the body. Is it a living substance with knowledge of what is going on in this world?
J. C. Harris
Franklin, Ky.
REMARKS
The soul is a living entity which exists after the death of the body. Moses died, and the Lord buried him. His body was buried; but on the mount of transfiguration the Saviour talked with Moses and Elias in the presence of Peter, James and John. This being true, the soul of Moses was a living entity.
The Saviour told the disciples not to fear those who could do no more than to kill the body, but to fear Him that is able to destroy BOTH soul and body in hell. In Revelation we are told that John saw the souls of them under the altar of God who were beheaded for the testimony of the Lord. They were crying, “How long, oh, how long,” etc. This being true, the soul must be a living entity which exists after the death of the body. We do not know how much they know, and we would, therefore, rather not express any opinion on that point. Some brethren hold that they do know all that is going on here, while others think that they do not. Perhaps much of that is only speculation. There is enough clearly revealed, and what is not revealed is beyond us. We can only speculate on that, and our speculation will not do others any good.
C. H. C.
[pg 271]
DEUTERONOMY 6:6-7
November 24, 1903
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Please give your views on Deut. 6:6-7, “And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou heat down, and when thou risest up.”
Pray for me, as I feel I need your prayers. Your unworthy brother,
L. O. Carr
R. 2, Butler Springs, Ala.
REMARKS
These words which the Lord commanded were the commandments, the statutes and the judgments which the Lord commanded that Israel might do them. See verses 1 to 5. These people should continue to teach the law to their children, not to make them their children, but because they were theirs. The law was to be taught them because they were Israelites. So, there is a teaching now, not to make people children of God. The Lord teaches the experimental lesson Himself. Then there is a gospel teaching for His children, and His ministers are required to teach this gospel lesson to God’s people, and not to the unregenerate.
C. H. C.
THE SCAPEGOAT
November 24, 1908
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— I would like for you to give your views on what the scapegoat represents, and who he represents, if not asking too much of you. May God bless you all, is my prayer.
Yours in love,
Arthur Greenhill
Daily, Ala.
REMARKS
In the offering in which there was a scapegoat, two goats were used. See Lev. 16. Both these goats represented the work of Christ in His atonement and sacrifice for sin. One of the goats was slain. So was Christ slain. The priest laid his hands on the head of the scapegoat and confessed the sins of Israel on the head of that goat, then the goat was carried away by a fit man into the land of forgetfulness. Our sins were laid on Christ; see Isa. 53:6. He bore our sins in His own body on the tree; see 1 Pet. 2:24. He put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself; see Heb. 9:26. The scapegoat, therefore, represented the work of Christ in carrying our sins away into the land of forgetfulness, where they will be remembered against us no more. Our sins are, therefore, atoned for, satisfaction is made for them; and they are also all borne away, in the work of Christ. C. H. C.
[pg 272]
CLOSE OF VOLUME TWENTY-THREE
December 22, 1908
The twenty-third volume of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST closes with this issue. It has now been published continuously for twenty-three years, without any suspension— hence it has not been “revived.” The first issue of the paper was sent out the first of January, 1886, by our dear lamented father, Elder S. F. Cayce, and has never been suspended and then “revived.” The writer has been connected with the paper nearly all the time since September 1st, 1886, in one capacity or another. Since the death of our dear father in August, 1905, we have been trying in our weakness to fill the place of editor. We were aware that it was a hard place to fill, but never realized the extent of it until the burden fell upon our shoulders. We have labored arduously and incessantly since that time, feeling that the responsibility is so great and there is so much to do that we have no time to lose. We do not dare claim, for a moment, that we have made no mistakes, for we realize keenly that we have made many of them. We are sure we know this as well as our readers do. We do not claim perfection for ourselves nor for others, yet our own mistakes give us more trouble than the mistakes other people make. It is our desire to profit by the mistakes we have made in the past, and to try to avoid the same mistakes in the future. But we are forgetful and short-sighted creatures, and sometimes make the same mistake more than once. We trust all our readers, especially the dear brethren and sisters, will throw the mantle of charity over all our imperfections, and pardon every mistake we have made, and bear with us in our weakness.
We are well aware of the fact that THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST is not being conducted to suit some people. Because we have condemned the practices of some they say we publish “wrangling”articles. Of course with some people everything is “wrangling” unless it coincides perfectly with some new-fangled notion of their own. If we were to open our columns to the defense and advocacy of those new measures and new practices, then it would not be “wrangling” in their estimation. We have been censured because we have allowed our columns to be used in condemning the new measures introduced by some among our people in different sections of the country. But THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST is being published in defense of Primitive Baptist principles and practice, and it is an obligation we feel resting upon us to condemn every wrong and false way, even though that way be introduced among our own people. One editor has even gone so far as to threaten in a private letter to us to take his “fighting gloves” off and “go at it” in earnest. None of these things move us. We feel that we have endeavored to discharge our duty [pg 273] along this line, and if God has required this at our hands, the anathemas of men concern us very little. Young, ambitious men may continue to start their little “journals,” and dictate to others how they should conduct an Old Baptist paper, and publish many “Don’ts” for their older brethren who are wearing themselves out in the service, but by the Lord’s help we shall endeavor to continue to publish The PRIMITIVE BAPTIST in defense of the time honored principles of our fathers, and in defense of our dear precious old brethren who have stood in the heat of the battles and have borne the burdens of the day. God bless our dear, precious old brethren. They have been a comfort and consolation to us, and they are yet. We have been trying in our weakness to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ for about eighteen years (it has been, we think, about eighteen years since we made the first effort), and the dear old fathers in Israel have been kind and good to us, and have so kindly “nursed” us during these years. We love those of them who are yet spared to us, and the memory of those who have already crossed over the river is cherished by us. We trust the Lord may so keep us that we may never speak unkindly of them.
We have, amidst all the conflicts and censures, been much comforted and encouraged by the many words and letters of commendation from dear brethren and sisters in different portions of the country. We receive many letters of commendation from the North, South, East and West. This has been a great comfort and encouragement to us. At times we have felt to be greatly discouraged, but perhaps the mail would bring a letter of commendation, containing words of cheer, from some dear brother or sister, perhaps in a distant place, which would revive our drooping spirit and help us to take courage to “fight on” a little while longer. Were it not for the many expressions we receive from the dear brethren and sisters endorsing the principles contended for in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, and telling how they have been comforted and encouraged by reading its columns, we feel that we would have given up in despair. We cannot tell how much your kind words and sweet letters have benefitted us.
Whether THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST has been conducted to the glory of God or not, we must leave our brethren and sisters to judge. We can only say that it has been our humble desire to conduct the paper in such a way as to comfort and benefit the Lord’s dear tempest-tossed children, and to the glory of God, and to contend for the ancient order of the gospel and for the order of God’s house.
Now, we kindly bid our readers farewell for the year 1908. Before another issue of the paper is sent out, this year will be a thing of the past. It has brought its sorrows, trials and conflicts, as well as its joys and pleasures. May [pg 274] our dear Saviour manifest His sweet presence to our every reader, and may His grace sustain you in all your trials and conflicts, is our humble prayer. We beg our dear readers to please remember us in all your petitions at a throne of grace. Pray the Lord to strengthen us for the trials of the coming year, that we may be enabled to conduct THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST in such a way as to be well pleasing to our adorable Lord. C. H. C.
INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME
TWENTY-FOUR
January 5, 1909
With this issue we begin the publication of the twenty-fourth volume of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. The old year, with its joys and sorrows, is numbered with the past, and the new year of 1909 has been ushered in. We know not what this year has in store for us. We cannot see into the future. Yet we are sure, if we may judge the future by the past, that there will be difficulties to surmount and trials to endure. There is “a thorn for every rose,” and a sorrow for every joy. Day is always succeeded by the night. Hence we are aware that all will not be pleasure. There will be battles for some of us to fight. We should fight the good fight of faith, as valiant soldiers of the cross. We should put on the whole armor of God. The Lord has given His little children sufficient weapons for use in the warfare. He has prepared for them “for an helmet the hope of salvation, the breastplate of righteousness, the shield of faith, the sword of the Spirit,” and “their feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace.” A helmet is a headdress, something to be worn on the head. The blessed hope the Lord has given keeps us from giving up in despair.
The breastplate protects the breast. The righteousness our blessed Lord has wrought out for His little children protects them from the destructive darts or arrows of the wicked one.
A shield is worn on the arm, and is to be held between the wearer and the enemy to ward off the thrusts of the enemy. The Lord has prepared for His little children the shield of faith. Then He has given them a sword to use in the other hand. There is something for both hands to do. There is enough to keep our minds engaged. Our affections also should be set on things above, not on things on the earth.
The feet also have something to do. We should walk right. The feet are shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace. Oh, how careful we should be.
[pg 275] The Lord has been so kind, merciful and good to us, that we feel to be under renewed obligations to serve and to try to honor Him. Our humble desire is to try to honor Him both in speaking and writing. We desire to “earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints” both in preaching and in writing. Of course we believe the Primitive Baptist doctrine to be the doctrine of God our Saviour, and our humble desire is to continue to contend for and defend that doctrine. So far as the doctrine and the principles are concerned which we have contended for in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST we have no apology to offer, and we expect, by the help of the Lord, to continue to contend for and to maintain those same principles during this year, if the Lord should spare our life. Those principles are dearer and more precious to us year by year, and month by month, week by week, and day by day. We are willing to live by them and we hope to be willing to die by them. They are good enough to live by, and they are good enough to die by.
Just here we wish to ask all to please stop sending us articles for publication concerning your local church troubles. Such things are neither comforting nor interesting to the household of faith. Our enemies may be glad to hear of such things, but we want to publish such things as will have a tendency to make the brotherhood feel glad. So please do not write about your church troubles, but if you have a good meeting, and if there are some additions to your church, write a short letter about that. It will be good news, and all the brethren will be glad to read it.
Now, we ask all to continue taking the paper, and to send us all the new subscribers you possibly can. We appreciate every effort that has been made by the brethren and sisters in this way, and only trust they will continue to help us in this respect. But more than this, we desire an interest in your prayers that the Lord may enable us to conduct the paper in such a way as to be a benefit to His people, and not bring reproach upon His cause, and that His name may be honored and glorified, and that we may be sustained by Him in our labors to that end. C. H. C.
OUR TRIP WEST
January 12, 1909
We left home on Tuesday night, October 20th, starting on our trip in Oklahoma, Texas and Arkansas. We were gone just nine weeks, arriving home on Tuesday night, December 22nd, finding all as well as usual. We traveled between 2,000 and 3,000 miles, and filled appointments in the three states.
[pg 276] We met many dear brethren and sisters who formerly lived in Tennessee and Mississippi and whom we knew in years gone by, besides meeting many we had never before met. We enjoyed many pleasant seasons, were present at many good meetings, and met many dear brethren in the ministry whose faces we had not seen until we met them on this trip. We found the brethren to be generally united on the fundamental principles of the gospel, satisfied with the plain and simple worship of the gospel, and content with the order of God’s house. They love the truth, and want to hear it proclaimed in its purity and simplicity.
There were some additions to the churches at some places. Two were baptized at Bald Knob, Ark. The churches generally seemed to be alive and prosperous, though at a few places it appeared that zeal was lacking to some extent. However, it was a busy time in many places, and no doubt this was the cause of the seeming lack of zeal sometimes.
We enjoyed the trip very much. The brethren received us kindly, and made us feel welcome and at home among them. We shall always remember them and cannot forget their many deeds of kindness shown to us.
We would be glad to give a more extended account of the trip, but time and space forbids it now. We hope to have the privilege of visiting them again some time, if the Lord wills, and hope to be remembered by them in their prayers. C. H. C.
OUR TRIP IN AUGUST
January 12, 1909
We have had so much work on our hands that we did not take the time to write anything about this trip. We left home on July 31st, and filled appointments in the bounds of the Fountain Creek Association, closing at Lynnville on Tuesday after the second Sunday in August. At County Line Church, on the second Sunday, we tried to preach the funeral of Elder J. M. Johnson and his mother and brother, which has already been mentioned by others in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. From Lynnville we went to Knoxville, Tenn., and attended the Powell’s Valley Association. It was a season of refreshing. Love and fellowship seemed to abound. The preaching was all a unit.
From there we went to Byesville, Ohio, and attended the Muskingum Association. This is the home of our dear old brother, Elder C. J. Carmichael. The ministers present were Walter Cash, C. P. Beadle, A. S. Shoemaker, J. C. Hanover, I C. Williams, L. V Hite, J. R. Wilson, U. G. Porter, W. M. Shoemaker, Frank McGlade, Thos. Cole, C. J. Carmichael, — Neal, and another brother, from Pennsylvania, whose name we have forgotten. The [pg 277] meeting was pleasant indeed. This was our first time to meet Elder Cash, but we trust it may not be the last. We had the pleasure of his company for several days, as he went with us to some other places.
We had the pleasure of again visiting Falls of Licking, Hebron and Newark, then to Greenfield Ind. We were later arriving there than they expected, but we had a pleasant little meeting there. The same afternoon we went on to Indianapolis. We had the sweet pleasure of again associating with our dear brother, Elder John R. Daily, in his home and church, and also met Elder E. E. Lundy, of North Carolina, whom we learned to love.
Then we filled appointments at Salem, Abners Creek, Palestine, Danville, Friendship, Roachdale and Crawfordsville, in the order named. At Danville we met Elder E. D. Thomas, who is pastor of the church. We had the pleasure of meeting Elder L. T. Buchanan for the first time, and again being at the home of Elder J. H. Oliphant.
From Crawfordsville we went to the Muddy River Association, which was held near Eldorado, Ill. We do not call to mind the names of all the ministers present, so will not try to give their names. The preaching was in power and in the spirit of the Master. After this meeting closed we went to Cottonwood, Norris City, Carmi, and Crossville and enjoyed some sweet meetings at these places. Then we attended the Skillet Fork Association at the “old” church near Crossville, on Friday, Saturday and second Sunday in September. This was a very pleasant meeting. We are not sure that we remember the names of all the ministers present, so will not try to mention them. But we enjoyed the meeting generally, and shall not soon forget it. From this meeting we returned home.
We shall not forget the many acts of kindness bestowed upon us at the many places we went. We are no more than a little servant in the Master’s cause, and feel to deserve so little of the many acts of kindness bestowed upon us. C. H. C.
ACCUSATION ANSWERED
January 12, 1909
C. H. Cayce, the Hardshell editor, accuses me of being insincere because I believe that God’s decrees do not conflict with man’s freedom. If I am insincere because I believe this, the greatest Baptists of all ages of the world would have been insincere. No Baptist ever thought of teaching that God’s sovereignty conflicts in any sense with human instrumentality and responsibility until the Hardshells began preaching it in the nineteenth century. Mr. Cayce had better accuse the Apostle Peter of being insincere; for Peter certainly teaches this very thing in Acts 2:23. “The legs of the lame are unequal.” — W. A. Gaugh, Jackson, Tenn., in Baptist Builder, Oct. 28, 1908.
[pg 278] We made no such accusation as the above. Mr. Gaugh was once a member of the Primitive Baptist Church. While among us, at one time, he argued that God absolutely and unconditionally predestinated everything that comes to pass, both good, bad and indifferent, and that there were no such things as conditions in the Bible. He argued, not only that the receiving of eternal life is unconditional upon the part of the sinner, but that the blessings bestowed upon, and the happiness of, the child of God in this life are also unconditional— just as much so as the receiving of eternal life. We asked him if he ever had any arguments with Arminians— Missionary Baptists, Methodists and others— and he replied in the affirmative. We then quoted a few passages of Holy Writ and asked him, “What do you do with such passages as these when you are in a dispute with an Arminian and he quotes them in order to prove his position, that eternal life is conditional?” Mr. Gaugh replied, “I acknowledge that when I get into an argument with them I have to take your position.”
Now, this is the charge we made, and we reaffirm it, that Mr. Gaugh admitted that he would take a position which he did not believe, and argue it, just to gain a point or to gain a victory. We have no patience with such handling the word of God deceitfully— and we gave him to understand as much at the time. It seems to us that an honest man should be honest in handling the word of God.
C. H. C.
FEET WASHING NOT A TEST
January 19, 1909
The following is an extract from some remarks; the other part of the article is not reproduced because it cannot be of any special interest now:
The Primitive Baptists of the United States, as a body, have not made feet washing a test of fellowship. As a body, they have contended that it is taught and should be practiced; but as a rule it has not been made a test of fellowship. If every shade of difference, and every different custom, and every different view are made tests of fellowship, the Primitive Baptists would, at this time, in the United States, be divided into more factions than there are states in the Union.
C. H. C.
[pg 279]
WHO IS RIGHT?
January 19, 1909
The brethren have at last gotten Brother Cayce aroused enough to join in with them in charging that boards boss, or control, churches. Many times over has this charge been disproven since the Hardshell split off, and still it is made.— Baptist Builder, Oct. 28, 1908.
Very well, some of your own people claim to prove that the conventions and boards do control the churches. It is just like “Katy did; Katy didn’t” among you. Now whom shall we believe? The boards and conventions among your people manage and control their missionary operations as they please, and the churches have no “say so” in it. It is simply “submit or get out.” If it is not that way, show us. C. H. C.
NO NON-FELLOWSHIP
January 26, 1909
We wish to inform you of an expression of sentiment that carried unanimously by rising vote, at our last church session, viz., “That we move out of the way all unscriptural bars to Christian fellowship.” This very expression carries with it the idea that such bars did exist and as you can readily see it is sweeping and far reaching. We have not yet determined just what it shall embrace. We guess the rebaptizing will in a measure cease.— James. Ragan, in Apostolic Herald, Dec. 1, 1908.
REMARKS
The above clipping from the Apostolic Herald refers to a resolution in a Burnamite church. Elder Kirkland, editor of the Herald, is now affiliated with the Burnam people. You see they have not yet determined just what the resolution shall embrace, although it says that they are “going to move out of the way all unscriptural bars to Christian fellowship.” Of course if they have any unscriptural bars up they ought to move them out of the way. But we suppose they mean that they are going to move all bars to Christian fellowship out of the way, and that they are going to fellowship anything in the name of Christianity, whether it is Scriptural or not. We also judge that they are deciding to receive members without administering baptism to them. We have no objection to their decision, for they cannot administer gospel baptism, for they lack the proper authority; but the Primitive Baptists will continue to move on in the even tenor of the way commanded of the Lord in receiving none into their communion who are unsound in the faith, and rejecting those who introduce among them the inventions of men, and will continue to baptize those who are received into their communion, no matter if the so-called liberal parties do call us narrow minded.
C. H. C.
[pg 280]
AWAY FROM HOME
January 26, 1909
We left home on Monday morning, January 11, for Chattanooga, Tenn., to engage in a discussion with Mr. F. B. Srygley, who represented the Campbelites. The discussion was held in the Cumberland Presbyterian meeting house, and continued from Monday night to Saturday night inclusive. A large crowd was in attendance each night, considering the fact that the weather was disagreeable some of the time. The discussion passed off very pleasantly, and we left the brethren all rejoicing.
On Sunday morning we left Chattanooga for Griffin, Ga., arriving there at about 1:30, where we met Elder Lee Hanks. Had meeting there that night and Sister Hamilton came forward and related a reason of her hope in the Saviour and was received as a candidate for baptism, which is to be attended to at their next regular meeting.
From Griffin we went to Emmaus church, near Thomaston, Ga. Then to Mt. Carmel on Tuesday and at Roberta on Tuesday night. Elder S. T. Bentley was with us at Mt. Carmel, his home church, and at Roberta. We had very pleasant meetings at these places.
We left Roberta this morning and came to Macon. We are now with Elders Lee Hanks and J. A. Monsees, at the home of Elder Hanks in Macon. This is Wednesday, January 20. C. H. C.
STILL IN GEORGIA
February 9, 1909
In our last issue appeared a short editorial in which we stated that we were at the home of Elder Lee Hanks at the time we were doing the writing. That was on Wednesday, January 20. We had meeting that night at Bethlehem Church in Macon.
On Tuesday we visited Cool Spring Church, near Danville, Ga., Elder Hanks going with us. At this church we had the pleasure of meeting Elder W. W. Howell, and enjoyed a pleasant meeting with his church and people.
On Friday we were at Mt. Zion Church, near Norristown, Ga. Elder John M. Thompson was with us here, and we once more enjoyed the sweet privilege of hearing him preach an able discourse in defense of the time-honored principles loved by the Primitive Baptists. It was a great pleasure to have the privilege of being with Brother Thompson again, although we were with [pg 281] him so short a time. We also had the pleasure of meeting Elders Mooring and H. Meeks at this church. Elder Hanks was also with us here. He went from here with Elder Thompson to his next appointments.
On Saturday and Sunday we were at Hebron Church, near Garfield, Ga. For the first time we had the pleasure of meeting Elders Lonnie Holloway, of Graymont, Ga., and W. M. Bullard, of Phoenix City, Ala. We enjoyed hearing Elder Bullard preach both days. He earnestly contends for the ancient landmarks “which our fathers have set,” and wants none of them removed. We also had the pleasure of again meeting Elder S. M. Anderson, who has been the faithful pastor of this church for about thirty-one years, if we are not mistaken in regard to the length of the time.
On Monday we went to Old Canoochee Church, about two or three miles from Graymont, Ga., where we had a pleasant meeting indeed. Sister Pauline Kingery came forward, when the opportunity was given by Elder S. M. Anderson at the request of the brethren, and related a reason of her hope in the Saviour and was joyfully received, and is to be baptized at their next meeting. Besides Elder
Anderson, Elders Lonnie Holloway and Herschel Hill were also present. This was our first time to meet Elder Hill.
At night we tried to preach in Garfield at the Missionary Baptist meeting house. We had the pleasure of meeting Elder H. Temples at this place. We met him when in Georgia three years ago, but did not have the pleasure of being in his company for more than a few moments.
On Tuesday (today-January 26) we were at Upper Mill Creek Church, Elder Temples coming with us from Garfield this morning. We had the pleasure of meeting Elder A. J. Brown today at this church. The service was pleasant, and we enjoyed meeting the brethren and sisters here once more. We are now at the home of Brother J. N. Akin to spend the night.
Since coming to Georgia we learn that Elder S. L. Pettus, formerly of Fulton, Ky., now of Missouri is in this section visiting the progressive churches who have departed from the ancient simplicity of the gospel worship by the introduction of organs, and some other measures which our people are not accustomed to. Our readers will remember that an article was published in our columns a short time ago from Elder Ira Turner concerning Elder Pettus having returned to the Primitive Baptists from the Missionaries.
We find our brethren where we have been to be plain Old Baptists satisfied with the soul-cheering doctrine of grace, and satisfied with the plain, simple worship authorized by our blessed Saviour in the gospel kingdom. They have heartily and kindly received us, and have been much better to us than we feel to deserve. They have heartily endorsed our public efforts in trying to proclaim the glad tidings of salvation, and trying to contend for the plain, simple [pg 282] worship of the Lord’s house. We feel to thank the Lord and to take courage to press on in the service of our heavenly King. We humbly ask all the brethren, sisters and friends to pray the Lord to enable us to fight the good fight of faith until we reach the journey’s end. May heaven’s rich blessings be showered upon every one of you, is our prayer. C. H. C.
NOW IN FLORIDA
February 9, 1909
In our last report we stated that we were then (January 26) at the home of Brother J. N. Akin, near Statesboro, Ga. From his home we were conveyed by his son to Lott’s Creek Church, in the Lott’s Creek Association, on Wednesday morning. A goodly number had gathered at the church, and had about decided we were not coming, as we were late, caused by a shaft being broken, and we had to walk nearly a mile to borrow another buggy to finish the journey. We had a pleasant meeting. The brethren and sisters heartily endorsed our feeble effort in speaking to them of the goodness and mercy of God.
On Thursday we were at Deloach Church, where we had the pleasure of again meeting Elder W. H. Wilkinson, whom we met while in Georgia three years ago. The congregation was not large, owing to a misunderstanding, brought about by a change in the appointment — so some thought. But we had a very pleasant meeting here any way.
On Friday morning we were conveyed to Ash Branch. We were glad to again meet Elder J. H. Smith at this church. We also met him three years ago. A good sized congregation was present, and we enjoyed a pleasant season with these dear brethren and sisters once more.
On Saturday morning we boarded a train at Pembroke for Claxton, where we were met by a Mr. Lynn, who is a staunch Baptist friend, and conveyed by him to Little Flock Church to attend a general meeting appointed to be held there. The weather had suddenly turned severely cold, so that only a few met at the church that day, yet the meeting was a pleasant one. Here we met Elders F. M. Donaldson, D. L. Calloway, M. L. Riner and Wm. Beasley, and Brother Bowen, who has been liberated to exercise his gift. We had another pleasant meeting at night at the home of Brother Lynn, who is eighty four years old.
On Sunday the weather was so cold and disagreeable that the brethren decided to not try to go to the church. So we had no service that day, but [pg 283] that night we were at the home of Brother A. W. Odom with Elder F. M. Donaldson, and a few brethren and sisters came in, so we had services and enjoyed a pleasant little season with them.
On Monday Elder Donaldson conveyed us to Anderson Church, an appointment having been sent on there for us on Saturday. The congregation was good, considering the short notice and the inclemency of the weather, and we had a good meeting. Brother Bowen, mentioned above, and Elders Galloway and Riner were again with us, besides Elder Donaldson.
After meeting we were conveyed to the home of Brother J. R. Calloway, and after dinner he conveyed us to Manassas where we boarded the train for Savannah, Ga., arriving there at about 8:45 last night. This morning (Tuesday, Feb. 2) at 2:50 we left Savannah on the Seaboard Air Line Railroad for Dade City, Fla., where we begin (the Lord willing) filling the appointments made for us in Florida. At this writing we are on the train, near Ocala— just now going into the town at 1:30. We trust the brethren and sisters will remember us in their prayers.
C. H. C.
HEBREWS 7:1-4
February 23, 1909
We have been requested to give our views of Heb. 7:1-4. The passage refers to Melchisedec, who was king of Salem and priest of the most high God. He met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, and Abraham gave to him a tenth part of the spoils. See Gen. 14.
Melchisedec was a man; see Heb. 7:4, “Now consider how great this man was.” As a man he was not without father or mother; but as a priest he was “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.” A priest after the order of Aaron, under the Levitical priesthood, was not without father or mother. The priestly office in that priesthood went from father to son, hence not without father, and not without descent. In the priestly office of Melchisedec there were none before him and none after; hence without descent. Thus it differed from the Levitical priesthood. Christ was made a high priest after the order of Melchisedec, (see Heb. 6:20) and not after the order of the Levitical priesthood. In the priestly office in which Christ officiated, there were none before Him and none since— it was “without father, without mother, without descent,” just like that of Melchisedec. C. H. C.
[pg 284]
2 PETER 2:18-21
February 23, 1909
Some time ago we were requested to give our views of 2 Pet. 2:22, which we did, though briefly. It seems that some of the brethren think our views are wrong, which is their privilege. But some have asked for our views of verses 18 to 21, wanting us to harmonize these with our opinion of verse 22. If you will read verse 17 you will find these characters described. It says, “These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved forever.” True, verse 20 says, “For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.” But verse 22 says, “it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.” This shows that their profession was only an outward one, that there was no inward change, no change of nature; hence only a washed sow, and not a sheep. Therefore gone back to her wallowing in the mire. C. H. C.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
February 23, 1909
Elder C. H Cayce:
Dear Brother— Will you kindly give me your views on the passage of Scripture relative to Christ after the crucifixion preaching to the spirits in prison. I know there are several theories advanced, but they cannot, all be correct, and I ask for information.
Also the text where Paul teaches that the Lord, by His Spirit, hath shined in our hearts. That is evidently an inspiration. But is it an intellectual inspiration, or simply a moral inspiration? Would not divine intellectual inspiration necessitate absolute accuracy in the views and opinions of the Lord’s children? If a moral inspiration, would it not only affect the heart or affections, leaving the mind to be instructed by reading or hearing the truth? And would this not account for some of the Lord’s children going off into error— their mistake being of the mind, or intellect, and not of the heart?
Does the doctrine of election and predestination according to Calvinism differ from the doctrine as held by Old Baptists? Yours in an humble hope,
Charles W. Lyens.
Holt Ave., Macon, Ga.
REMARKS
1. 1 Pet. 3:19 speaks of the Lord preaching to spirits in prison. Verses 18, 19 and 20 read, “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: by which also He went and preached unto [pg 285] the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” The preaching to spirits in prison mentioned here was in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing. This is very clear evidence, it seems to us, that sinners were saved in Noah’s day just like they are saved now. They were regenerated then by the work of the Spirit, and they are regenerated that way now. The Lord has never bad but one way of regenerating sinners.
2. We suppose the text referred to here I 2 Cor. 4:6, which says, “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of te glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is light, or liberty, and whatsoever doth make manifest is light. When God shines in the heart by the power of the Holy Spirit, the sinfulness of that heart is made manifest to the person. It is thus revealed to him by the Spirit of God that he is a sinner in the sight of God. The heart is made right, or made good, by the work of the Holy Spirit; yet they may be taught wrong doctrines, and thus be right in heart and wrong in the head.
3. Calvin was the founder of the Presbyterian church. The old Westminster Confession of Faith, a Presbyterian production, set forth the doctrine of unconditional reprobation as well as unconditional election. The old London Confession, which was largely copied from the Westminster Confession, set forth the doctrine of unconditional election but not unconditional reprobation. Baptists have been charged with holding unconditional reprobation, but have ever denied it. C. H. C.
CONDUCT OF DEACONS
February 23, 1908
We have been asked the following: “I want your views on the deacons, how they should act when not in church. Do you think it is right for them to go to ice cream parties, or to play parties, or box suppers, or any of those worldly pleasures? You may answer through THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST.”
If you will turn to Acts 6:1-6 you will find the first deacons set apart in the church by the apostles— “seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom.” In 1 Tim. 3:8-10 we find that “Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, [pg 286] being found blameless.” It seems to us that these expressions are plain enough. No church member should be found engaging in the things mentioned, much less a deacon. Those things are worldly pleasures and inventions of men, many of them often being conducted in the name of Christianity and to “raise money for the Lord,” and no meek and humble follower of the Master should have anything to do with such things. They are an abomination in the sight of God.
C. H. C.
ZECHARIAH 4:14
February 23, 1909
Brother N. J. Yeager, of Centerville, Ala., has requested our views on Zechariah 4 and especially verse 14. He asks “who are those two anointed ones?” The 14th verse reads, “Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” We have thought the two anointed ones in this text refers to the same as the two witnesses in Rev. 11:3. Read the entire chapter and compare with Zech. 4. You will see that the two witnesses are going to be killed, and their dead bodies shall lie in the street for three days and a half. We think these two are the church and the ministry. They have suffered persecutions and death for the truth’s sake, and we understand they are to again pass through sore persecutions for the sake of truth. This persecution will last for three and one-half years. They will be put to death as in days gone by for the faith. We know that many of our brethren differ from us as to what these two witnesses are, but the brother requested our views, and we have tried to give them briefly, and not for the purpose of calling out a controversy on the subject. C. H. C.
MATTHEW 19:8,
AND ROMANS 13:1-8
February 23, 1909
Brother J. M. Ayres, of Dossville, Miss., has requested our views of the above cited passages. Matt. 19:8, reads, He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives but from the beginning it was not so.” Brother Ayres says, “When was the beginning, and what beginning?” The beginning of the marriage ordinance. In the morning of creation the Lord made a helpmeet for the man, and said, [pg 287] “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” There was then given no privilege of putting the wife away.
The place referred to in Romans we think teaches that wholesome laws are not to be dreaded by those who are children of God and walking in His service. Such laws are given for the control and restraint of the wicked, and it is our duty to be subject to and obedient to those laws, so long as matters of conscience in the worship of God are not interfered with. So long as a law allows us to worship God as we understand His word teaches, we should be obedient to the law. We should be law-abiding citizens. And we are glad to say that so far as our knowledge extends the Primitive Baptists as a body of people are law-abiding.
C. H. C.
STILL IN FLORIDA
March 9, 1909
Our last report was written on Tuesday, Feb. 2, while on the train going to Dade City. We arrived in Dade City and had meeting there that night in the Methodist meeting house. Elder M. L. Gilbert, who lives here, met us at the train. We had the pleasure of meeting Elder W. D. Lee, of Loves, Miss., who was here visiting his son. We were personally acquainted with him, having been with him a number of times in Mississippi. We also unexpectedly met Elder J. H. Fisher here.
On Wednesday afternoon we went to Tampa, and were met at the train by our cousin, Mrs. Marian Clement, and her husband, Victor Clement, and went to their home. We had the sweet pleasure of meeting our dear aunt here, Sister Mattie Mills, whom we had not seen for twenty-four years; also had the pleasure of meeting our cousin, Oscar, Aunt Mattie’s son, and spending some time with them while in Tampa. We spent the time with them Thursday and Friday. On Saturday and Sunday we were at meeting at the church in Tampa. This was the regular meeting time, and Elder Gilbert, who is pastor, was present with us. The meeting was pleasant, and we enjoyed being there.
We had meeting at Port Tampa City on Monday night, and at St. Petersburg on Tuesday night. At the latter place we met Elder W. W. Williams, of Georgia, and Elder Voorheis, of New Jersey. We were glad to meet these brethren. We also met a Brother Bozeman, of Georgia, Brother and Sister J. C. Calvin, of Calvin, Illinois, whom we had met before.
On Wednesday morning, the 10th, we went to Largo to meet the appointment at Lone Pilgrim. Elder J. D. McMullen was at the depot to board the [pg 288] train going south; and be told us the appointment was not known, that no word had been received concerning it. So we returned to Tampa, and had meeting in the city again on Thursday night.
On Friday morning we went to Sidney, on the “Seaboard” train, and had meeting at Salem. Elders Fisher and J. Ellis Blanton were present. Then went to the home of Elder E. J. Devane in Plant City, and had meeting in the Methodist meeting house that night, and had the pleasure of meeting Elder Devane for the first time.
Saturday morning we went to Wauchula, accompanied by Elders Devane and Blanton, where we had meeting Saturday and Sunday, which was a pleasant meeting. From here we were conveyed by Brother L. D. Doke to his home, where we spent Sunday night; then he conveyed us to Paynes Creek, where we had
meeting on Monday; then to Bowling Green, where we had meeting that night. Spent the night with Brother A. C. Beauchamp.
On Tuesday we were met in Bowling Green by Brother Wingate, who conveyed us to his home, where we spent the night; then to Corinth on Wednesday. At this place we met Elders D. Wilkinson, M. Lightsey and J. M. Brewer. We also met Brother J. J. Altman again at this place, who exercises in public. We met him first at Wauchula. He conveyed us to his home, where we had meeting again that night. Then on Thursday he conveyed us to Fort Meade, where we spent the night with a Brother Wingate. On Friday morning Brother Altman conveyed us on to Elim, where we had meeting that day. Elder Brewer was also with us here.
From Elim Brother B. B. Dossey conveyed us to his home, where we spent the night; then on Saturday morning conveyed us to Mt. Olive, where we had meeting Saturday and Sunday. Here we bad the pleasure of meeting Elder J. H. Kirkland and spending Saturday night at his home. We had a very pleasant meeting here.
Elder Devane conveyed us to his home in Plant City. On Tuesday Brother Devane went with us to Mt. Enon, near Plant City, where we had a pleasant meeting, then returned to Brother Devane’s home.
On Wednesday morning we left Plant City for Orlando, and met our appointment at Orange Church, in the suburbs of Orlando, and enjoyed a very pleasant meeting with this church. We were met at this church by Brother E. U. Cauthen, who conveyed us to Winter Garden, where we had meeting in a Missionary Baptist house. Our appointment for this place was first made for Thursday night, but was changed to Wednesday night on account of some other conflicting appointments. At this writing, on Thursday, Feb. 25, we are at the home of Brother Cauthen, in Winter Garden. C. H. C.
[pg 289]
REPLY TO T. H. COTTEN—
FEET WASHING
March 9, 1909
We will try to give what information we can on the subject of feet washing, as requested by T. H. Cotten, in a letter from him in another column of this paper.
First, we call attention to the fact that the feast of the Passover began on the fourteenth day of the month and ended on the twenty-first day of the month, thus continuing for seven days. See Exo. 12. Now read Matt. 26:1-16; Mark 14:1-11 and Luke 22:1-6, and you will find that before the feast of the Passover began, Judas had covenanted with the chief priests and captains to betray Jesus into their hands. Now, let us read Luke 22:1-6, which says:
Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover. And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill Him; for they feared the people. Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray Him unto them. And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money. And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray Him unto them in the absence of the multitude.
Now read John 13:1: “Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end.
Now read Matt. 26:17-25 and Mark 14:12-21 and you will see how that Jesus told the disciples to make ready the Passover, and also the conversation which took place while they were eating the Passover concerning His betrayal. It is clear and easy to understand that Matthew and Mark agree on this. Mark says:
And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover, His disciples said unto Him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover? And He sendeth forth two of His disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water; follow him. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber where 1 shall eat the Passover with my disciples? And he will show you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. And His disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as He had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. And in the evening He cometh with the twelve. And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me. And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto Him, one by one, Is it 1? and another said, Is it I? And He answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish. The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of Him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.
[pg 290] Instead of proceeding with the conversation which took place during the eating of the Passover supper, as Matthew and Mark did, John breaks off from the conversation and in verses 2 to 17 relates the circumstance of the feet washing. Then in verse 18 he goes back to the conversation which was engaged in during the eating of the passover supper. Verses 18 to 32 read as follows:
I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. Now I tell you before it come, That when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am He. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth Him that sent me. When Jesus had thus said, He was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom He spake. Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom He spake. He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto Him, Lord, who is it? Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when He had dipped the sop, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly. Now no man at the table knew for what intent He spake this unto him. For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor. He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night. Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God be glorified in Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself, and shall straightway glorify Him.
This shows very clearly to be the same conversation as recorded by Matthew and Mark, and which took place while eating the passover supper. It was while eating that supper that the conversation took place as to who should betray the Saviour, and while eating that supper, Jesus gave the sop to Judas, then Judas went immediately out. Hence Judas left them while they were eating the passover supper. Now go again to Matt. 26:28-29, and Mark 14:22-25 and you will find the record of the institution of the communion supper, which was done at the close of the eating of the Passover supper. And remember that this was the first day of the feast of the Passover. Mark says:
“And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And He took the cup, and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And He said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
Now let us read John 13:2-17, and we will find John’s account of what transpired concerning the feet washing after the supper was ended:
And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot Simon’s son, to betray Him; Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands [pg 291] and that He was come from God, and went to God: He riseth from supper, and laid aside His garments; and took a towel, and girded Himself. After that He poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith He was girded. Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto Him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. Peter saith unto Him, Thou shall never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Simon Peter saith unto Him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. For He knew who should betray Him; therefore said He, Ye are not all clean. So after He had washed their feet, and had taken His garments, and was sat down again, He said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well: for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.
It is truly clear that Jesus has said, “Ye also ought to wash one another’s feet,”and we should do so for this reason. No matter if it does seem to us to be an empty rite, the Saviour said we ought to do it, and that is a good reason why we should. To say that it was an old Jewish custom, and therefore not required under the gospel, is to impeach the Apostle Peter with ignorance of the customs of his own people, for the Saviour said, “What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.” Peter did know the old Jewish customs, hence this was not done as an old Jewish custom. In washing their feet Jesus said He had given them an example, that they should do as He had done to them. An example is something to follow. If the Saviour was immersed in baptism, we cannot follow Him in baptism unless we are also immersed. If He was immersed in baptism, and if His baptism is an example for us to follow, then we cannot follow the example unless we are immersed. Even so, we cannot follow His example in feet washing unless we wash each other’s feet. Doing something else is not following the example.
Washing the saints’ feet is put down in the catalog of good works by the Apostle Paul in 1 Tim. 5:9-10. It is clearly mentioned here as a good work. Then if we fail to do it, it is evident that we fail to do one good work the Lord has said we ought to do.
If the Saviour had commanded us to practice something symbolizing our honesty, it would be right for us to do it. In Matt. 6:16-17 the Saviour is not teaching us that we should not show our humility. Beginning with the first verse of the chapter, He teaches us that we should not do the things mentioned to be seen of men. We should not engage in any service to be seen of men. If that is the object we have in view, then the service becomes an empty form, and is not acceptable service. If we are not to show humility, [pg 292] then we should not perform any act that might be prompted by a spirit of humility. Instead of humility being something we should not show, it is something that we should show. If all the brotherhood would show and manifest toward each other more of the spirit of humility, we are of the humble opinion there would be less trouble among us. Washing each other’s feet is an act of humility; Christ performed it as an example, and we should follow the example. We say, in washing each other’s feet, that we have a desire to live at the feet of our brethren, and that we esteem our brethren and prefer them before ourselves. We profess this when we wash their feet; and then we should live the profession.
Mr. Cotten’s argument that a church cannot be held in fellowship because they do not practice feet washing, if it be a part of the communion, would require a non-fellowship for every church, almost, in existence— upon that parity of reasoning. The church at Corinth had some wrongs among them; nearly all the seven churches of Asia had wrongs among them; the Galatians had wrongs among them. Yet they were not non-fellowshipped as churches. We would not argue, however, for the encouragement of wrongs; but the idea we wish to present is that a church may be a church of Christ, and fellowshipped as such, and yet have some wrongs existing among them. If a church that does wrong cannot be fellowshipped, then few of them could be fellowshipped, for there are very few that do no wrong. As a rule the Primitive Baptists do not make feet washing a test of fellowship, although it is in many of their confessions of faith. There are some other points in the confessions of faith which could be named, also, that some individual members have not believed, and yet they retained membership and fellowship in the church. We think a fundamental point of doctrine, or an underlying principle of doctrine, should be made a test of fellowship. So should any practice which is a departure from the fundamental principles of the gospel be made a test of fellowship.
We do not want a controversy opened up in our columns on the question of feet washing, and neither do we expect to permit it; but as Mr. Cotten insisted by private letter that we publish his letter and make some reply to it, we have decided to do so, merely to give him the benefit of some of our views of the matter. We do not give our views as standard. The Bible is the standard that Baptists propose to go by. Let us take that as the “man of our counsel” and be governed by it, and let us try to do what it says do. May the Lord help us all so to do.
C. H. C.
[pg 293]
THE VERY ELECT
April 27, 1909
Brother D. A. Hollind, of Horton, Ala., asks us, “Who was under consideration, and who was the very elect?” The very elect are mentioned in Matt. 24:24. The Saviour says, “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” The Lord will not suffer all His children to be deceived by the false and judaizing teachers who are in the world. He has promised to never leave Himself without a witness. If all His people were deceived and led into false doctrines and practices, then He would be without a witness. We think those faithful ones who continue to contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints, and who are not deceived or led astray by false teachers, are called the very elect.
C. H. C.
THE GREAT INVESTMENT
May 4, 1909
I have just read Dr. Willingham’s plan for raising $50,000 by dividing 10,000 shares at $5 each among the states. I believe it to be a very happy suggestion and a practical method. It will be easy for many to take shares in the King’s business and ever after have the real joy of knowing that one investment which we have made cannot fail. When we have ceased from labor, this investment will be bearing compound interest until the end of time.
Today is a momentous moment in the kingdom of God. The world is waiting for the gospel of love, and Light and Life. “How shall they hear without a preacher? How shall they preach except they be sent?” Many of our best young men and women are waiting to be sent; a debt means they cannot go. Let us take shares in the King’s business and save our Foreign Mission Board from the calamity of a great debt.— J. L. White, Greensboro,
N. C., in Baptist Standard, April 22, 1909.
What next! What promoters of schemes! The very idea of issuing 10,000 shares of stock in the King’s business, at $5 per share! We wonder if that is par value. Are you going to sell such “valuable” stock at par? Is the price down in the market so that it will not bring a premium? Something must be wrong with the concern if the stock is worth no more than par and buyers hard to find even at that price, for to find a buyer you have to find one who is ignorant concerning the promoters. Wonder what has become of the oil stock? Can’t find any more buyers, so have to try another scheme? Poor foreign mission board! What a pity the King’s business is so poorly financed the whole thing is always bankrupt and a miserable failure. There is one thing they never fail in, and that is to make merchandise of the people. But, [pg 294] say, what is the whole amount of capital stock of this concern, anyhow? What rate per cent interest does the concern pay at present? And what assurance have we that the concern cannot fail? It has always been in debt, and has been a beggar ever since its birth, and has always been supported by the charities of a people who were led to believe souls were going to hell for want of their hard-earned dollars. We consider it a bad investment, and may God have mercy on the poor ignorant dupes who are gulled into such nefarious schemes.
C. H. C.
ORDERLY BAPTISM
May 18, 1909
We have been asked the following: A is a Baptist preacher in full fellowship, but he becomes disorderly by receiving Missionary baptism into his church. The true church withdraws from him, and while he is considered in disorder be baptizes B. Now B desires to be in full fellowship with the true church. Can B be received into fellowship without being re-baptized?
If A was excluded from the church he had no right or authority to administer baptism for the church. It was most assuredly out of order to receive Missionary baptism. It would be just as good order to receive an immersion as orderly gospel baptism administered by any other people as that administered by the Missionary Baptists. Then, if A was withdrawn from after he did this and immersed B while thus out of order, then B is not baptized. If A stood excluded when be immersed B, it was not orderly gospel baptism. Hence B was not baptized— he was immersed. It seems to us that if B desires to be in full fellowship with orderly Baptists, the thing to do is to be baptized by one who is authorized by an orderly church to administer the ordinance, and who is in order when he administers it. C. H. C.
HOW MANY ARE THERE?
May 25, 1909
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— There is a Methodist preacher in our town that made the assertion the other eve that we were about 100 years old and that there is not as many now as there was then. If you have or can get them I want the statistics of the Primitive Baptist Church. I have seen it in your paper about two months ago from Brother Newman’s pen. I want you to also give me the number [pg 295} of preachers that we have. I want to show the little fellow that he not only told one, but two. Please let me hear from you at once, and oblige. Your brother,
J. P. Darr.
REMARKS
According to the United States Census of 1890 there were in the United States, at that time, 3,107 Primitive Baptist churches with 116,271 members. We do not know how many preachers there were. We have no later statistics at hand. According to the Baptist Almanac of 1844 there were then 1,622 Primitive Baptist churches with 61,162 members. Perhaps you can get later statistics from the Census Bureau at Washington, D. C. You cannot get the exact figures, because some of the brethren refuse to give the Census Bureau the desired information.
Your Methodist preacher knows nothing about church history. There are Primitive Baptist churches in Tennessee more than 100 years old that have never changed in doctrine or practice. C. H. C.
VIEWS GIVEN
June 1, 1909
LUKE 19:10
“For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” This simply teaches that those characters Jesus came to save were lost. He came to seek and to save lost characters. It does not necessarily follow that He came to save all that were lost.
ROMANS 6:23
“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”In this text condemnation and salvation are placed in contradistinction to each other. Wages is what one gets for what he does. Sin is the transgression of the law. When a man dies he does not necessarily pay a penalty for what he does. Death is the penalty he receives. Death is a separation. Hence, on account of men’s sins they are separated eternally from the presence of God. This is prevented only by the intervention of mercy— grace. So, the apostle continues, “but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Eternal life is God’s gift. He does not give it on account of what we have done, or may do, or can do; but He gives it through what Christ has done— “through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
ACTS 19:1-8
We have been asked, “Were they baptized the second time in water, or were they baptized the second time with the Holy Ghost?” The expression [pg 296] referred to in this question is in verse 5, which says, “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” This has no reference whatever to a baptism of the Holy Spirit, for that followed the laying on of hands by Paul. See verse 6. It is a question in the mind of many as to whether they were “baptized the second time.” John Gill held the view that they were not. His rendering of it is that they were baptized when they heard John’s preaching. In other words, verse 4 begins by saying, “Then said Paul.” Gill’s idea is that Paul then said all that is contained in verses 4 and 5, and that when Paul had said this he laid his hands upon them and the Holy Ghost came upon them. If this be the correct view of the text, it follows that baptism administered by John was valid gospel baptism. While we believe the baptism administered by John was valid baptism, yet we have been inclined to a different view of this text. We have thought that these people were not baptized by John, but in John’s name. We think they were baptized by Apollos, who was baptized by John. Read verses 24 to 28 of chapter 18. He was a true believer that Jesus was the Christ, but Had, himself, been baptized by John; and knowing nothing of any other baptism, was administering baptism upon the authority of John instead of upon the authority of Christ. But Aquila and Priscilla expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. Then Paul came along and found these disciples who had been baptized upon the authority of John’s baptism, who, when they heard what Paul had to say in verse 5, were then baptized in the name of the Lord, or upon His authority.
ROMANS 2:6-7,8
We think this is a description of the characters who will enter eternal joys on the one hand, and a description of the characters who enter into wrath on the other hand. The Saviour says in Matt. 7:20, “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” We know that those who seek the good things mentioned in Rom. 2:7 have been made good by the Spirit and power of God, because their fruits are good. And those who have thus been made good will enter into eternal joys.
MARK 7:28-29
We have been asked the question, “What was the condition of the daughter before the mother besought Christ, that He would cast forth the devil out of her— saved or unsaved?” We do not think that the text necessarily teaches whether her condition was saved or unsaved. She was possessed of a devil, or demon, which is a person whose volition or will is dethroned, or controlled [pg 297] by an evil spirit. The mental faculties were unbalanced. Hence, the daughter was possessed of a plague. This plague, or disease, was cured by the Saviour.
JONAH 3:9-10
This does not prove, or indicate, that God is fallible or changeable. The Lord says, in Mal. 3:6, “For I am the Lord, I change not.” James says that with Him “is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” Yet Job says “God repented of the evil, that He had said that He would do unto them; and He did it not.” His way of dealing was to bless them in obedience. Or when they did right, they enjoyed His blessings; and when they did wrong they were punished. Read Jer. 18:8-9,10, and you will find that the Lord said that this was what He would do.
AID TO THE MINISTRY
We have been requested to write on this subject, the party making the request referring us to 1 Cor. 9:13-14; Luke 10:7, and Matt. 10:10. In Matthew 10 is recorded the sending out of the twelve, and in Luke 10 is recorded the sending out of the seventy. We have expressed our opinion regarding this question through our columns heretofore, and will only make a few brief remarks now. In the ninth chapter of 1st Corinthians the apostle is certainly teaching the idea that the temporal necessities of the ministry should be looked after. In verse 11 he says, “If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?” In verse 9 he refers to the law, which says, “Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.” In verse 10 he lets us know that this was written for our sakes. The ox should do the eating where he was doing the treading. It was not God’s way that the ox do the treading in China and do the eating in the United States. He was to eat right where he did the treading. Verse 11 shows that the eating was of carnal things. Then in verse 13 he refers to the law again, calling attention to the fact that a part of the things offered in the temple and on the altar were reserved for those who waited at the altar. In verse 14 he says, “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” Some have argued that this living consists of spiritual food, which the apostle refers to here; but this cannot be true, for the reason that in verse 15 he says, “But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me. We think the language to the twelve and to the seventy contains the idea that they were to go, trusting the Lord that they would be cared for and sustained. The Lord’s promise is better than promises of men. The man who will not go until a support is promised him [pg 298] shows his lack of faith in the Lord’s promise. The Lord has put it into the hearts of His people to care for us, for we know they have been kind and good to us. They have been good to minister to our necessities, and we hope to never bring reproach on the cause they love. Brethren, pray the Lord to sustain us, that we may be kept in the right way.
C. H. C.
RICH MAN AND LAZARUS
June 8, 1909
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— Will you or some of the readers please give me your views on this Scripture:
“Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.”— Luke 16:21. Were those dogs literal, or is it only figurative? And does this rich man represent man’s works? This Scripture is on my mind and I have no light on it. May the dear Lord bless you, dear Brother Cayce, in publishing THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. Your brother in great affliction,
C. H. Wells
Newtonville, Miss.
REMARKS
The Scripture referred to is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. We think the parable primarily refers to the Jews and Gentiles. The rich man represented the Jews and Lazarus represented the Gentiles. The Jews were scattered, and are yet in a scattered condition. They are now being tormented. They had their good things under the law dispensation. But now, under the gospel dispensation, the Jews are being tormented and the Gentiles are enjoying the privileges of the gospel.
C. H. C.
MILL CREEK THEN AND NOW
June 15, 1909
We notice that Kirkland, Burnam, Pence & Co., are to hold their great “General” or “National” meeting at Mill Creek, near Maury City, Crockett county, Tenn., this year. This calls to our mind the fact that Mill Creek Church was among the first churches, if not the first one, to enter protest in conference against some of the measures advocated by Elder Kirkland. The following is their protest:
Whereas, There has been a new departure from the faith and doctrine and practice of Primitive Baptists, as taught in the Bible, said departure being recommended by the St. Louis convention, to-wit, That the St. Louis convention recommend the adoption of, 1st, a Federal [pg 209] government for the churches as per plan laid down in Elder J. V Kirkland’s book, or “Condensed History of the Church;” 2nd, That the commission was given to the church as a whole, and not to the ministry alone. 3rd, That there be a publishing house established, and that all Primitive Baptist papers as now published should suspend or be bought by said publishing house or company, and that there be but one Primitive Baptist periodical, and it be sent out from said publishing house or company; therefore,
Be it resolved, by the church at Mill Creek, Crockett County, Tenn., that we solemnly protest against the action of the St. Louis convention; and
Be it further resolved, that we send a copy of this protest to THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST and Baptist Trumpet for publication and ask all Primitive Baptist papers to copy.
Done and signed by order of the church while in conference on Saturday before the third Sunday in November, 1904.
Elder L. H. Stuckey, Moderator.
G. W. EDWARDS, Church Clerk.
That protest speaks for itself as to where that church stood in November, 1904. After this the church restored Elder H. W. Thomas, who had been excluded by the recommendation of a council. Elder J. V Kirkland was in the council and wrote the advice of the council. Their advice was that unless Mill Creek exclude Elder Thomas they should be dropped from the association. He was accordingly excluded. Then after the foregoing protest was passed they restored Elder Thomas without satisfaction being made, or even attempted. So in 1905 the association dropped Mill Creek Church, which was in harmony with the advice of the council, Elder Kirkland being one of the number. But now Mill Creek and Elders Kirkland and Thomas seem to be all in line. We wonder if that protest is yet on their book, and we wonder if Elder Kirkland now goes back on the advice given in the council? Truly, “The legs of the lame are unequal.”
C. H. C.
At the time of the publication of this book Mill Creek Church is in line with the orderly Baptists.
REMARKS TO ELDER A. B. WHATLY
ON ORGANS
July 20, 1909
We agree with Elder Whatly, if we understand him, on every point except the organ question. We agree with him in being opposed to the use of it, but we cannot understand how he can oppose making it a test of fellowship, and at the same time admit that the old temple with all its service is destroyed. The very fact that the organ, or instrumental music, was used in the temple [pg 302] worship, and that the temple and all its worship has been destroyed, is proof enough that it should not be tolerated or fellowshipped in gospel worship and service. If it is right to admit this into gospel service and to not non-fellowship it, then it would also necessarily be right to admit any and all of the temple worship into the gospel church. Why not have the high priests to make offerings of beasts and birds year by year? We can just as consistently admit this into the gospel church as any other part of the temple service. All the temple worship and service has been abolished and destroyed, and no part of it can be admitted into the gospel church without denying the work of our blessed Redeemer and Law Giver.
We do think the brethren who have them should be willing to dispense with them for the sake of peace. Is it possible that they desire to be entangled with a “yoke of bondage,” and prefer law worship and service rather than the fellowship of their brethren? For our part we prefer the plain simple gospel worship as given by our loving Master, and the fellowship of His humble followers, rather than have any of the law or temple worship with all its pomp and noise and splendor. The plain simple gospel worship suits us. May the Lord help us all to be content therewith. C. H. C.
GOT HIS PAPERS
July 27, 1909
New York, July 8.— The Rev. George Ashmore Fitch, one of three graduates of Union Thelogical Seminary, who in a recent examination denied the virgin birth of Christ, the historical identity of Adam and Eve, the raising of Lazarus from the dead and the resurrection of the body of the Saviour, was nevertheless ordained last night by the New York Presbytery by a vote of 10 to 7. He will sail this week for China to take up missionary work in Shanghai.
The Rev. Dr. Daniel Seelye Gregory, managing editor of the Standard dictionary and educator of note, spoke for the opposition.
“Tonight,” he said, “it was a case of the Bible against the man. One or the other had to be thrown out, and the Presbytery of New York threw out the Bible as the infallible guide of faith and practice.”
REMARKS
The above clipping only shows very plainly the tendency of modern theology. The denial of those things referred to is but a flat denial of the divinity of Christ, and virtually a denial of the existence of God. To what are the people drifting! And all this, too, under the cloak of professed Christianity. It seems to us that the dark clouds are gathering thick and fast. An awful storm seems to be approaching. Oh, Lord, shelter and deliver thy poor little tempest-tossed and tried children. May the Lord look in pity and restrain the on-coming storm, if it can be His will, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
[pg 303]
TITUS 3:3-5
August 17, 1909
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear brother— I will kindly ask you to give me information on Titus 3:3-4,5. And you will oblige me by giving me Scripture where all things are predestinated. Yours fraternally,
Atlanta, Ark.
J. F. Mills
REMARKS
Titus 3:3, reads, “For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.” This describes the condition of these characters in nature without the work of Christ in salvation. This is the true condition of all in nature. Verses 4, 5, 6 and 7, read, “But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” This is a clear and positive statement that they are not saved by works of righteousness which they do. Their salvation from the deplorable state described in verse 3 was wholly the work of God, and was simply and purely of His mercy. This was, and is, all bestowed upon the sinner through what Christ has done for him. He is regenerated, born again, born from above, by the power of the Holy Ghost— not because of the righteous works of the sinner, for it is altogether through what Christ has done for him. Hence, the sinner is justified by grace. This justification makes him an heir of God, and is according to the hope of eternal life. The true hope of eternal life is based solely on what the Lord has done for poor sinners, and not on what he expects to do or has done. 1 Cor. 6:11 expresses the same idea: “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” The washing, cleansing, and regenerating of the sinner is the work of the Spirit of God. God does that for the sinner which qualifies him to live in and enjoy heaven, and this is all of grace.
There is no Scripture which says all things are predestinated. The very best any can do who believe that doctrine is to infer that it is true, for there is no place in Scripture which says so. Jer. 7:31 says, “And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.” This was one thing that God certainly did not predestinate. C. H. C.
[pg 304]
IN INDIANA
August 31, 1909
We left home at 4 p. m. on Wednesday, August 11, to attend the White Water Association at Village Creek Church, near Connersville, Ind. We arrived at Connersville at about 11 o’clock on Thursday and were conveyed to the home of Elder E. W. Harlan. This was the one hundredth anniversary of this association. There was a division in the association about the year 1845, which was brought about by a misunderstanding more than by real difference, so that there have been two parties going by the name of the White Water Association since that time. The two bodies discovered that they were really one people, and so have been in correspondence for a number of years. At this session they all met as one body, the White Water Association. The following ministers were present: Elders R. W. and John M. Thompson, Greenfield, Ind.; J. R. Wilson, John R. and J. Harvey Daily, Indianapolis, Ind.; Lawrence Ragan, Danvilie, Ind.; C. W. Radcliff, Mount Vernon, Ind.; E. W. Harlan, Connersville, Ind.; N. L. Ford, Fowlerton, Ind.; T. C. Williams, Magrew, Ohio; C. F. Stucky, Norris City, Ill.; J. T. Stewart, Beans Creek, Tenn.; Joseph Taylor, North Manchester, Ind.; W. N. Tharp, Liberty, Ind.; A. F. Dove, Van Buren, Ohio; D. W. Owens, Hersman, Ill.; Joseph Ford, Seneca, Kan.; C. H. Cayce, Martin, Tenn., and Licentiate L. W. Johnson, Mathews, Ind. It was a pleasant meeting indeed. Brotherly love and the spirit of humility seemed to reign throughout the entire meeting.
On Monday, the 16th, we went to Williams Creek and filled appointments at 2 p. m. and at night, and enjoyed the meeting at both services.
On Tuesday we went to Rushville and filled an appointment at night. The privileges of the church were extended, when Sister Dora Todd came forward and was joyfully received. She is to be baptized by the worthy pastor, Elder John R.
Daily, at the time of the next regular meeting, Saturday and Sunday, August 21, 22.
On Wednesday we went to Indianapolis, where we had meeting at 11 o’clock and at night. Elder Harvey Daily was with us at the night service, and Elder J. R. Wilson was with us both day and night. Elder J. R. Daily was away, filling appointments in Ohio. The two services were both very pleasant, and we enjoyed being with the brethren here again.
Today (Thursday) at 11:30 we left Indianapolis. We are now on our way to St. Louis, Mo., where we change cars to go to Rogers, Ark., to attend an association and to fill other appointments which have been arranged. We humbly ask the dear brethren and sisters to pray the Lord to sustain us.
C. H. C.
[pg 305]
SPIRITS IN PRISON
August 31, 1909
Brother Cayce:— I see that my article has come to the light, but it appears from your remarks that it was with some degree of reluctance that you gave it space. You will notice that I did not require you to endorse it. I hope it was not expected that I should do such a thing before you publish it. Now, as you have said you did not see it as I did, many of your readers, as well as myself, want you to tell us how you do see it. If I am wrong I want to be right, and if you are wrong you ought to be set right; and all honesty, justice, fairness and brotherly kindness demand that you give your readers something better. If I am wrong and my position is assuming, you ought to lift me out of the ditch, or said nothing about it, and let me continue therein, but it is up to you to give a better exegesis of it. I am open to conviction and honestly desire the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Will you publish these few lines and give us your views on the subject? Yours in hope of eternal life,
D. Hoppers
Jackson, Tenn.
OUR REPLY
We will say, first, that whether Brother Hopper expected it or not, it is generally expected and understood that the editor endorses what he publishes in his paper, unless he states that he does not. This being true, a large majority of our readers would have thought that we agreed with Brother Hopper if we had said nothing. While we thought, and yet think, Brother Hopper’s views on the subject were not correct, yet we did not think the matter of sufficient importance to call for more than what we said. But as Brother Hopper, in the above letter, calls us out on the question, and seems to think justice, etc., demands that weF give our views, we will endeavor to do so.
Just here, however, we wish to call attention to the fact that here is a way in which controversy very frequently begins. Of course, if the editor gives space for an article containing views which he does not agree with, he could not consistently refuse space for a reply by someone expressing the view which he does agree with. Then the first brother thinks he should be allowed the privilege of a reply— so there it goes. Sometimes there is hardly any end to it.
There is too much controversy among our people already, and we want none on this question, especially so, as we think we are agreed with Brother Hopper in doctrine. If we are not mistaken the question between us is simply as to what this text teaches. We believe that sinners are regenerated now by the operation and power of the Holy Spirit, just as they were in Noah’s day. We are sure Brother Hopper believes the same thing. We think the text teaches this truth, while Brother Hopper thinks it teaches something else. As we understand the matter, that is the difference between us.
Now, let us have the text— 1st Peter 3:18 to 21: “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: by which also [pg 306] He went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Christ suffered for sins; but He was the just one, and therefore had no sins of His own for which to suffer. He suffered for the sins of others, and those for whose sins He suffered were unjust. As they were unjust, they were justly condemned, and He was not under obligation to them to suffer for their sins. In suffering for their sins He was put to death in the flesh. He laid down His life for them. But He was quickened by the Spirit. On the third day He was made alive from the dead; His body was raised from the grave by the power of the Spirit, the third person in the adorable Trinity. Hence He was quickened by the Spirit, by which also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison.
He preached unto the spirits in prison by the same Spirit by which He was quickened or raised from the grave. This preaching was done while the ark was a preparing— not after the ark was prepared. The apostle refers to preaching done by the Spirit while the ark was a preparing, not to preaching done to those in the ark after it was prepared. Preaching is teaching, and there is a lesson the Lord teaches by the Spirit. See Isaiah 54:13; John 6:45. The grace of God in the heart in the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration teaches something. See Titus 2:11-12. In nature, or in an unregenerate state, all are alike; all are, in that state, by nature, children of wrath or children of disobedience. See Ephesians 2:1-5. While in this condition they are in the prison house of sin, yet they are willing prisoners, for they are in love with sin, and remain so until the Lord performs His work in their hearts or spirits by His Spirit, thus preaching to the spirits in prison and proclaiming liberty to them. Thus, the Lord preached to the spirits in prison in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing. Regeneration, or proclaiming liberty to the captive of sin, the opening of the prison to them that were bound, was therefore the work of the Lord by the Holy Spirit in Noah’s day, while the ark was a preparing, just as it was in the days of the apostles, and as it is yet. Sinners were regenerated by the work of the Spirit in the days of Noah, just as they are now. “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; He hath sent me to bind up the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; to appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them [pg 307] beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that He might be glorified.” Isa. 61:1-3. In this we are taught that the Saviour was anointed to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound. He does this by the Spirit— by the same Spirit by which He was quickened. This work was done that way in Noah’s day, and in the apostle’s day, and it is done that way yet. Again, Isa. 42:6-7: “I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out.” It was that way in the days of Noah, and it is that way yet.
These characters were sometime disobedient. The same thought is expressed in Eph. 2:1-2,3. It is also clearly expressed in Eph. 5:8, “For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light.” They were “sometimes darkness,” were “sometimes disobedient.” They were this way, or in this condition, until brought out of the prison of sin by the same Spirit by which Christ was raised from the dead.
If these thoughts are not in harmony with God’s word we would not have our readers accept them, but they appear to us to be in harmony with the teaching of the Scriptures, and we give them to Brother Hopper and our readers praying the Lord to bless them to your good. C. H. C.
IN MISSOURI
September 28, 1909
In the close of our last report we stated that we were on our way to Rogers, Ark., to attend an association near that place. We arrived at Rogers at 6:52 on Friday morning, August 20, and were met at the train by Brother A. Verhine, who lived in our country several years ago, but who now lives near Rogers. He conveyed us to his home, then to the Sugar Creek Association, which was held on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, August 20, 21, and 22.
[pg 308] There were about fourteen ministers in attendance. We failed to get their names. The services were pleasant and seemed to be enjoyed by nearly all who were present, but there was some discord in the business of the association. It appeared that there was complaint by some of the churches about the doctrine Elder Fairchild had been advocating. On Friday there was some discussion of the differences, when it was decided that there was more of a misunderstanding than real difference. Elder Fairchild agreed not to officiate with the unlimited predestinarian Baptists where that doctrine has caused division. We trust the matter is settled, but time will develop the matter as to whether it was only a smoothing over and hiding of real differences or not.
On Monday after the association we visited Cousin Sallie Little, the widow of Elder N. W. Little, who formerly lived in Clinton, Ky. We spent Monday night at the home of Sister Kieser, who formerly lived near Cayce, Ky. Sister Luetta Hawkins, of San Antonio, Texas, sister of Sister Kieser, was there on a visit. We knew them in our childhood days. On Tuesday we went to Eureka Springs to visit our mother’s sister, Mrs. R. B. Ray, whom we had not seen for several years, and remained with her until Wednesday afternoon at 5:15, when we took train for Springfield, Mo., changing cars at Seligman. Elders W. J. Taylor and W. A. Barham were on the train when we got on at Seligman. We arrived at Springfield at nearly midnight, and went to the home of Brother F. M. Morris, where we were kindly cared for. Next morning (Thursday), in company with Elders Taylor and Barham, we left Springfield for Newburg, Mo., where we were met by Brother I. T. Mathis and conveyed to his home, about fourteen miles. Elder Taylor preached that night at Brother Mathis’ home. On Friday we were conveyed to the place of the association (the Little Piney), where we tried to preach that night. The association convened next day, and continued through Saturday, Sunday and Monday. The following elders were in attendance: C. C. Agee, Northview, Mo.; W. J. Taylor, Garfield, Ark.; W. A. Barham, Watalula, Ark.; C. M. Harris, Putnam, Okla.; J. T. Jenkins, Relfe, Mo., and the writer. This was a good and pleasant meeting indeed. On Monday the following nine sisters came to the church, asking for a home with them: Aggie L. Mathis, Ella Jenkins, Jennie Cowan, Carrie Chit, Jennie Hamilton, Ann Evans, Katie Melton, Jennie Melton and Lorett Steele. This meeting will long be remembered.
On Monday afternoon, in company with Elder W. J. Taylor, we were conveyed to the home of Dr. S. F. Arthur, in Lecoma, where we spent the night. On Tuesday we were conveyed to Lake Springs Church, where we had services on Tuesday, Tuesday night, Wednesday and Wednesday night. [pg 309 The meeting was a very pleasant one. Elder Taylor being with us, did part of the preaching.
On Thursday morning we were conveyed by Brother J. D. Bradford to Rolla, where we boarded the train for Springfield. Spent the night again with Brother Morris. On Friday morning we went to Bolivar, Mo., and were conveyed to Harmony Church to attend the Ozark Association. We tried to preach at the association ground that night. The association convened on Saturday and continued through Sunday and Monday. The following elders were in attendance: W. J. and J. G. Taylor, of Garfield, Ark.; W. T. Branson, Houstonia, Mo.; T. H. Jenkins, Relfe, Mo.; C. M. Harris, Putnam, Oklahoma; C. C. Agee, Northview, Mo.; L. A. Green and J. H. White, Louisburg, Mo.; R. A. Wiseman, Fairgrove, Mo.; L. C. Mills, Longlane, Mo.; J. A. Ford, Buffalo, Mo.; D. E. Smith, Duncan, Mo.; W. M Biddie, Not, Mo., and the writer. On Monday Sister Oma Breshears asked for a home in the church and was gladly received. The meeting was sweet and pleasant and will be long remembered.
On Tuesday and Wednesday we tried to preach at Louisburg. Elders White, Green, Ford and Hodges were with us here. On Wednesday Brother L. H. Rice was gladly received into the church and was baptized that afternoon by Elder Green.
On Thursday we tried to preach at New Hope Church, Elder Green being with us there. The meeting was a very pleasant one.
On Friday we had two pleasant services at Pisgah Church, and on Saturday a pleasant meeting at New Bethel Church, and at night in Niangua, although we were very nearly worn out on account of so much travel and trying to preach twice every day. In Niangua we met Elder S. F. Stone.
On Sunday morning we went to Springfield, where we enjoyed a very pleasant meeting at 11 o’clock a. m., and at 3 p. m. A Brother Edwards was received into the fellowship of the church by relation.
On Monday we went to Fellowship Church, near Northview, and tried to preach on Monday and Tuesday. Elder Green preached on Monday night. Elders Green and Wiseman were both with us here on Tuesday.
On Wednesday and Thursday we tried to preach at Ozark Church. Elders Agee and Ford were with us here. At this church the brethren camped on the ground and had two services in the day on Wednesday and had services also at night. It was a pleasant meeting, and will be long remembered by us.
The tour has been a pleasant one to us. The brethren have kindly received us and have been good to us— much better than we feel to deserve. We feel to be but a poor unprofitable servant, if a servant at all. Space forbids us mentioning the names of all whose homes we visited and who were so kind [pg 310] to convey us from place to place, but we feel to appreciate their many acts of kindness shown to us.
At this writing (Friday, Sept. 17), we are at the home of Elder C. C. Agee, near Northview, Mo. We expect to start in a few minutes with him and Sister Agee for Billings to attend the Center Creek Association.
Again we ask an interest in the prayers of all our brethren and sisters, that the Lord may bless our labors to the comfort of His dear children, although our labors be weak and feeble. C. H. C.
SAD CONDITIONS
October 5, 1909
Miss Annie Wall:
Dear Sister, Cherishing a Precious Hope in Christ— Your kind favor of some time past received and read with pleasure. I trust you will pardon me for not answering sooner; the delay was unavoidable, as I try to serve four churches, all at a distance, except my home church, and I farm on a small scale to support my family.
My sister, I wish to encourage you, as I gather from your letter you have a faithful mind, and I trust your practical life will ever be in harmony with the profession you have made, and that you may be like Mary who chose that good part which should never be taken from her, which was to sit at the feet of Him whom she loved.
I greatly fear there are many uniting with the old church today who do not realize what a solemn thing it is to publicly profess Christ, and what it requires to be a follower of the meek and lowly Lamb of God, who do not first sit down and count the cost to see whether they have sufficient to finish after they have laid the foundation. See Luke 14:28-29. Ah, indeed, I greatly fear many of us today still remember that country from whence we came out. Heb 11:15.
My dear sister, these are perilous times. Our adversary, the devil, seems to have universal sway over mankind. My sister, you rightfully state you believe God has all power, etc., and. then say, “I wonder why things are as they are?” This is a question which none but God alone can answer; He has nowhere told us that we could prevent our surroundings, or prevent perilous times from coming, but told us plainly they were coming.
Therefore He cautioned His people to beware, take heed, lest at any time their hearts be overly charged with surfeiting, and drunkenness and cares of this life and that day came on you unawares (unexpected). Luke 21:34, “Take heed, lest at any time This is one of the times the above language is applicable, but it is too late to take warning after His people have been overcome with the cares, riches, and pleasures of this life. Luke 8:14. The cares riches and pleasures of this life are the thorns, and I have no idea the thorns ever were at numerous as they are today. The world never witnessed as prosperous times as we are now passing through, therefore, His people have waxed fat and kicked, and lightly esteemed the rock of their salvation— Deut. 32:15. The Bible account of God’s people, they never withstand the temptations produced by prosperity. Prosperity produces a state of ease in Zion, and woe to them that are at ease in Zion. Amos 6:1. Poverty is a blessing to people. He says, “Blessed be ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.”— Luke 6:20.
[pg 311] Oh, but say some, the above means to be poor in spirit. But when are they poor in spirit In prosperity, or in adversity? Nay, but in adversity. When the Spirit directed John to write to the angel of the church in Smyrna, she was in tribulation and poverty, but rich. Rev. 2:9 Rich, because the kingdom of God was hers, and was all she had. He admonished her to be faithful unto death, and He would give her a crown of life. She was highly honored, but ah, how unlike the church at Laodicea who said she was rich, and increased with goods, etc. Instead of a crown of life being promised her for her faithfulness, He threatens to spew her out of His mouth (equivalent to casting her out of His sight) for her unfaithfulness, and I haven’t a doubt but that we are now in the Laodicean state of the church, which is Paul’s last days of perilous times, and is the end of the two witnesses’ testimony in sackcloth, which is the church and God’s ministry.
This is an age of ease in which the old man is seeking for, and is now enjoying, a good time; while the new, or inner man, is bowed down with sighs and groans unutterable. An age of idleness, and idleness breeds crime, which is now on the increase, and that too of the blackest hue. An age when darkness covers the earth, and gross darkness the people, etc. Isa. 60:2. I heartily agree with you, my sister, that God has called ministers in this age of the world, as in the primitive age of the church, and that His people are inspired by the same Spirit, or power, to hear and receive the gospel that they are to preach it. If not, then He has neither ministry nor church. But, my sister, have we, both minister and laity, given diligence to make our calling and election sure? 2 Pet. 1:10. He says if ye do these things ye shall never fall. I don’t think it can be successfully denied that both minister and laity have fallen or left their first love. Of course, God’s love, like Himself, never changes. He loved His people before the world began, yea, even His people of today. Our love may, and has grown cold toward Him, but His love never grows cold toward His people. He says, if any man love the world, or even the things of the world, the love of the Father is not in him. See 1 John 2:15-16. He does not say the grace of God is not in him.
The sequel of the whole matter is, His people cannot love both God and the world. Either we will hate the one and love the other, or else we will hold to the one and despise the other. “You cannot serve (love) both God and mammon.”— Matt. 6:24.
My dear sister, you urge the necessity of asking and seeking, which is our Master’s instruction, and I would not discourage you in urging this great lesson, but remember, my sister, that James says, “We ask and receive not, because we ask amiss, that we may consume it upon our lusts (pleasures).” — James 4:3. Our lusts (pleasures) are the channel through which wars and fightings entered our once happy home, and it seems to me that Achan has brought that goodly Babylonish garment and silver, and that golden wedge, into our camps, which has divided us, and thrown all Israel into confusion. Covetousness is the channel through which the above things entered the camps of Israel.
My dear young sister, covetousness — a desire for the good things of this life— is the channel through which we have been led away from the simplicity of the gospel, from the old paths, wherein is that good way, and we are now in a far country, where we have wasted our substance in riotous living. We are in the enemies’ land among thieves, near Jerico, where we have been stripped of our raiment (peculiarities) and are in a deathly state, and nothing but the Spirit of life from the Lord will ever revive us, which will surely be sooner or later, for John saw His people revived after they had lain in the streets of the great city three days and a half. They, of course, were spiritually dead and stripped of their raiment.
Peter, looking through prophecy, saw all these things and said, “We, according to promise look for a new heaven and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”— 2 Pet. 3:13. And John says he saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth [pg 312] were passed away and there was no more sea. Rev. 21:1. This was after the man of sin was bound, and the sudden destruction of that great city Babylon, the mistress of the world. Rev. 18:20-21.
This occurred between the time that John saw the Spirit of life from the Lord enter into them and they stood upon their feet, and their coming up out of great tribulation, Rev. 2:11 and the time that he saw all things made new; therefore, he says, “And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials,” etc., “and he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain (the mountain of God’s holiness; Psa. 48:1) and shewed me that great city,” etc. This great city is the bride, the Lamb’s wife, after she had come up out of great tribulation (not out of graves, but out of great tribulation), and had washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. I know Rev. 21 is looked upon by many as giving a description of the church in her glorified stare in eternity, after the resurrection of these vile bodies, but then he says, “And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it (the church), and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honor into it.” — 24th verse. The nations of the earth which are saved, are the nations healed, for after she had come up out of great tribulation (out of the streets of the great city where she had been overcome, and trodden under foot so long) she bore twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month, and the leaves of the tree (her leaves) were for the healing (saving) of the nations Rev. 22:2 and they shall walk in her light. Ezekiel bears testimony to the same time and things. See Rev. 17; also Isa. 35 bears testimony to the same great event. He begins by saying, “The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them, and the desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose,” etc. Then closed by saying, “And the ransomed (redeemed) of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with songs, and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.” The above Scriptures have never been fulfilled, but will be, and I believe everything is preparatory to, and is ready for that great day.
My sister, I have been more lengthy than I intended when I began this letter, but if you are wearied I hope you will pardon me. I know I have but poorly expressed myself, but believe my position true.
I will close, and may God’s richest blessings be with you, and may you ever adorn your profession, and be a bright light in our Father’s kingdom, is the prayer of yours, I hope, in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ.
H. W. Newton
Oak Grove, Mo.
REMARKS
By request we give space to the letter from Elder H. W. Newton in another place in this paper, but we must ask Brother Newton to please excuse us from accepting all he has said concerning the Primitive Baptists. We have never met Brother Newton, yet we love him, and we do not differ from him for the sake of difference, but because our experience and association among the Old Baptists teach us that he is wrong. We do not know how it is in Brother Newton’s immediate vicinity, right at his home— brethren there may have all forsaken the right way, they may all be seeking after the inventions of men they may all be seeking after the things of the world and not after godliness; their ears may be stopped, their eyes closed, and they may be “rich and increased with goods, and have need of nothing;” they may all be worldly [pg 313] minded, instead of spiritually minded— we say they may be this way where Brother Newton lives— but this is by no means universal among our people. It is true that there may be some errors among us in some localities, but this has always been true, and it is no worse now than it has been heretofore— and we are sure it is not as bad as it has been at times in the past. The Primitive Baptists, as a body, are a people who want to do right. They desire to know and practice the truth, and we are going to give them credit for it. We do not mean that we are going to give them the glory or honor— no. We feel to give the glory and honor to God that He preserves and keeps true and faithful witnesses for truth, and that there are many yet who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. We are well aware of the fact that many, very many, of the Lord’s dear children are blinded by the false teachers of this world, and are seeking after earthly riches and pleasures. Yet the Lord has reserved a remnant who are witnesses for truth and are walking in the good old ways our fathers trod. That remnant is composed of the great body of the Primitive or Old School Baptists. This is true, so far as the United States is concerned. Please let us say, not boastingly, but meekly, that we have been among the Old Baptists to a small extent, at least, in about fourteen states, and we must say that as a body of people they are, as a rule, poor in worldly goods, yet willing to divide their few small possessions to relieve the sick, clothe the naked, feed the hungry and to care for their poor faithful servants in the ministry. They love the Lord and His sweet service more than they do the world and all its glories. As a rule they are a God-loving, God-honoring, God-fearing, meek, humble, quiet, peaceable, faithful and true people. They love the humble and simple service of the Lord, and they have proven to us that they do— and they are continually proving it to us. We love them more and more on this account, and do not see how we could get along in this old world without them; and we beg that they allow us to have only a very low place with them while the Lord spares us to live on earth.
We do not say anything with an intention of wounding any person on earth, but because we think Brother Newton is wrong, if we understand him, and we just loved our precious brethren too well not to say so. We love dear Brother Newton, too, and humbly trust he will not be offended at us.
Again we ask an interest in the prayers of the dear brethren and sisters. C. H. C.
[pg 314]
GOD THE FIRST CAUSE
October 26, 1909
This world is governed by the law of cause and effect— not one thing is left to blind chance. There is not only a cause for every effect, but there is a cause for every cause except the First Cause. The First Cause is an uncaused cause— all the reasons of its existence are in itself. First Cause is another name for God. God is the first cause of all causes.— F. in Footprints of the Flock for September, 1909.
The above from the pen of Elder J. W. Fairchild, in his paper of September, 1909, savors of “rottenness” to us. We said before that we did not endorse his so-called peace proposition, or peace appeal, and we are not yet sorry we said it. We now say that the above is a strange doctrine to us— not strange in the sense that we never heard it before, but strange in the sense that it doesn’t read just right to us. According to the logic of it God did not cause Adam to violate the law, but the devil caused Adam to do so. And Elder Fairchild says God is the first cause of all causes. Then God caused the devil to cause Adam to violate the law. Adam would not have violated the law if the devil had not caused him to do so; and the devil would not have caused Adam to violate the law if God had not caused him to do that. There can be no effect without a cause. Then Adam could not have violated the Law if the devil had not caused him to do so, and the devil could not have caused Adam to violate the law if God had not caused him to do so. If this does not make God the author and first cause of sin, we confess we do not know the meaning of the words. There is no use caviling over the matter; it simply makes God the first cause and the author of all sin. We freely say we do not believe any such teaching, and must be excused. It is not Bible doctrine, and we stand just where we have been standing regarding it. We do not believe the churches in that country will endorse such teaching. If Elder Fairchild wants recognition among our people, he should make a “clean surrender” of the doctrine of the absolute and unconditional predestination of all things, and quit publishing that doctrine in his paper. If he will not do this, there is no need to plead for peace. Advocating that doctrine causes trouble and strife, and there is no use to plead for peace and advocate the doctrine at the same time. If a man is in earnest in pleading for peace, the way to prove, or show it is to quit advocating the things that cause trouble. That doctrine caused trouble among our churches in this country, and we do not want a man among us who advocates it. This is plain, but it behooves us to be plain. C. H. C.
[pg 315]
MISSIONS AND METHODS
November 9, 1909
We have received and read a copy of “Missions and Mission Methods,” a book of 287 pages. recently published by Elder J. H. Millburn, of Union City, Tenn. Elder Milburn is an anti-board Missionary Baptist. In this book he takes the position that the commission, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature, was given to the church, and that the obligation of it now rests upon the churches, and not upon boards, societies or other inventions of men. Although we think he is wrong in his position regarding the commission, we agree with him that these boards and societies are simply inventions of men, and deny the authority of Christ. On page 238 he says:
“Baptists got along without any such Episcopal machinery for over seventeen hundred years; we can get along without it now; my brother, will you try to be loyal to Christ, and let such institutions of men alone?” This is precisely what our people thought and believed at the time of the division when Gary, Fuller and others introduced those things into the Baptist family. The Baptists got along without those things seventeen hundred years, and we are still getting along without them.
On page 12 he says: “God has always had faithful witnesses; He has now and will have until He shall come again. God has never had less, at any time, than ‘a remnant according to the election of grace.’ At this time, however, God has a mighty host, but alas, many of them are asleep in regard to the perilous times which are upon them. The conflict is on; multitudes have taken a firm stand ‘on the Lord’s side’ against innovations and the inventions of men in religious matters,”etc. The Primitive Baptists took that firm stand all along the line. We remained on that platform when those things (inventions). were introduced into the Baptist family by Fuller & Co. Your people left the “Lord’s side” when they went into these things that gave rise to the division.
On page 65 he says: “It is only when men go beyond God’s revealed will and teach and practice that which is not required that divisions and strife come among the children of God.” This being true, it follows that those men who introduced these inventions and methods of which Elder Milburn complains were the cause of the division in the Baptist family. It must, therefore, necessarily be true that the Missionary Baptists are the seceding party, and are not the original Baptists. Those things are not in God’s revealed will. The parties who introduced, taught and advocated those things went “beyond God’s revealed will,” and, therefore, departed from the original principles, and so are not the original Baptist church. The Missionary Baptist church is, therefore, a new sect, and is not the church of Christ.
[pg 316] On page 107 he says: “Honestly, reader, what do you think of those editors and authors (?) who persistently assert that those who refuse to adopt Conventionism have ‘split off,’ but will never tell what they have ‘split off’ from? There were no Baptist Conventions, nor Convention Baptists, nor churches cooperating with organizations of similar character or kind, for over 1,700 years. We ask again: In the name of right and justice, what is it those churches refusing to cooperate with Conventions have ‘split off’ from?” This is a question we would like to have answered, too. It is a question the Missionary Baptists have failed to answer for years. If the churches that refuse to cooperate with Conventions have not “split off,” then the Primitive Baptists have not “split off,” but the Missionaries have; for the Primitive Baptists have, all along, refused to cooperate with their machinery, while the Missionaries have cooperated with those things, and those things caused the division.
Elder Milburn brings some very serious charges against the boards, and shows very clearly and plainly that they are unscriptural and that it is very wrong to cooperate with them, or to aid them in their work. We would be glad to give more extracts from the book, but space forbids. As stated above, we think he is wrong in the position that the commission was given to the church. Neither do we endorse all the doctrinal sentiment he has advanced, but we do heartily endorse the sentiment that the boards and societies they have are the inventions of men and are unscriptural.
The book contains much valuable information. The price is one dollar. If you want a copy, send a dollar to Elder J. H. Milburn, Union City, Tenn., and he will send you one. C. H. C.
ORGANS IN CHURCHES
November 16, 1909
Elder C. H. Cayce:
My Dear Brother— Our church at Cordele does not, nor never has used an organ in its song service, and there is not a member that desires that we use one; however, there are some churches in Georgia that do use the organ.
Will you answer briefly the following question? Should we exclude from our
fellowship a church which uses an organ in its song service, but does not urge its use upon others, and is otherwise sound and orderly?
Thanking you in advance for an early reply, I am, yours in hope,
Thos J. McArthur
Cordele, Ga.
OUR REPLY
The above may have been intended as a private request; it may have been sent with the expectation of a reply by private letter, but as we have no secrets in the matter, we decided to publish the request with our reply.
[pg 317] If a church in our association (the Greenfield) should introduce an organ into her service, the sister churches would at once labor with her to get her to remove it. If she failed to do so, she would certainly be dropped from our union. This is what we would do. But your question has in it, “should they do so?” We most emphatically, yet kindly, say yes. Law worship and law service has been closed out, and has no place in the gospel church. We could as consistently admit into our churches and fellowship the whole brood of Arminian law worship, service and practice, as we could admit the organ part of it. As for our part we want none of it. C. H. C.
NOT SURPRISED
November 23, 1909
We are not at all surprised that Brother C. H. Cayce should endorse Brother Milburn’s argument against our regular missionary organizations. The Hardshells made these same fights against our Lord’s work seventy-five years ago and the results have been fully demonstrated.— Baptist Builder, Nov. 17, 1909.
Elder Penick need not be surprised when we endorse the truth at any time. But if Elder Penick should ever endorse the truth it would surprise us very much. It is a very easy matter to say “so-and-so has done so-and-so”— much easier than to answer arguments or fair questions. Will you pray tell us what the “Hardshells,” as you call us, split off from in opposing your societies, boards and conventions— when none of those things existed among the Baptists prior to 1792? Your mission system is unauthorized by the word of God, and is foreign to truth. C. H. C.
QUESTIONS
November 23, 1909
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— I want to ask you to give your your views on the Scripture where Christ said, “In my Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.” Did He mean the church here in this world, or in heaven?
We are divided into four factions here. Don’t you believe it would be best not to join any church? I believe we can serve God as well out of the church as we can in it.
There are a number of Primitive Baptists here who do not belong to the church. I take THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. I read the paper and then mail them to parties in North Carolina and Tennessee. It doesn’t cost but little to send them. I sent four to a Missionary preacher who [pg 318] is an organ advocate. The organ is an idol. I am ninety-one years old— a poor old sinner.
Remember me in your prayers. Please answer the above.
D. C. Wacaser
Garden City, Ala.
REMARKS
The Scripture referred to is recorded in John 14:2. Brethren differ on this text, and we suppose will continue to do so. In some way there was a kingdom prepared for the Lord’s people from the foundation of the world. “Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” In another respect the death, burial, resurrection, ascension and intercession of Christ is necessary in this preparation and the reception of them into the place prepared for them. We think it is also true that the Lord makes or prepares a place for us here, and makes it our duty to fill that place. We believe our sainted father, Elder S. F. Cayce, filled his place.
To the next question, we would answer no. We do not think it best not to join any church. We think the Lord’s people, who believe the truth, should join the Old Baptist Church, which we think is the church of Christ. If one can serve God as well out of the church as he can in it, then why did Christ establish His church? One cannot do some things the Lord has commanded His children to do without becoming a member of His church. Hence, he cannot serve God as well out of the church as he can in it, and therefore it is best to join the church.
C. H. C.
SINNERS AND UNGODLY
November 23, 1909
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother in hope of eternal life— I want you to give me your views on the ungodly— who is he? It says, “If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” Yours for truth,
D. T. Towner
Oneonta, Ala.
REMARKS
The text cited above is in 1 Pet. 4:18. Verse 17 says, “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?” This shows clearly that the righteous referred to in verse 18 are those who obey the gospel, and that the saving is that which is enjoyed by those who do obey. Hence the ungodly and the sinner are those who do not obey the gospel. C. H. C.
[pg 319]
QUESTIONS FROM W. C. MOORE
November 30, 1909
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Sir— Permit me to ask you a few questions in regard to the death of the Lord Jesus Christ and the salvation of the poor lost sinners, and answer them through the columns of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, if you feel disposed to do so. I am not a subscriber for your valuable paper, but I am a reader of your lovely, Christian-like paper, THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. Hence, I write to ask the following questions:
1. If God so loved His people as to give His Son to die for them, why did He not have the same love to give His Son to die for all?
2. If the death of Jesus Christ was based upon the principle of mercy, why was it not based upon the principle of mercy for all?
3. If Christ unconditionally atoned our actions, sins, why did He not also unconditionally atone the sins of the back-sliding Israel?
4. Does the Holy Spirit ever give any commands or warnings to sinners, in order to flee from the wrath to come? If not, why not?
5. What purpose did God have in creating the goats?
I would be glad for you or any writer of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST to answer the above questions through the columns of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. Now, I did not ask the above questions to bring a reproach upon your cause or its readers. I have always heard it preached in the Bible, general atonement, free agency, general calling, etc. So my motive in writing to you is to know the truth.
Will you or any writer to THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST favor me with a reply? Trusting you will favor me with this reply, I am, Yours very truly,
W. C. Moore
Bellefontaine, Miss.
REMARKS
In answer to Question 1 we refer to Rom. 9:11-13: “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” This plainly tells us that God hated Esau. Then God did not love Esau. In verse 11 it is explained, “That the purpose of God according to election might stand.” If any man can tell why God did not love Esau, he will tell why God did not love all the race. In Verse 14 the apostle anticipates and answers the objection that some make, that God is unrighteous if He loves a part of the race and does not love all the race. He says, “What shall we say then? is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” Have we any right to reply against God, and ask why He does not love all the race, and bestow spiritual blessings upon all of them? Certainly not. Read verse 20 in the same chapter.
In answer to question 2 we will say: If the death of Christ was based upon a principle of mercy, then He had a right to die for a part of the race without dying for others. If He did not have this sovereign right, then His death was [pg 320] not mercy, but an obligation which He was under to sinners. If He was under obligation to them to die for them, and if they are saved through what He accomplished in His death, then their salvation is not a matter of mercy, but a matter of obligation— something the Lord was under obligation to them to do for them. If the salvation of the sinner is not of God’s mercy, then the Bible is a farce, and the whole thing is a delusion, a snare and a myth. Sinners are saved by mercy— grace— through what Christ accomplished in His death. Therefore, His death was an act of mercy. As it was an act of mercy, He had a sovereign right to die for a part of the race, without dying for others.
Replying to question 3 we will say we suppose “actual” sins is meant by “actions” sins. We did not correct the word, because we did not know certainly that this was what was meant; but we will take it for granted in our answer. Christ did actually atone for all the actual sins of all His people, or else He did not do so. There could be no such thing as conditional atonement. Christ either made atonement, or else He did not make atonement. If He made atonement, then it is already done, and cannot now be conditional upon the part of the sinner. The sinner is the offending party; God is the offended. A mediator steps in between the offended and the offending parties. If the mediator makes atonement, or reconciliation, that atonement or reconciliation does not depend upon the offending party. Christ was the mediator, and He made atonement, or reconciliation, for the offense of those who were represented by Him in His offering. If He did not make atonement, or reconciliation, then His work as a mediator was a failure and God (the offended party) is still unreconciled. Then, if God becomes reconciled because of anything the sinner does, let it be whatever it may, then the work of Christ was a failure, and the sinner is not saved because of what Christ did for him, but because of what he does himself. Backsliding Israel were chastised for their sins, but chastisement is not atonement. To be made at one with God, the guilt of the sinner must be removed, and chastisement does not remove the guilt. The Lord’s people are chastised now for their disobedience, but that does not atone. Christ made atonement for them. Christ did atone for the sins of His spiritual Israel among national Israel. “They are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” The Jews were God’s chosen people as a nation. Some of them were God’s people spiritually. Christ made atonement for all the sins of His people spiritually— those embraced in the covenant of grace.
To question 4 we say unregenerate sinners are nowhere in God’s word commanded to flee from the wrath to come. In nature the sinner is condemned already. Judgment has already been pronounced. He is guilty, and already condemned. To warn him to flee would be to tell him to run from [pg 320] justice— and if he could, and should, flee, he would only be an escaped convict. He cannot enter heaven an escaped convict. The great Judge of the Universe cannot be thus deceived. Then why should he be warned to flee? It would be the very height of folly.
To question 5 we say: “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, seeing He giveth to all life and breath, and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.”— Acts 17:24-25,26. This tells why God made all men— “for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” God did not make them sinners. Man was not a sinner as God made him. He made himself a sinner. Man transgressed the law of his creator, and thus became the offending party. The penalty for the offense was death. Hence, there must be the intervention of another party, or all are forever lost. Here Christ intervenes as mediator for His people and makes atonement, reconciliation, satisfaction for their sins. The others are not injured by the work of Christ, but are left where they are placed by reason of sin— transgression. C. H. C.
REMARKS TO J. C. BIGGS
December 7, 1909
We are not sure that we understand Brother Biggs on every point. The children of God, we understand, belonged to Christ by gift before atonement was made by Him for them. When He died for them, then they were His also by redemption or purchase. In regeneration they are made His by vital relationship; they are God’s people then by birth— a vital relationship or kinship then existing. In this (regeneration) they receive the spirit of adoption; and they are adopted when this mortal body is resurrected and received into the heavenly family.
God overrules, restrains and punishes sin and wickedness. He is in no sense the approver of it. C. H. C.
FIRST CAUSE AGAIN
December 7, 1909
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— I can’t understand your article in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of October 26. Do you believe God put Adam in the garden to keep the law forever? If so, why did Christ stand as a lamb slain from the foundation of the world? I understand you to think that the devil was the cause of Adam’s transgression, and God didn’t intend it. Now I don’t believe that [pg 322] God is the author of sin, no more than you do; but, my dear brother, I believe good was accomplished and not evil. What was more evil than the crucifixion of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and Christ Himself said to one, “you have no power against me except it be given you from above;”and He also said “for this hour was I born, and for this cause came I into the world.” But it took a devil to betray Him; and I believe God’s purpose was carried out in Adam as it was in Christ. And, now, my dear brother, I want you to show me where I am wrong. I have not written this for publication; I only want you to show me where my mistake is. You can answer me through the paper or by private letter. I hate to ask this of you, but if I am wrong I want to be right. Dear brother, pray for me, that God may give me grace to bear me through this world of sin and sorrow. Your sister, I hope, saved by grace, if saved at all,
Mrs. Georgia Townsend
R. 1 Center, Miss.
OUR REPLY
In reply to your question, “Do you believe God put Adam in the garden to keep the law forever?” will say we believe just precisely what God’s word says about it. “And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.”— Gen. 2:15. If God put the man in the garden to violate His law, the Bible does not say so. We believe what the Bible says. If you believe what the Bible says, then you cannot believe God put the man in the garden to violate the law. No one can possibly believe both propositions, for they are diametrically opposed to each other.
The Bible does not say Christ stood as a lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The text used in support of that thought is Rev. 13:8, which says, “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” The writing of the names in the book of life was from the foundation of the world. That book of life was the “book of life of the Lamb slain.” The names were written from the foundation of the world. Rev. 17:8 shows this to be true. It says, “And they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world.” A literal translation as given in the Interlinear New Testament, of Rev. 13:8, is, “And shall do homage to it, all who dwell on the earth of whom have not been written the names from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb slain.” To transpose the words, so as to have easy flowing English, we have it thus: “And all shall do homage to it, who dwell on the earth, the names of whom have not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb slain.” The very expression, “Christ stood as a Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” is contradictory within itself. if He stood, He was not slain. A lamb that is slain does not stand— it is cut down. Christ was cut down— He was slain for our sins, but He was raised again.
[pg 323] God did not predestinate that Adam should violate the law. God is the author of His predestination. You would surely admit this. Then, if God is the author of His predestination, and He predestinated that Adam should violate His law, then He is the author of the violation of that law. No man under heaven can escape that conclusion. One had just as well say the moon is blue mud and then try to argue that it is not, as to say God predestinated that Adam should sin, and then try to argue that God is not the author of sin. God did predestinate the salvation of His people, and He is the author of their salvation. He is the author of His predestination, if good, and not evil, was accomplished in Adam’s transgression, then there is no such thing as evil. The heathenish and idolatrous infidel saying, that “Whatever is, is right,” would then be true. Oh, horror of horrors! The idea that good, and not evil, is accomplished in all the crime, murder, theft, robbery, rape, wife-killing, mothers slaying their offspring— and all other crimes that are being committed all over the country! Lord, deliver us from such black, blasphemous, heathenish infidelity! To Pilate Jesus said, in John 19:11, “Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.” The Jews had sought to take the life of the Saviour from the time of His advent into the world; but they could not take it. They did not take it, either. Christ laid down His life. See John 10:17-18, “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.” In John 18:37 Jesus said, “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”
If God’s purpose was carried out in Adam, or if God predestinated that Adam should violate the law, then Adam did God’s will when he violated the law, or else God predestinated that Adam should not do His will. If God’s will was for Adam to violate the law, and He had predestinated that he do so, then God told him to do that which it was not His will for him to do. God told him not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If God had predestinated that he should eat of the fruit of that tree, then He told him not to do the thing that He had predestinated he should do. The penalty for the violation of that law was death. If God willed and predestinated that he should violate the law, then the man is punished with death for doing God’s will and what God predestinated that he should do. 1 Cor. 10:5, “But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.” If God predestinated that they should do as they [pg 324] did, then God was not well pleased with His own predestination. If God’s predestination is according to His will, then God was not well pleased with His own will in this instance, if He predestinated that they should do as they did. God did not predestinate that they should do as they did, for God is pleased with His predestination; but He was not pleased with them.
We fail to see where there is any grace in a system that puts the man in a state of sin by the predestination of God. If God predestinated that all should be sinners and then predestinated that some should be saved from sin, then God predestinated to save some from His own predestination. We fail to see where there is any room for grace in that kind of theory. It destroys every principle of grace. It would he as much damnation by grace as salvation by grace. Man sinned willfully, and by his own act brought condemnation and death. It was by man’s disobedience, and not by the predestination of God. Hence. God’s predestination has never damned anyone. But God did predestinate to save His chosen people from sin, and according to that predestination He saves them. His predestination to save them was grace— mercy alone. Hence they are saved by grace.
We love the doctrine of grace. Poor rebel sinners are saved by grace. Without grace we are forever lost. But we do not love the doctrine that God absolutely predestinated everything that comes to pass, and that God is the cause of our sins and wickedness. If that doctrine be true, then God has absolutely predestinated that we should not believe it, and we are glad He did not leave that out.
C. H. C.
QUESTIONS
December 14, 1909
2 CORINTHIANS 12
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— Please give your views of 2 Cor. 12. Does Paul have reference to himself or someone else in regard to the third heaven? Yours, saved by grace, if saved at all, R. F. Horner
Lane, Tenn.
Paul has reference to a vision or revelation which he had. In that revelation or vision he was caught up to the third heaven and “heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.” That is, he heard words which are not possible for a man to utter. C. H. C.
WHEN BORN OF THE SPIRIT
When a man is quickened into life is he born of the Spirit?
Yes, a man is born of the Spirit when he is quickened into divine life.
[pg 325] There are a number of figures used in the Scriptures to represent the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. The same work is called begotten, born, quickened, translated, resurrection, and also other figures. They are all used to represent the same thing. The idea conveyed by all of them is that the sinner is passive in receiving the new or higher order of life. C. H. C.
PSALM 14
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— I want a little light on the fourteenth Psalm. Did “the fool” use all the expressions in that chapter, or is it David’s language? A religious sect in this country claims a man must live clear of sin, both soul and body; and if you refer them to Rom. 3:10 they refer to Psalm 14 and ask if we believe what the fool says.
B. A. Caddell
R. 2 Centerville, Ala.
No, the fool did not use all the language recorded in the fourteenth Psalm. Those who would say so are either grossly ignorant, or else they willfully misrepresent the matter.
Who would be so grossly ignorant as to say the fool said, “Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the Lord bringeth back the captivity of His people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad.” Here is another expression “the fool” did not make use of: “For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.” This expression was used by the wise man, Solomon, in Eccl. 7:20. The man who will try to find one Scripture to contradict another plain statement in God’s word does not believe the Bible, any way. He is an infidel.
C. H. C.
ELECTION AND ATONEMENT
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— Please answer the following questions in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST and send a copy to me:
Does election precede faith, or is election the cause of faith?
How does the atonement apply to infants and insane persons?
Fraternally,
Elder J. H. Simmons
R. 3 Hamilton, Ala.
Yes, the election precedes faith. “According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love; having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.”— Eph. 1:4,5. The apostle here says they were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. It must have been before they had faith, then.
The atonement applies to infants and insane persons just as it applies to others. The Holy Spirit makes the application. The idea that persons must perform [pg 326] conditions in order to receive the benefit of the atonement would exclude all infants and insane persons. Infants, idiots, insane persons and intelligent adults are all saved just alike— in the very same way. C. H. C.
RESISTING THE HOLY GHOST
Can an alien sinner resist the Holy Ghost? Answer through your paper. M. J. Boothe
Somerville, Tenn.
The operation of the Holy Spirit upon the heart of the alien sinner is life-giving. The alien sinner is dead— in a state of death. It is unreasonable, illogical, unscientific and unscriptural to talk about the dead resisting life-giving power. They do not resist the life-giving work of the Holy Spirit. C. H. C.
EPHESIANS 4:17-19
I would be glad to have your views on Ephesians 4:17-19.
R. A. Ford
Oakland, Miss.
This is an exhortation or admonition to the Gentile church at Ephesus to walk not as other Gentiles walk. The Lord’s children should not walk as unregenerate sinners walk. Their walk and conversation should be different. They should walk in the ordinances of the Lord’s house and talk of His goodness and mercy. They should “speak to each other in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” They should meet often together, and pray with and for each other. They should watch over each other for good. They should be mutual burden-bearers, helping each other, bearing each other’s burdens.
They should manifest, or prove, their love for each other. Let us not walk as other Gentiles walk. C. H. C.
CLOSE OF VOLUME 24
December 28, 1909
With this issue another volume of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST is closed. Another year, with its trials, sorrows, disappointments, heartaches, bereavements and conflicts, as well as joys and pleasures, is gone. Many of our friends and loved ones have crossed over the river who were with us one year ago. We have had our sorrows and heartaches, as well as seasons of rejoicing. Most of us have been blessed with refreshing seasons, though they may have been mixed with sorrows. We have sometimes felt to realize that the Lord was with us, and that His grace was sufficient. How precious His promises have been to us.
We have made mistakes. Sometimes we feel that perhaps our whole life [pg 327] has been made up of mistakes. It seems that we realize, more and more, our weaknesses and proneness to err, as the days and years go by. An editor’s place is a hard place to fill. Experience only will teach one what it is. If there is one single thing in the whole country that is wrong or irregular, somebody is almost sure to write the editor about it and demand space to give the whole thing a “general round up.” If space is refused, then the editor is “taking sides” and “recognizes the disorder,” etc. Then the editor must be “drilled” in a long, tedious and continued private correspondence. He must be reprimanded or censured for putting his judgment against the judgment of the writer and perhaps others. And often because something is not published he gets an order to “stop my paper.” Sometimes a letter for the paper is brought to a close with the statement, “This is submitted to your better judgment; do with it as you think best;” but if it does not appear in the paper promptly, the editor gets a letter asking why. Thus matters go on, “day in and day out.” There is no rest. It is a continual thing, on and on. The editor may, sometimes, after he has retired, late at night, too tired and worn-out to sleep, build a little air-castle. He may, while thus awake, dream that in a few more weeks, or months, or years, he will reach the place where he will have a little rest and ease. But, behold, his air-castle is “knocked into smithereens” in a short time, and he finds himself still confronted with problems as hard to solve as any that were ever presented to him. Brethren, if you think “it’s easy,” just try it. We promise you now that we will not envy you.
Notwithstanding all the trials and conflicts we do not feel like giving up. We desire to press on. If we know our heart our greatest desire on earth is to comfort and benefit the Lord’s humble poor. We love the church our blessed Redeemer established on earth. The Old Baptists are our people, and we love them and want an humble home with them while the Lord spares our life.
I love thy church, oh God;
Her walls before thee stand;
Dear as the apple of thine eye,
And graven on thy hand.
For her my tears shall fall,
For her my prayers ascend,
For her my toils and cares be given
Till toils and cares shall end.
As to the doctrine and principles we have endeavored to sustain in the columns of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, we have no apologies to offer. As stated already, we have made mistakes. We are free to confess this; but we believe the principles we have contended for are eternal, and we are content to continue [pg 328] holding to them. Our desire has been to earnestly and faithfully contend for the faith that was once for all delivered unto the saints, and to comfort and benefit the Lord’s dear children. As to how well we have succeeded, we are willing for our brethren and sisters to judge. We have received many letters of commendation and precious words of encouragement from many of them. These things have given us renewed energy, and have strengthened us to press on in the service.
We have believed the Old Baptists would uphold and sustain one who proves himself true to the cause they love, and that is so dear to their hearts. We have believed they would support a paper that is true to their principles. We have also believed they would withhold support from a paper that was not true to those principles. We have seen some papers prove to be failures because they were not true to them. Our confidence in our brethren remains unshaken. The true and loyal support that has been given THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST has been better and more than we feel to be worthy of, yet we appreciate it more than we can express, and our efforts will be to still improve the paper in every way possible. We desire to give our readers all the reading matter possible as cheaply as we possibly can. THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST IS not published simply as a money making enterprise. We are continually studying methods and ways to reduce expenses, so as to publish the paper at as low a price as possible. We humbly trust our brethren will continue to give us their support, and that they will do all they can to continue to extend the circulation of the paper. If every subscriber would send us one new one it would double our list. How many will send us a list of new subscribers during January, 1910? You have already done much, and we greatly appreciate it, and trust you will continue to do all you can. But above all this, we want an interest in your prayers. We feel to need your prayers. Will you pray earnestly to the Lord to uphold, sustain, direct and keep us in the right way? We are so poor and weak and prone to go astray, that without His divine aid and assistance we would fall and utterly perish. C. H. C.
IN THE DAYS OF NOAH
August 10, 1909
Dear Brother Cayce, we would be glad to hear you on some words like this, “As it was in the days of Noe so shall it be at the coming of the Son of Man.”
Daniel H Wilson
Coolridge, GA
REMARKS
We suppose the Scripture referred to is Matthew 24:37, which reads, “But as the days of Noe were, shall also the coming of the Son of Man be.” The same thing is spoken of in Luke 17:26. The following verses tell how [pg 329] the people were doing in Noah’s day, until he entered the ark and the flood came. The coming of the Son of Man refers to His coming in the gospel kingdom after His resurrection, when the old law worship and service has been fully closed out, and the light of gospel service and worship has been fully set up; and the destruction of Jerusalem is also referred to, as may be seen in the connection. It was a time of much wickedness in Noah’s day, when he entered the ark— so was it a time of much wickedness when Jerusalem was destroyed, the old law worship and service done away, and the light of gospel worship and service sully ushered in.
The above article was overlooked in its proper place, according to date, in setting the type for this book. So it is inserted here. C.H.C.
INTRODUCTORY TO
VOLUME 25
January 11, 1910
With this issue we begin the twenty-fifth volume of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. Twenty-four years ago the first issue was sent out. Many trials and hardships have been endured during these twenty-four years. Our dear sainted father, Elder S. F. Cayce, established the paper and was its editor until his death in August, 1905. Since his death we have tried, with our limited ability, to uphold and contend for the same principles that he loved so well and died contending for. We have not done so because father did, but because we love those principles. We earnestly believe them to be the principles of God’s eternal truth. We know that some have objected, and some have tried to persuade, and some have tried to brow-beat, and thus cause us to turn from these principles. But we feel now that we could never forsake them. They are dearer to us than all else on this earth. What a miserable coward we would be to leave, forsake and turn away from those principles. We trust we may never forsake or turn away from them. By the help of the Lord we expect to continue to conduct THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST in defense of those principles— the same principles that have been defended in its columns for the twenty-four years it has been published.
The first issue of the paper was twelve pages the same size as the pages are now. It was a monthly paper then. After that it was changed to eight pages, twice a month. It was published that way for a year or two. Then it was published four times a month, the pages still being the size they are this week. It continued this way for a few years, and then the pages were made a little larger— an odd size. After another short time, we then sent the paper out every week except Christmas week, thus giving fifty-one papers each [pg 320] year instead of forty-eight. We have continued to send out fifty-one or fifty-two issues every year since then. But in May, 1906, the paper was again enlarged, making it eight pages with five columns to each page. Now we have enlarged it again, going back to the four column size, but sixteen pages. Now you see the paper is twice as large as it was a few years ago, and almost twice as large as it was four years ago, and the price only 25 cents more. Yet a few brethren have insinuated that our object is to make merchandise of the gospel. They may think so, but we are sure they would not if they could take our place for awhile. Everything the farmer has to sell, and everything we have to buy, has increased very much in price during the past few years, and we have to buy everything we use. Yet we have studied, planned and worked laboriously in every way we could imagine to reduce our expenses or to keep them down, to try to continue to publish the paper without increasing the price. Blank paper is much higher than it used to be and labor costs us much more. The only reason we have been able to continue the paper as large as we have and at the price has been by plans and ways of saving labor expense. Now, our present change in size of the paper makes it about one-third larger, but the increased cost to us is not quite that much, hence we raise the price only one-fourth, or 25 cents a year more than it was before. Doubtless many of our readers will remember that the price one time was $1.25 a year, and that at that time the paper was just one-half as large as it is now. But we wish to say, and we are glad it is so, that we do not think we have received more than a half-dozen complaints regarding the change.
Some complain now and then about the advertisements in the paper. But we do not know of a single one but was willing to withdraw that when we tell them we are trying to use all we get that way in sending the paper to poor destitute widows and preachers who want the paper and are not able to pay for it. If we leave the advertisements out we could not send the paper to them because we are simply not able financially to do so. We think it best— more God-like— to continue to publish the advertisements and send them the paper. Brethren, just think a moment. Shall we, in your interest, take the advertisements out of the paper and stop sending it to those poor destitute children of God who love the glad tidings as well as you do? Or, shall we, in their interest, continue to publish the advertisements to enable us to send the paper to them? Would brotherly love say deprive them of the pleasure of reading the paper? We are sure that when you consider the matter in this light you would say go on as we have been.
We feel to enter the new year with renewed energy and renewed determination to press on in the Master s service. The Lord has been so good and kind and merciful to us that we feel under obligation to render service to [pg 331] Him. His dear children have been much better to us than we feel to deserve, and our earnest desire is to comfort and benefit them. We want to conduct the paper for their benefit and in defense of the cause of Christ. Dear brethren and sisters, this is your paper— it is your medium of correspondence for mutual comfort and encouragement. But it is not for the, object of publishing local disturbances and differences abroad. We have been trying to get the brethren to quit sending such things to us. We dislike to flatly refuse to publish such things. But we now say you need not send them to us. We are going to do our very best to keep them out of the paper. Please do not write to us about such things. We want you to write about such things as may have a tendency to unite the brethren and sisters in love and fellowship on the true principles of the doctrine of God our Saviour. Write us about your good meetings. Send us all the good church news you can. Please do not neglect this. If you have any good news send it to us at once.
Now, dear brethren and sisters, will you pray for us? Will you pray the Lord to direct, uphold and sustain us, and enable us to conduct the paper to the comfort and benefit of His people and to the glory of His name? And will you continue to help us all you can? We are poor weak creatures, and need your help.
May this year be one of joy and happiness to all our readers, is our humble prayer.
C. H. C.
IN ALABAMA
January 18, 1910
We left home on Saturday morning, December 25, for McKenzie, Ala., to debate with a Mormon, Mr. F. M. Slover. Arrived in McKenzie on Sunday evening at 5:47. The debate began on Monday morning, December 27, and continued four days. For two days Mr. Slover affirmed that “The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is in harmony with the church of Christ described in the New Testament in faith, organization, doctrine and practice.” Then for two days we affirmed that “The Baptist Church, of which I (C. H. Cayce) am a member, is in harmony with the church of Christ described in the New Testament in faith, organization, doctrine and practice.” It was a victory for truth. A synopsis of the debate will be written later and published in our columns or in a pamphlet. Some brethren have requested us to put it in pamphlet form.
On Saturday and Sunday, January 1 and 2, we filled appointments at South, and had a very pleasant meeting both days. We met Elder Wiggins and Elder [pg 332] Thomas there, whom we had not met before. Elders Little and Kimbro were also with us, but we had met them at McKenzie during the debate. Elder Gatlin was our moderator in the debate. Elder Bolton was also in attendance.
We are now at the home of Brother Grantham, near Red Level, Ala., and near New Home Church, where we have an appointment for today. We humbly pray the Lord to bless our weak efforts to the comfort and benefit of His dear people. C. H. C.
WHO WILL DEBATE FOR
THE PRIMITIVE BAPTISTS?
February 15, 1910
C. H. Cayce has been the champion for them in these parts since the death of his father. I have met him twice on the proposition, “All for whom Christ died will be saved in heaven,” and on the operation of the Holy Spirit independent of the word of God. My affirmatives were: “Baptism a condition of pardon to the alien;” “It is possible for a child of God to so apostatize as to be finally lost.” He has been asked to meet me again near Rutherford, Tenn. He says now there is only one question he will meet any of us on— that is we must affirm that “the Scriptures teach that faith, repentance, confession, and baptism in water are necessary conditions to be performed by the dead alien sinner in order to spiritual or eternal life.” We have always affirmed that baptism, preceded by other conditions, is a condition of pardon of past sins, and that we must continue to live a godly life here as a Christian; that God has promised all who will do this eternal life. Mr. Cayce claims to have met a brother in Texas on this proposition. I wrote to the brother about it. His reply was that he did it because be could not get a fair proposition. He defined the proposition to suit him, and debated it. As to my part, I am willing for the Baptists to state what they believe in their proposition. They should allow us the same liberty. I am sure that Cayce has raised this false issue to keep out of debate. He has enough on the fair proposition. If not, he can show it by answering the call of his brethren near Rutherford, Tenn., to debate with some Christian preacher. He has his name to four propositions. He has debated them twice— Old Bethel, near Dukedom, Tenn., and Maury City, Tenn. I wonder if it took him this long to find that they were unfair?— A. O. Colley, in Gospel Advocate (Nashville, Tenn.), Feb. 10, 1910.
The foregoing “splutter” from Mr. Colley does not relieve him from the dilemma he has deliberately placed himself in. A brief statement of a few facts would perhaps be in order just now. We met Mr. Colley in debate on four propositions (the atonement, design of baptism, operation of the Spirit and the possibility of apostasy) at Bethel, Graves county, Ky., and then again at Maury City, Tenn., last March. Mr. Colley, during this last debate, kept trying to get away from the propositions, and to bring into the discussion the plan of salvation. He had also said that Cayce would not debate with him on the plan of salvation. So during that discussion in Maury City we asked Mr. Colley to sign the following propositions:
[pg 333] 1. The Scriptures teach that spiritual or eternal life is given to dead (alien) sinners without conditions on their part.— C. H. Cayce affirms.
2. The Scriptures teach that faith, repentance, confession and baptism in water are necessary conditions to be performed by dead (alien) sinners in order to spiritual or eternal life.— C. H. Cayce denies.
Mr. Colley refused to sign the propositions. Some time ago we received a letter asking if we would meet Mr. Colley in another discussion near Rutherford, Tenn. We replied that if Mr. Colley was ready to sign those propositions we were ready to meet him. The propositions were sent to Mr. Colley by those concerned in that vicinity. Some time ago we met Mr. Colley on the street in our town and asked him if he had heard from the matter. He replied that he had, but had sent other propositions back. Note that he did this instead of coming directly to us. We asked him if he would sign the propositions. He refused, and proposed that we select a man, and he select one, then the two select another and that if the three decided that the propositions were fair he would sign them. We immediately accepted his proposition and selected a man who is a member of another church. Mr. Colley objected to the selection. We then selected another, who is a member of another order, and insisted that Mr. Colley select his man. This he refused and failed to do. Thus, he simply utterly failed to do what he proposed to do. Now, is he not a pretty looking piece of humanity to come into print and ask the impertinent and silly question, “Who will debate for the Primitive Baptists?” Such trickery and sham and “make-like” “bluffs” as this might make blushes rise on the face of some of the ministers of darkness, but we presume not so with such Campbelites as Mr. Colley.
On January 24 we received a letter from Mr. Colley regarding the discussion. If Mr. Colley wants another debate with us he can retract what he said— that “Cayce will not meet him on the plan of salvation”— or he can sign the propositions submitted. The first proposition is what we teach, and we propose to affirm it in debate. The second proposition is what the Campbelites teach all over this country, and every man with a thimbleful of brains who knows anything about the Campbelites knows it is their doctrine. As they teach it, they should not be ashamed to affirm it in debate. Mr. Colley said they do not believe it as it is stated in the proposition. Then we proposed that he state it in the proposition as he does believe it. This he refused to do.
Now, Mr. Colley, will you affirm for the Campbelites the doctrine you teach? It is evident to all who know the facts that if you refuse to sign these propositions, then your statement that Cayce would not meet you on the plan of salvation was a false statement. Put up or shut up. C. H. C.
[pg 334]
THAT COURT DECISION
February 22, 1910
In our issue of December 9, 1909, we published the decision of the court in the trial for the church property at Luray, Va., between our people and the Burnamites. Our neighbor, the Baptist Builder, a Softshell sheet, published in Martin, Tenn., takes occasion to make some remarks concerning the same, and tries to draw the conclusion that the Softshell brood is the original Baptist family. The remarks were by the Rev. W. B. Clifton, the office editor of the Softshell sheet. He quotes the following from the decision of the court:
Upon the whole case, I am fully persuaded of the correctness of these propositions, to wit: That the Mt. 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 coreligionists on the subject of “means” and Sunday schools, missionary and other practices heretofore referred to, etc.
Then Mr. Clifton makes the following remarks:
There is no reason to suppose that the court was prejudiced in favor of Missionary Baptists, or that this judgment was based on anything else than the evidence introduced in the trial. Yet, it is plainly declared that the so-called “Old School” Baptist denomination ORIGINATED as a DISTINCT SECT or denomination IN THE EARLY THIRTIES. This judgment is according to truth, as all know who have made an impartial investigation of the subject. The sect or denomination calling itself “Old School” or “Primitive” Baptists is less than one hundred years old, and is distinguished by certain tenets and tests of fellowship that were unknown in the Baptist denomination prior to the division in the early thirties.
The foregoing appeared in the Baptist Builder of January 15, 1910. Any fair minded and unprejudiced person can readily see that the conclusion drawn by Elder Clifton is far-fetched, and does not necessarily follow at all. Prior to 1792 there were no mission boards or mission societies among the Baptists. Those things were introduced by Fuller and Carey. They were the leaders in the new progressive movements. Elder Clifton knows those things were new among the Baptists and any honest man who knows it will confess it. The Baptists bore with these new measures until the early thirties, when the division finally came. Then as the Burnam party introduced the new measures which caused the division at Luray, Va., and they were, therefore, not the original Baptist Church; so the Softshells (Missionaries) introduced the new measures which caused the division in the early thirties, and they are, therefore, not the original Baptists. Any honest sensible man should be able to see and understand this. C. H. C.
[pg 335]
JOHN CALVIN
March 15, 1910
John Calvin was a leader in the Reformation of the sixteenth century. He was the founder of the Presbyterian church. He was never connected with the Baptists. His teaching agreed with the Baptist teaching on many points. He taught the doctrine of election and predestination of the saints, and the effectual work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. These principles had been taught in the ages before Calvin. He was not the author of them. They have been called Calvinism because he figured so prominently in teaching them in the Reformation. But few Presbyterians now hold to all the main principles advocated by Calvin. C. H. C.
BAPTISTS IN AMERICA
March 15, 1910
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— For the benefit of some of the young Baptists state in your paper who was the first Baptist in America. Your brother in hope,
Joel R. Motsinger
Pekin, Ind.
REMARKS
Dr. John Clark was the founder of the first Baptist Church in America. It was founded in 1638. Roger Williams founded his church in 1639, at Providence, Rhode Island. The church founded by Dr. Clark was at Newport, Rhode Island.
C. H. C.
PREDESTINATION
March 15, 1910
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— As I see several articles headed with the word “Predestination,” would you please give your views on what is the proper meaning of the word, and what idea we should have in view when we use the word “predestination?” I would like to see an article from you or some of the brethren on the proper definition of the word. Yours unworthily,
Elder Charles West.
Helenwood, Tenn.
REMARKS
Webster tells us that the word predestinate is from two Latin words which mean before and determine. Pre means before, and destinate means to determine. Hence, predestinate means to determine beforehand. It is to predetermine or foreordain; to appoint or ordain beforehand by an unchangeable purpose or decree.
[pg 336] The word in the Greek from which our English word predestinate is translated is prohorizo. It means to mark out or bound, to appoint, decree, specify, declare, determine, limit or ordain prior to or in front of, or before. In other words, it means to appoint or decree or determine beforehand.
We fail to find any place in the Bible where the word predestinate is used except with reference to the salvation of the Lord’s people and their deliverance from ruin.
C. H. C.
DRAM DRINKING
March 15, 1910
We have been requested to write on the subject of dram drinking and card playing. We are sorry to know that any Old Baptist has given occasion for such a request to even be made. It seems to us that it is not necessary for very much to be said on such a subject as this.
It is a shame and a disgrace to the cause we profess to love for any member of the church to engage in card-playing and drinking. It should not be tolerated by the church. Such practice should not be engaged in by any professed moral man, much less a member of the church of Christ. The candlestick will surely he removed from any church whose members continue to engage in such immoral and unbecoming conduct. Permit us to say, with kindness, yet in all earnestness and candor, that we have no patience with it. We are commanded to abstain from every appearance of evil, and engaging in such practices is anything else but abstaining from the appearance of evil. Our little church here in Martin would not tolerate it. Some may say that our little church here is no criterion. True, she is no criterion, and does not claim to be; but God’s word is a criterion, and we should try to follow it. To be a good Christian, or to live a good Christian life, is more than to simply live morally. In other words, Christianity is more than morality. The members of the church should not set examples before others that would have a tendency to lead to immorality. How does it look for a church member and a worldly man to sit down to a table and play a game of cards together— even if it is only for past-time? The worldly man is given reasonable ground to say, “There is a church member— an Old Baptist, at that— doing the same way I do. I am as good as he is.” Such things bring a reproach on the cause.
Reader, if you have ever engaged in such things, and if you love the cause, then let us plead with you to cease such practices for the sake of the cause you love. May the Lord help us all to “walk worthy of the vocation where with we are called.” C. H. C.
[pg 337]
PREDESTINATION AGAIN
March 15, 1910
The following letter from Brother W. H. Nosier was received some time ago, and we thought it was intended as a private letter, but we saw a request on the back of it to return it if not published. We wrote a letter in reply to the brother, but have decided to publish both.
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother in Christ— I have been a member of the Primitive Baptist Church now for only about a year, having come from the Missionaries, and have been a subscriber for your pa per about the same length of time, and had begun to like it fine. I also read with interest your debate with Penick. Today I received your proposition of paying for the PRIMITIVE in advance and getting the paper at one dollar a year, and was just about to send you two dollars to apply on same when I read your editorial in answer to Sister Georgia Townsend’s letter, as published in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of December 7. which caused a halt in my intention.
I just thought if you are going to publish a paper and light on the ideas and doctrines of brethren, as you have done in this editorial, I just simply did not want the paper. It seems to me that an editor who takes such an active part on such mooted questions as the absolute predestination of all things that come to pass or conditional time salvation, etc., etc., is entirely out of his place. At least, that is the way it looks to me.
Do you know that there are as good, honest, brethren who believe, honestly, in the absolute predestination of all things as there are in the church anywhere? As for myself, I have remained neutral so far with regard to the subject, but from the facts I have gathered from the teachings of God’s word I have about come to the conclusion that if God works all things after the counsel of His own will, then man has no will in the matter. And He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. Not only that, but He has a purpose in all He does. Then you break out with oh, horror of horrors at what you are pleased to term “the heathenish and infidel saying, whatever is, is right,” as if our Bible does not say “The God of all the earth will do right.” Of course there is a whole lot about what God does and why He does it that we do not understand, but is that an excuse for us saying that God does not work all things (and not only some things) after the counsel of His own will? I trow not. You yourself must admit that God did predestinate some of the most wicked things that ever come to pass on this earth— witness Pharaoh. “For this cause I have raised thee up;” and Joseph, “As for you, ye thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good to bring to pass as it is this day, to save much people alive;” and then the most atrocious crime ever committed in this world, crucifying of the Son of God. Will you dare say that was not predestinated? “Father, if it be possible let this cup pass, yet not my will but thine be done.”
No, Brother Cayce, I don’t fault you for what you believe on this great question; no, nor any other brother; but I do think you ought not write such strong editorials and take such strong sides against what brethren honestly believe. I do wish brethren could bear with one another and be charitable, for we are all fallible and liable to err. May God be with the dear brethren every where, is my prayer. W. H. Nosler
OUR REPLY
W. H. Nosler: Dear Brother— Please pardon the long delay in writing you since we [pg 338] received yours of Dec. 15th. We have been away from home part of the time, and have been so busy with other matters that we have answered very few letters.
If you do not take THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST because we speak out plainly on what we deem fundamental points of doctrine, we will have to lose your name from the list. We would not shun what we believe to be the truth if it costs every subscriber on the list. The truth is what we want, paper or no paper.
A man who will not speak out is not faithful to his trust. We are aware that there are some good honest brethren who believe in the predestination of all things that come to pass— good and evil alike— and so much the worse. If no good brethren were deceived by it we would not be so much concerned about the matter. But as this is the case we feel the responsibility resting upon us to speak out against it.
God works all things, that He does work, after the counsel of His own will. If you will read Jer. 7:31, and 19:5, and 32:35, you will find one thing God did not predestinate. It is true God always does His will, but we do not. God always does right, but men don’t do right in committing murder, theft, rape, robbery and other crimes.
You say you think we should not write such strong editorials and take such strong sides against what brethren honestly believe. According to that, if a brother honestly imbibes the rankest principles of Arminianism or Catholicism, we should not take a strong stand against it because the brother honestly believes it. Every mouth must be stopped from speaking against false doctrine, on that principle, and every pen laid aside and no writing be done against any false way. If it is right to oppose a false way at all, it is right to oppose it strongly.
But why do you say we should not take a strong stand? Do you not tell us that God works everything? Then God worked this, and we had nothing whatever to do with it, for you say man has no will in the matter. Why not make your complaint to God? You say He works it all. According to your position, God absolutely and unconditionally predestinated from all eternity that we should write every word we did write, and we could not possibly have done otherwise.
By the help of the Lord we expect to speak and write against every false way, as we understand it to be our duty, while the Lord spares our natural life. And may He lead all His children out of every false way, is our humble prayer. C.H. C.
[pg 339]
HIGH AND LOW SEATS
April 5, 1910
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— I have some close friends who believe there will be high and low seats in heaven. For instance: they say Paul, the apostle, will have a higher position than a common preacher, and I suppose a common preacher will have a higher position than a “hayseed” church member. I do not think this kind of doctrine sounds right. Please give your views on it, for the benefit of myself and others. Your brother, I hope,
L. J. Hewatt
Lawrenceville, Ga.
REMARKS
If sinners were saved in heaven because of what they do, or because of their good works, it might be true that one would have a higher place or a more exalted position in heaven than others. But sinners are not saved in heaven because of their righteousness, or because of their good works. They are saved in heaven because of what Christ has done for them, and He did no more for one saved person than for another.
What He did for one of His children He did for each one of them. If what Christ did for one secures a high place in heaven for him, what He did for another will do the same for him also. Hence, as sinners are saved in heaven because of what Christ has done, and not because of what they do, it follows that as Christ did no more for one of the saved than He did for another, all of the saved will be on an equality, or on a common level.
Paul said (2nd Tim. 4:8) a crown of righteousness was laid up for him. He also tells us that this same crown was not only laid up for him, but it was also laid up for all who love the appearing of the Saviour. This being true, they will all wear the same crown. One will be no higher than another with respect to the crown they wear.
All the Lord’s children will have the same inheritance; (1st Pet. 1:3-5) as they all have the same inheritance, and each one has all the inheritance, then there is no difference here. All are on an equality and on an equal footing, so far as the inheritance is concerned. This being true, it cannot be true that one will have a higher place or a more exalted position than another.
In Rom. 8:17 we are told that the children of God are joint-heirs with Christ. Everyone knows that a joint-heir is an equal heir. Then as they are all joint-heirs with Christ, they will all, each and every one of them, share heaven and all that it is and all that it means equally with Christ. If one has a higher place than another, then they are not joint-heirs, are not equal heirs. But they are equal heirs, and therefore one will not have a higher place than another.
If one should have a higher place than another, why could there not be [pg 340] jealousy arising? Why could not one be jealous of another and envious of another who might be occupying a higher place than himself? This would destroy the very idea of heaven, and there would be no heaven at all.
It appears to us that this idea of a high and low seat in heaven is very much akin to an exalted opinion of self. Usually those who hold to such an idea have such an exalted opinion of self that they expect to occupy a very high place, and if we are to judge by expressions they sometimes use, they expect to look down with contempt upon those who occupy a lower place. It is pharisaical in the extreme. It is contrary to sound reason, contrary to the teaching of God’s word; and the idea of doing much for the Lord in order to enter heaven gave birth to it. May the Lord deliver His little children from every false way, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
GIVES IT UP
April 5, 1910
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Esteemed Brother in Christ— Will you allow me a little space in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST for a short rejoinder to your remarks on my article of December 15?
I did not in that article intend to defend absolute predestination, only to quote a few Scriptures and present a few arguments which were rather hard for me to get around under any other theory.
You rather got the best of me on my main Scripture by saying “Yes, God does work all things (that He does work) after the counsel of His own will,” and then by giving me some passages where, manifestly, He does not work. And I guess you are right when you say, “If it is right to oppose a false way at all it is right to oppose it strongly.”
But you completely “shut off my wind” (so to speak) when you said, “But why do you say we should not take a strong stand? Do you not tell us that God works everything? Then God worked this and we had nothing at all to do with it, for you say man has no will in the matter. Why not make your complaint to God?” It won’t do, Brother Cayce; I see it won’t do. Brother Cayce, you have written me a good, gentlemanly, Christian letter, and such letters I claim will do more good than it is possible for any other kind to do. It looks like imposition, anyway, for such a “clodhopper” as I am to light onto a man of your standing, who perhaps has forgotten more about the Bible than I ever knew. Brother Cayce, I have reconsidered matters, for I don’t want to do without the good old PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, so I send you herewith $2. Mark my subscription ahead and send me the Youth’s Guardian Friend. I guess it will reach you by April 1. And believe me ever your brother in Christ, although a very weak one, if one at all,
W. H. Nosler
Eugene, Ore.
REMARKS
We are glad to see you, dear brother, confess that the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things won’t do. We are glad you have seen the error of it.
No, dear brother, we are not your superior. We are only a poor, weak [pg 341] servant, if indeed we are a true servant of the Lord at all. We feel to be dependent upon the Lord for strength and for wisdom. We realize, too, that we are so ignorant in comparison with what there is to know. There is so much to learn that we sometimes feel we have learned very little. May the Lord help us all to see the right and to reject every false way, and may He give us faithful, humble men to contend earnestly for the truth, is our humble prayer.
C. H. C.
1 SAMUEL 19:9
April 5. 1910
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— My father, C. T. Clayton, requests that you give your views of 1st Sam. 19:9, about the evil spirit from the Lord.
N. C. Clayton
Galloway, Ga.
REMARKS
The Lord sent the evil spirit upon Saul. The Lord did not make the spirit evil— or make the spirit wicked— but sent the evil spirit upon him. Chapter fifteen shows that Saul “rejected the word of the Lord,” disobeyed the commandment of the Lord and that the Lord therefore rejected Saul from being king. The Lord no longer blessed him with His presence, but sent an evil spirit upon him. This was a punishment for his sin, a punishment for his rebellion. C. H. C.
1 CORINTHIANS 16:2
April 12, 1910
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— Will you please give your views on 1st Cor. 16:2. “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.”
Our Brother Missionary talked on that subject last Sunday, but I cannot agree with him. I want more light on the subject. Hoping to hear from you through THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, Yours in hope,
J. T. Nolen
Sulligent, Ala.
REMARKS
We don’t know what the “Brother Missionary” said, neither do we know what Brother Nolen thinks about the text. It has reference to the care of the poor saints at Jerusalem. Verses 1 to 3 read as follows: “Now, concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order for the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.”
[pg 342] There is nothing in this about “paying the preacher,” or laying by something to “give to the preacher.” While it is true that the Scriptures teach that the minister should be cared for and his temporal necessities supplied, by voluntary contribution, yet this text has nothing whatever to do with that question. It teaches that we should “lay by in store” for the necessities of the poor. The day is not necessarily so important as that we “lay by in store. The business of the deacon is to receive and disburse these funds. The members of the church should “lay by in store,” as God has prospered them, by placing their contributions in the hands of the deacons. Then the deacons should see that the necessities of the poor and destitute are supplied out of the funds thus placed in their hands. It is not right to wait until it is reported to the church that a certain one is in need before a contribution is made.
The sufferer may have to suffer on for weeks before the necessary and could be supplied, if it must always be reported to the church before the contribution is made. On the other hand, if the contribution is made, as “God has prospered” us, and is in the hands of the deacons, as it should be, then the poor sufferer may be relieved at once.
Again, if no contribution is made until the sufferer is reported to the church, we would not usually give “as God has prospered” us, but possibly as that individual sufferer immediately needs. Thus we would be doing some good to the needy one, but still we would not fully carry out the command. We should “lay by in store, as God has prospered” us.
Thus the deacons of the church would have funds on hand to relieve the sufferings of the poor and destitute when such are brought to their notice. We should not be careless or indifferent upon such important matters. We should endeavor to be zealous and careful about such matters. We should not become neglectful of these things because of the fact that so many try to “twist” the Scriptures to make them support their fanatical foreign notions.
C. H. C.
WHAT ADAM LOST
April 12, 1910
Dear Brother— Please give your views on what Adam lost in the fall, or by sin, and what he was restored to by Christ— that is, in this life. Did the death of Christ place man back in the state that Adam was in Eden, or any part? If so, what?
I ask this as I think it will be worth something to some of the brethren. Your brother in hope of eternal life,
W. P. Hancock
Eldorado, Ill.
REMARKS
Before Adam transgressed the law he was a good natural man. He did not have the God-life, or spiritual life. He was in possession of an upright [pg 343] natural life. He was without sin— good. When he violated the law he lost his moral uprightness. He lost his moral standing. From then to now Adam, in nature, has had absolutely no moral or upright standing with God. He lost it in the fall. What Christ did was not done for Adam, or rather for the whole race of Adam, but for those chosen out of the race of Adam. Hence, Adam, as Adam, was not restored to anything in Christ. The Lord’s chosen, Christ’s bride (those who were given to Him for His bride) are restored in Christ, not simply to what they lost in Adam, but to more. They “receive double.” They are given eternal life through Christ. If they were only restored to the original state they would not reach heaven. Hence the Lord’s people receive more in and through Christ than was lost in and through Adam. C. H. C.
JOHN EXILED
April 19, 1910
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Sir— I would like to have your explanation on John being exiled on the isle of Patmos— whether we have Scriptural authority that he was exiled or not. Please explain through the paper. A Baptist friend,
Mrs. S. J. Priddy
REMARKS
John was certainly banished to the isle of Patmos. In Rev. 1:9 he says, “I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.” This is Scriptural authority as to why John was there. It was because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. History testifies of this fact.
C. H. C.
WHAT IS CHANGED?
April 19, 1910
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— Is it the fleshly heart or mind of man that is changed in regeneration? The Bible says, “I will put my laws in their mind, and write them in their heart.”
Also, what is meant in the Saviour’s language to Nicodemus, concerning being born of water and of the Spirit? What does the water mean?
Dick Pearce
Norris City, Ill.
REMARKS
It is not the lump of flesh called the heart that is changed in regeneration. The heart, in Scripture, usually means the seat of affection. In regeneration the sinner receives a new life, a new nature, and from this new life and new nature spring new desires and new affections. Hence it is called a [pg 344] “change of heart.” He is said to have a new heart, for he has a new seat of affections. He is also said to “have the mind of Christ.”
The term water in John 3:5, in the Saviour’s language to Nicodemus, we think, refers to the washing, or cleansing, or purifying work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. We know many of our brethren do not hold this view, but it is their privilege to differ from us. We are not a “standard” by any means. Still, that is our view. It is the same as the “washing of regeneration” in Tit. 3:5.
C. H. C.
ACTS 2:39 and EPHESIANS 2:10
April 26, 1910
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— Please give your views on Acts 2:39. Explain who the call is to. Also give your views on Eph. 2:10. Yours in hope of eternal life,
D. H. Sanders
R. 1 Bold Springs, Tenn.
REMARKS
The call referred to in Acts 2:39 is the calling of the Holy Spirit. It is by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is a holy calling; 2 Tim. 1:9. God does the calling; 1 Cor. 1:9. God calls all the heirs of promise, and those who are called are children of the promise; Gal. 3:29; 4:28. The promise was made before the world began; Tit. 1:2. The Lord confirmed the promise with an oath; Heb. 6:13-17.
Eph. 2:10 teaches us that the children of God are the workmanship of God— not the workmanship of God and company, but of God. It shows that a creative power is necessary to put one in Christ— “created in Christ.” Putting one in Christ, then, is a creative work, requires creative power. They are “created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works.” In order that one walk in, or perform, the good works of the gospel, he must first be created in Christ unto good works. This being true, no one performs the good works in order to be in Christ, but he must be in Christ in order to perform the good works. And those who have thus been created in Christ should walk in the good works which God has commanded. The Lord has ordained, or prepared, the good works, and those who are in Christ, the Lord’s children, should perform them. C. H. C.
LUKE 15:8
April 26, 1910
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— I would like for you to give your views on Luke 15:8, as I have heard so much said about it of late. Your sister in Christ, I hope,
Mrs. J. D. Rogers.
Warrensburg, Mo.
REMARKS
Luke 15:8 reads, “Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she [pg 345] lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?” Verses 9 and 10 read, “And when she hath found it, she calleth her friends and her neighbors together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost. Likewise I say unto you, There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.” This is one of the parables which was spoken by the Saviour. A parable is something which does, or may, occur in nature, and which is used to teach a lesson. A moral is drawn from the parable, which is used as an illustration. The lesson drawn from this parable is that there is “rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.” It is illustrated by the rejoicing when a woman has found the piece of money which she had lost. Just as there is such rejoicing at the finding of the money which was lost, so there is rejoicing when the transgressor (sinner) repents, or turns from his wrong course. Angels often refer to ministers or messengers. The rejoicing is in the church, here, when one repents who has gone away from the true worship and service. If one becomes careless and unconcerned, it grieves the brotherhood. Then when he repents— turns away from his carelessness and indifference— and is again found to be diligent and prompt in the service and worship of God, there is much rejoicing. All are glad, and feel to rejoice. If we have been careless and indifferent, let us try to quit it and try to be diligent in the discharge of our every duty. We will then feel better ourselves and will make others feel better too. C. H. C.
A WRONG IMPRESSION
May 3, 1910
It has been our impression, because of early associations, that the Hardshells did not believe in providing for the preachers. We are learning, however, and glad to do so. Elder C. H. Cayce, editor of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, says in the course of some remarks, “It is true that the Scriptures teach that the minister should be cared for and his temporal necessities supplied by voluntary contributions.”— W.I. Elledge in Baptist Flag, April 21, 1910.
There are, perhaps, many things you have not yet learned. The people you are pleased to call “Hardshells” have always held that it is right and Scriptural to minister to the temporal necessities of their ministers, but they have always opposed a salaried system, mission boards, societies, conventions, and such other like things that have been engaged in by nearly, if not quite, all Missionary Baptists since the mission system was introduced by Fuller and Carey, until recent years. If people would give more attention to what the Primitive Baptists do really teach, instead of giving attention to what their enemies say about them, many would learn that their real teaching is very different from what their enemies say it is. C. H. C.
[pg 346]
HE WILL NOT DEBATE-WHO WILL?
May 3, 1910
Since Hon. Thos. E. Watson began exposing the modern missionary system in the Jeffersonian (weekly) and the Watson’s Magazine (monthly) which are published by him at Thomson, Ga., Rev. Len C. Broughton, of Atlanta, a Missionary Baptist preacher, challenged Mr. Watson for a public discussion on the foreign mission question. Mr. Watson declined to debate with Dr. Broughton, and said he would discuss the question with Mr. Bryan. After this some of our brethren in Macon, Ga., asked us if we would discuss the mission question with Dr. Broughton in Macon. We replied in the affirmative. The brethren requested us to write Dr. Broughton. The following is a copy of our letter to him:
Martin, Tenn., March 15, 1910.
Dr. Len Broughton
Atlanta, Ga.
Dear Brother— I have been requested by my brethren in Macon, Ga., to represent them in a proposed discussion with you at that place on the foreign mission question. I submit the enclosed proposition for your consideration and signature, if you accept. If the proposition suits you, please return one copy to me with your signature.
I suggest that there be two sessions each day, of two hours each, for not less than three days. I prefer four days on this proposition.
Please let me hear from you at once regarding the matter. Suggest a time that will suit you. Fraternally,
C. H. Cayce
The following is a copy of the proposition we submitted:
Missions, as taught and practiced by the Missionary Baptists, are authorized by the word of God.- – – – affirms.
C. H. Cayce denies.
The following is a copy of Dr. Broughton’s reply:
Atlanta, GA.
March 21st -10.
Mr. C. H. Cayce, Martin, Tenn.
My Dear Brother-Yours of the 15th to hand, and I beg to say that I have no time to be given to such discussion. My time is far too valuable and can be spent in other ways far more to the glory of God. With best wishes, I am, Fraternally yours,
Len G. Broughton
In reply to this we wrote Dr. Broughton as follows:
Martin, Tenn., March 23, 1910.
Rev. Len C. Broughton
Atlanta, Ga.
Dear Brother— Yours of the 21st to hand. It is rather peculiar that you have no time to be given to a discussion of the mission question, seeing you challenged Mr. Watson to discuss the mission question with you. Is time more limited now than then? and has your time become so much more valuable? Is your time too valuable for you to devote a few hours of it in defending what you believe to be authorized by the word of God? Or, do you believe the word of God authorizes mission practices as engaged in by your people?
As Mr. Watson declined to meet you when you challenged him, my brethren desired that l meet you in Macon. I agreed to do so, and again call on you as a faithful man to your trust [pg 347] to meet me on the issue and defend your position. Please let me hear from you again regarding the matter. Yours fraternally,
C. H. Cayce
To this letter we have had no reply from the Rev. Dr. Broughton. We think any one’s time might be spent far more to the glory of God than by engaging in advocating the mission system advocated by the Missionary Baptists. God’s word does not authorize any such practices as they are engaging in. Their boards, conventions, and such things are unknown to the word of God. God’s word does not authorize many things they engage in under pretense of Christianizing the world.
But as Dr. Broughton’s time has become so limited and so valuable, perhaps the Missionaries can furnish a representative man from among them to discuss the question with us in Macon, Ga. Can they do so? Will they do so? Put out your man, or else abandon your unscriptural practices. C. H. C.
MATTHEW 24:19-22
May 10, 1910
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— One of our Old Baptist sisters has requested me to ask you to give your views on Matt. 24:19-22, through THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. Your sister in hope of eternal life,
Mary Shuster
McLeansboro, Ill.
REMARKS
The Saviour, in this chapter, is foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem, and telling of the tribulations and trials that are to be endured before and at that time. In verse 34 He says, “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” In verse 19 He says, “And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days.” This was literally fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem. The city and its inhabitants were surrounded by the Roman army and the people literally starved to death. Mothers actually devoured the flesh of their own sucking children. Such tribulation had never been on earth up to that time, and never since. See verse 21. “Pray that your flight be not in the winter.”— Verse 20. Why pray that it be not in the winter? In verse 16 He had told them to flee into the mountains when certain things came to pass— for that time of great tribulation and the final destruction of Jerusalem would then be near at hand. He had told them to flee into the mountains— hence pray that your flight be not in winter. It was all literally fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem. C. H. C.
[pg 348]
2 CORINTHIANS 12:2-5
May 17, 1910
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— I want your views on 2 Cor. 12:2-5. Your unworthy brother,
J. T. Cook
Light, Ark.
REMARKS
The apostle in the language referred to was speaking of a revelation which he received from the Lord. In verse 1 he says, “I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.” In that revelation he heard words that were impossible for him to utter. The apostle would not glory of himself, but would glory of the one from whom the revelation came. He would glory in the Lord. He continues to speak of the “abundance of the revelations” in the following verses. The language, then, we think, refers to a revelation to him from the Lord, in which he saw a vision and heard words be could not utter. C. H. C.
JEREMIAH 23:19,20
May 24, 1910
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— Please give through THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST your views on Jer. 23:19-20. and oblige, your unworthy brother,
Joe Hackworth
Talbert, Texas.
REMARKS
The passage referred to reads, “Behold, a whirlwind of the Lord is gone forth in fury, even a grievous whirlwind: it shall fall grievously upon the head of the wicked. The anger of the Lord shall not return, until He have executed, and until He have performed the thoughts of His heart: in the latter days ye shall consider it perfectly.” A careful reading of the entire chapter will show that the prophets had been prophesying falsely; Israel had been living in rebellion. They had failed to keep the commandments of the Lord. The Lord’s anger was kindled against them, and He was going to punish them for their wrong doing. “If ye sow to the wind ye shall reap the whirlwind.” They had been sowing to the wind. The reaping time had now come, and they were to reap the whirlwind. “For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” They were reaping the reward of their false prophesying and wrong living. These were Israelites, and the same is true of God’s people in this age. They reap what they sow.
C. H C.
[pg 349]
RECORD IT
May 24, 1910
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— I want some advice. If I commit a misdemeanor and become my own accuser, and make acknowledgment before gospel dealings are begun, would it be right to record it, or not? And if the acknowledgment is received would it be necessary to record what I did or not? Brother Cayce, please give your advice through the paper. Your brother,
E. W. Blankanship
R. 2 Goldville, Ala.
REMARKS
We think everything done by the church, or pertaining to church business, should be recorded. The record should be full and complete. Under the circumstance related above, it would certainly be to your interest, as well as to the interest of the church, that the whole thing be recorded. If it is not recorded, and should ever be brought up in any way in the future, there would be nothing to prove that you had made satisfaction. This would not be to your best interest, nor to the interest of the church. If the whole thing is recorded in full, and it should ever be brought up or mentioned in the future, you could show and the church could show that the matter had been mentioned by you in the church, and that satisfaction had been given for that specific act, whatever it might be. Hence, we think it should be fully recorded. Everything done in and by the church should be fully and correctly recorded.
C. H. C.
DEBATE ON MISSIONS
May 31, 1910
Well, well, our door neighbor, Brother C. H. Cayce, seemed anxious to deny in debate that missions as taught and practiced by regular Missionary Baptists is Scriptural. He is calling for a man to affirm this, and the Builder will find a man to defend God’s word and work on missions; and now will Brother Cayce affirm that missions as taught and practiced by the so-called Primitive Baptists is Scriptural? Everybody knows that Bible Baptists believed, taught and practiced missions, and the Builder will find a man to defend missions as taught and practiced by Missionary Baptists; and we will see if Brother Cayce will defend the doctrine and practice of his people on missions— Baptist Builder, Martin, Tenn., May 11, 1910.
Yes, we will meet any man who is respectable, that the Missionary Baptists of Macon, Ga., will recognize as a representative man of the order. It is the practice of the Missionary Baptists that has been called in question. Our teaching and practice concerning missions are not the things that have been under discussion. It is your teaching and practice. It is “up to you” or your people to defend the same. If your people in Macon will recognize [pg 350] you as a representative man, and we suppose they will, and you will accept the proposition submitted, we will have the debate. We insist that the Missionaries put up the very best man they have. Elder Penick, do you speak for your brethren in Macon? If you do, send us a copy of the proposition with your signature, and suggest a time.
C. H. C.
JAMES 5:20, MARK 9:43, LUKE 11:30
May 31, 1910
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— I ask you for information on the passages of Scripture: James 5:20— that does not mean to save a sinner from hell, does it? Mark 9:43; Lu 11:30. I am very much interested in these Scriptures.
I have your and I. N. Penick’s debate, and am satisfied Penick is on the wrong side. A brother in Christ,
Bowry Carter
Quincy, Miss.
REMARKS
No, James 5:20 does not mean to save a soul from an eternal hell. In verse nineteen James says, “Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him.” The erring brother is the one to be converted and saved. Saved from what? From error, of course, for if he errs from the truth he would be in error. This is what he is to be saved from— from death in error.
In Mark 9:43 the Saviour is giving instruction in discipline in the church. No matter how important the place a member of the church may occupy, if he acts in a disorderly manner he should be dealt with. It is better to lose the important member than for the whole church to suffer, and the candlestick to be finally removed. We are too apt to be ready to deal with a member who acts disorderly if he does not occupy what is deemed an important place or position in the church, and at the same time pass unnoticed a crime of equal or greater magnitude if committed by the member holding the important position. The church should be as strict with the latter as with the former. If any difference is made, the member occupying the important position should be held to account more quickly than the other.
Luke 11:30 teaches that “as Jonah was a sign unto the Ninevites,”he was a sign in the fact that he was “in the belly of the whale” for three days and nights. So was the Son of man three days and nights in the earth. As Jonah was vomited up by the fish after three days, so the earth gave up the body of Christ after three days. Compare this text with Matt. 12:38-39,40. C. H. C.
A CHALLENGE
June 7, 1910
We noticed a few days ago that Elder Sykes, of Texas, proposed to discuss the absolute predestination of all things, thus throwing down the gauntlet. We have been asked several times if we would debate with an advocate of this doctrine. We have always replied in the affirmative, but they never furnished the man. WE ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE thrown down by Elder Sykes. But for fear this is not sufficient to get them to discuss the differences, we make the following challenge:
We challenge those who hold to the doctrine that God absolutely and unconditionally predestinated all things that come to pass to furnish a representative man from among them to discuss the following propositions with us:
1. The Scriptures teach that God did, from all eternity, absolutely and unconditionally predestinate all things that come to pass, good, bad and indifferent.- – – – -affirms.
C. H. Cayce, denies.
2. The Scriptures teach that much of the happiness of God’s children while here on earth is conditional, and depends much upon the way they live.C. H. Cayce, affirms – – – – – denies.
The discussion to be held at a place where it may be called for and at a time to be agreed on by the disputants. The challenge also embraces this: Competent stenographers are to be employed to take the speeches as delivered, and the whole discussion to be published in book form. Not less than two days to be devoted to each proposition. The speaker on each side to have a moderator, and a third to be chosen by them to act as president moderator. The speakers to be governed by the rules in Hedge’s Logic, with an additional rule, “No new matter to be introduced in the final negative on a proposition.” We challenge them to furnish the man.
C. H. Cayce
WATERTOWN DEBATE
June 7, 1910
Oakley made a great fight in a fair and orderly manner.
He certainly sustained his propositions and routed Paine on his – – – – – Paine seems to take pride in being a mud slinger.
We had a few Missionary Baptists present and they were orderly. The Hardshells had the crowd and their deportment as well as their speaker’s was disorderly. I was Brother Oakley’s moderator.— S. N. Fitzpatrick
Lebanon, Tenn., in Baptist Builder of May 25, 1910.
REMARKS
We are a little surprised at such a statement as the above from Rev. Fitzpatrick. We were present the first day of the discussion and acted as moderator for Brother Paine. It is a well known fact by those present that Rev. [pg 352] Oakley began the mud-slinging, and that it seemed almost, if not quite, impossible for him to observe the rules.
Rev. Fitzpatrick, you know that just after Elders Paine and Oakley had each made one speech in the afternoon on Tuesday (the first day) you arose and requested the speakers and the audience to observe the rules. You also know that Elder Paine made the next speech and that he observed the rules strictly. You also know that in Mr. Oakley’s next speech he violated no less than three rules. You gave your assent to this at the time, and so did the president moderator. You also know that it was understood between us that if the speakers violated the rules again after your request that they observe them, that I should then reprove them. You know furthermore that we arose and showed three rules that Mr. Oakley had just violated, and that we required an apology. You also know we stated that if we could remain at the debate, and should act as moderator during the remainder of the time, that Mr. Oakley would observe the rules or else the reins would be removed from Elder Paine. You know these are facts. And you know, also, that on the train that afternoon between Watertown and Lebanon you admitted the justness of our claim and contention.
Now, don’t you know that the people know that the Rev. Oakley was the mud-slinger, and not Elder Paine? And don’t you know that the people know that Rev. Oakley did not conduct himself in an orderly manner? And don’t you know that people will know it if you don’t tell the truth about the matter? And don’t you know that they will lose confidence in you if you tell things that are not true? And don’t you think you should tell the truth about it anyhow? And don’t you think it would be in order now for you to apologize? You represented it correctly when you said there were few Missionary Baptists present, for there were but few of them present on the first day, and what was true of that day we are informed was true of every day, and Rev. Fitzpatrick admits it. Their small attendance, notwithstanding their boasted numbers in that community, shows how little they esteem the Rev. Oakley or the platform he proposed to occupy. Evidently one or both are lightly esteemed by them there. C. H. C.
BAPTISM
June 7, 1910
In another column in this paper will be found a letter from J. J. Carroll, a Missionary brother, who requests us to write on the subject of baptism. He states that he is dissatisfied with the Missionary Baptists, and would like to live with the Primitive Baptists but does not feel the weight of baptism.
[pg 353] We wrote an article on the subject of baptism, giving some reasons why we do not receive or accept the baptism of other people, which was published in our issue of January 16, 1906. If Brother Carroll will procure a copy of that issue of the paper he can read some of our reasons. But we will offer one or two here.
He quotes from Paul. Eph. 4:5, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” The preceding verse says, “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling.” Brother Carroll confesses that he is not satisfied with the Missionaries. This being true, he must see something wrong with their faith (doctrine). Then if the doctrine is wrong, the baptism must necessarily also be wrong. The baptism administered by any people cannot possibly be any better than their doctrine. When Brother Carroll was baptized by a Missionary Baptist preacher he was baptized into the faith of that people. The act of baptism administered by them declared that he was a Missionary Baptist in faith. If he is now a Primitive Baptist in faith, the only way to declare it is to be baptized by one authorized to administer baptism for them.
If the Missionary Baptist church is the church of Christ, then the Primitive Baptists have no right to administer baptism for them, for we are not authorized by them to do so. They do not ordain our preachers. On the other hand, if the Primitive Baptist Church is the church of Christ, then the Missionary Baptist church is not; and if they are not the church of Christ, then they have no right to administer baptism for the Primitive Baptists. No one has a right, or a Scriptural authority, to administer baptism, unless he is ordained, or set apart, by authority of the church of Christ to administer the rite. We do not believe the Missionary Baptist church is the church of Christ; hence we do not deem their immersions to be valid baptisms, and do not accept them.
The Roman Catholics were the first to depart from the faith and split off from the true church. Is baptism, as administered by them valid? No. Then, if the Missionaries have departed from the original principles or faith of the church, and split off from the church, neither is baptism as administered by them valid. From this standpoint (if the Primitive Baptist Church is the true church of Christ), baptism administered by a Missionary Baptist is no better than that administered by a Roman Catholic.
However, we would say that the fact the Missionaries do not practice feetwashing is not the only reason, by any means, that they are not the church of Christ. They are wrong in doctrine and are following Rome in practice. Their mission schemes are largely patterned after Rome, and they are fast [pg 354] drifting toward the old mother. Their mission schemes and practices are borrowed from Rome— and borrowed articles usually are returned some time. We would he glad if the Lord’s people among them could have their eyes opened to the truth concerning these things, and then have the Christian courage to come out from among them.
C. H. C.
DEBATE ON MISSIONS
June 21, 1910
About as expected, our neighbor, Brother C. H. Cayce, was only joking when he made such sweeping challenges to discuss the mission issue between Baptists and Anti-Missionaries. He tries to dodge out on the plea that their teachings and practices on missions are not in question. Well, well— I. N. Penick, in Baptist Builder, June 8, 1910.
Yes, about as expected when Elder Penick said the Builder would furnish the man to defend the practices of the Softshells on the mission question— you won’t do it. What’s the matter, neighbor— won’t your brethren in Macon recognize you as a representative man? Or, did you intend to make people believe you would defend your practice when you have no intention of doing so? Come on, now, and sign the proposition, or else come out like a man and confess that you cannot or will not meet the issue. If you will not meet the issue by debating that, you are the dodger. Will the Missionaries furnish the man?
C. H. C.
MINISTERIAL AID
June 28, 1910
In announcing a list of appointments for one of his brethren, the editor of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST urges the people to “see after his welfare in a godly way.” The meaning of this is not exactly clear; but it probably includes a reference to the financial side of the business. It is a mistake to suppose, as some appear to do, that Anti-Missionary preachers are clothed and fed in a miraculous way. In this respect they are dependent upon the contributions of the people, just as the preachers of other denominations are. The only difference is, that other denominations are open and frank about it, while the Anti-missionaries do their paying in a sly sort of way. As Elder Lee Hanks said in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of February 19, 1892, they will take the preacher “off in some secret place and give him ten cents as though they were committing some crime and wanted to conceal it.” There is an inconsistency in this of which religious people ought to be ashamed.— W. B. Clifton, in Baptist Builder, June 15, 1910.
None that we know of, except some ignorant superstitious Softshell Baptists, suppose that Primitive Baptist preachers are clothed and fed in a miraculous way. They go preaching where they feel that the Lord directs; and they do this trusting in the Lord, that He will put it into the hearts of the [pg 355] hearers to minister of their carnal things. They go without the promise of money or support by men. This the Softshells will not do. The Softshells do not trust the Lord. The Lord promised to be with those He sends out to preach. The Softshells will not risk the promise of God. They must have a promise of a support from. men before they will go. They must have men to go the Lord’s security before they will do the preaching. This is good evidence that they are not sent by the Lord. If they were sent of the Lord, they would be willing to trust Him. They would rather trust the promise of men than the promise of the Lord,. They look to the party by whom they are sent for support, and for a promise of support. They have no confidence in their god. Well, we don’t blame them much, for they claim that their god can’t save people that he wants to save, because people are too covetous to give their means to send the gospel. Their poor little god is no better than Diana of the Ephesians. They have to tell the people that sinners are going to hell by the thousands every day for want of the gospel, in order to get them to give of their hard-earned dollars. That’s the way many of these Softshell humbugs get their support. If the angels and demons of the bottomless pit were capable of blushing, they would blush at the hypocrisy and humbuggery of this Softshell brood. “There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother. There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness. There is a generation, O how lofty their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up. There is a generation whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men. The horseleach hath two daughters, crying, Give, give. There are three things that are never satisfied, yea, four things say not, It is enough: The grave, and the barren womb; the earth that is not filled with water; and the fire that saith not, It is enough.” — Prov. 30:11-16. These Softshell beggars (horseleach daughter) never get enough. It is always GIVE, GIVE. Poor fellow! May God have mercy on your poor soul. C. H. C.
DEBATE ON MISSIONS
July 19, 1910
Brother Cayce wanted to appear brave and confident, but it is clear to all that he don’t intend to even promise to try to defend the doctrine and practice of his people on missions. Will S. A. Paine or anybody else defend the Hardshell brethren on these points? We will find a man to represent the Baptists. Let Cayce hush and somebody else talk who is willing to show his faith by his works— Baptist Builder.
REMARKS
The above clipping is from the pen of Elder I. N. Penick in the Baptist [pg 356] Builder of June 29, 1910. It is very evident that Elder Penick will not defend the teaching and practice of his people on the mission question. Have they a representative man among them who will affirm that “Missions as taught and practiced by the Missionary Baptists are authorized by the word of God?” If you have the man put him up, or else quit your teaching and practice on the mission business. C. H. C.
TWIN BROTHERS
July 26, 1910
Our “little”Softshell neighbor, the Rev. I. N. Penick, D. D., says in the Baptist Builder of July 20, 1910, that the “Hardshells” and Campbelites are twin brothers. We would rather be a twin brother than to be an illegitimate Softshell profligate, whose birth is the result of a meeting behind a straw stack.
C. H. C.
THE HEATHEN QUESTION
July 26, 1910
In the Baptist Builder of July 19, Elder Clifton, office editor of the Softshell sheet, makes reply to what we said in answer to him a few weeks ago. He says “the giving is all right as long as it goes into the pocket of the covetous anti-missionary tourist, but all wrong when used to declare among the heathen the unsearchable riches of Christ!” In Scripture there is no such thing found as a single minister being supported by the mother church at Jerusalem while preaching the unsearchable riches of Christ among the heathen, or Gentiles. This new-fangled mission business is the innovation of men, gotten up under pretense of preaching the gospel among the heathen to save them from hell, for gain. Where is the Scripture for buying little negroes in Africa? Yet the plea is sent out among enlightened people of our land for contributions to buy little negroes all over Africa— asking for money to “redeem” “little Doras!” This, too, under the pretext that money is needed to send the gospel! But, oh, give us money to send the gospel to the poor heathen! And your poor, half-starved missionaries in China must have at least two or three servants or they will not be noticed! All this, and more, done with money begged from the people to save the poor heathen. Yes, in heathendom they must be supplied with free schools, free doctors, free hospitals, free medicines, free dentists to fill their rotten teeth with gold-leaf. That’s [pg 357] the way these Softshell beggars use the money in preaching the unsearchable riches of Christ among the heathen while people are starving and perishing for want of food at our own doors. Do they stop at this? No. Young ladies of this country are “gulled” into teaching the heathen Chinese to their ruin. Look at the Elsie Seigle case; and such occurrences have taken place more than once. It was no rare exception. One of their preachers said, “We knew it.” Yet they continue to invent every scheme they can to get the ungodly gain. May the Lord pity them.
If our readers want to learn more truth concerning this black, dirty, wicked, mission business, send 25 cents to us for a copy of “Foreign Missions Exposed,” by Hon. Thos. E. Watson. of Thomson, Ga. He shows the thing up, and gives their own statements.
When are you Softshells going to name your representative man to debate the mission question with us in Macon, Ga.? C. H. C.
THAT CHALLENGE
August 2, 1910
In reply to the challenge which we published in our issue of June 7, the following article appeared in the Advocate of Truth of July 1, 1910:
The above appeared in “The Primitive Baptist” of June 7th. I have obtained the consent of the editor of the Advocate of Truth to give it space in his paper, and I ask Elder Cayce, if he is willing for his readers to know that he has either willfully or ignorantly misrepresented the facts in the case, to give this, my answer, a place in his paper. It will be readily seen that Elder Cayce willfully, knowingly and purposely makes the impression that I have made [pg 351] a challenge on the subject of the absolute predestination of all things; and he puts in capital letters, “WE ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE thrown down by Elder Sykes.” Now the truth is, I have either made such a challenge or I have not. Elder Cayce either saw such a challenge from me, or he did not. If I made such a challenge it certainly can be produced. If Elder Cayce saw such a challenge from me he can certainly produce it. If he did not see such a challenge from me, he has willfully, knowingly, purposely and with evil intentions misrepresented the matter, in which case he is unworthy of notice by any honorable debater, and is not fit to represent any religious order which has any regard for truth and honesty. It would be unjust and unfair, however, to charge this upon him without giving him a chance to make good the proof of his statement. It may be that in order to provoke controversy some unscrupulous person has forged my name to such a challenge and had it published, and that Elder Cayce saw it and supposed that I was the author of it, and was therefore justifiable in making the above statement. We ask therefore that the reader withhold judgment on the matter until Elder Cayce can have time to produce the document on which his statement was based. In the A. of T. of May, in writing up my recent tour through the east, in speaking of my visit in the Flint River Association, I said, “While I was in the bounds of this association, Elder B. Towry sent me a written challenge to discuss the doctrine of predestination with him. He did [pg 358] September 8, 2013not come out to hear me preach, although the meeting was near his house, but sent the challenge by his son. I accepted the challenge and asked his son to go after him and bring him down so we could begin at once. But he replied that his father wanted a little time, and he did not go after him. I could not linger there and wait for him to get ready, so the debate did not come off; I promised the brethren, however, that I would come back some time next fall and hold the discussion if he did not back down.”
It cannot be that this was what Elder Cayce saw, for it states that Elder Towry challenged me, and that I accepted the challenge. If this is what he saw and presents as a challenge from me when he says, “WE ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE thrown down by Elder Sykes,” then he has purposely, knowingly and willfully deceived his readers and made them believe that I had put out a challenge when he knew it was not true. If this is the case, then I would not under any consideration meet him in discussion, for a man who would not scruple to make such a misrepresentation of the truth in order to deceive the people before he goes into a discussion, would not scruple to handle the word of God deceitfully, nor to resort to any unfair means to make a false impression. If Elder Cayce can produce such a challenge from me as he has sought to make the people believe I have made, then I am willing, if it suits Elder Towry and his brethren, for him to take Elder Towry’s place in the discussion now pending, which is to begin on Tuesday after the first Sunday in October at Pleasant Grove Church, some 7 or 8 miles southwest of Fayetteville, Tenn.
I have a duplicate of the proposition written by Elder Towry and sent to me, which reads as follows: “The Scriptures teach that God did predestinate all things whatsoever come to pass, both good and evil.”
I had nothing whatever to do with the framing of this proposition; but when it was presented to me in the form of a challenge for me to affirm, I wrote at the bottom of it, “Accepted by J. C. Sykes,” and handed it back. I received what Elder Towry says is a duplicate of the one I signed, a few days ago. The one who discusses the subject with me will do so on that side of the house.
If Elder Cayce can produce such a challenge from me, or with my name to it, as he has sought to make the people believe he saw, and thus exonerate himself from any suspicion that he willfully misled the people in the above article, then I am willing for him to take Elder Towry’s place in the discussion of this proposition, at the time and place above mentioned, provided that he and his people do not think that Elder Towry is a representative preacher of their order. If they think he is a representative man then there can be no reason assigned for replacing him with another, only that the other fellow might gain some notoriety by it.
Or if Elder Cayce cannot produce the challenge he claims to have seen from me, and his people do not think that Elder Towry is qualified to represent them, and will move him out of the way and put an honest, clean, upright man, one who will treat his opponent with the courtesy and kindness due an honest disputant, then I am willing, yea, urge they do so.
I am not preparing nor expecting to discuss at the time above mentioned, a proposition on Conditional Time Salvation, because it is the legitimate offspring of limited predestination, and must stand or fall with the doctrine. Hence to discuss it as a separate proposition, is to sidetrack from the main issue, which will require all that time or expediency will allow in one discussion. The agreement in this discussion is, that I am to have all the time I want to present my proof on this proposition.
Now I wish to say a few words about this proposition and the one presented by Elder Cayce on the same subject, and every one I have yet seen presented on that subject by that side. I have never yet seen one presented by them that does not manifest either ignorance on the part of the framer, or an unholy and unrighteous desire to get the advantage in its wording, [pg 359] so as to enable them to appeal to the prejudice instead of the judgment of the people. This is clearly seen in the one which I have agreed to discuss. You will note that it says, “The Scriptures teach that God did predestinate all things whatsoever come to pass, both good and bad.” Why is this “both good and bad” affixed to the proposition? Is it because the writer thereof did not know that the expression, “all things whatsoever come to pass,” fully states the matter as we believe it? Did he know that this last was only a repetition of the sentiment contained in the first part? If he did not, then he is indeed ignorant; if he did know it, then he put it there because he thought it would give him some advantage which a true grammatical statement would not. The proposition as stated by Elder Cayce goes still farther. It adds after “all things that come to pass,” “good, bad and indifferent.” I can’t believe that ignorance is the cause of his putting this last part to it. If so, he is not qualified to represent his people. But if he knows that all the prefixes and affixes which he can add to it does not cover any more ground than “all things that come to pass,” and that nothing can come to pass that is not covered by this statement, then why did he add this affix? He has here not only violated the use of good language and good sense, but he has introduced a class of things which are neither good nor bad— indifferent things, as though there were some things toward which God is indifferent, and which He does not regard as good or bad. John says, “All unrighteousness is sin.” Then as all righteous things are good, and all sinful things are bad, we find no place for his indifferent things. This only shows his eagerness to so frame our doctrine as to give him some undue advantage. I wonder if Elder Cayce will say that he has heard our people advocate the idea that God has decreed more than all things whatsoever come to pass? If not, why supplement that statement with “good, bad and indifferent?” I wonder if he will say that he has heard us argue that God has decreed over and above all things whatsoever come to pass a lot of things that will never come to pass, some of which are neither good nor bad? If not, then why this supplement? No fair-minded man wants anything in a proposition for discussion more than a clear and concise statement of the point to be discussed, and he is willing to strip it of all superfluous words and phrases which add nothing. to the sentiment contained in said proposition. I have accepted a proposition with one of those superfluous prize poles attached to the latter end of it, but if the man who meets me on that proposition undertakes to use it to prize up the prejudice of the people, I will show him up in his proper light. All I want, and all any honest man could want, is a fair, open, honest and candid investigation of this subject upon its real merits, without any play upon or appeal to the prejudice or passions of the people.
If the limited Baptists are not satisfied with the man who challenged me and have a man whom they are willing to trust, who is willing to discuss this question upon its merits in the manner above stated, let them tell Elder Towry to stand aside, and have their man on the ground at the time and place above stated. Let them now speak or forever hold their peace. J. C. Sikes.
REMARKS
In reply to the above will say that we received a letter from a brother whose name we do not remember, which was a reply to some things Elder Sikes had preached in Alabama. It was written for publication in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, We did not give it space because we do not wish a continued controversy on the question through the paper. We are sorry that the article was not preserved. We understood from the tenor of the article that Elder Sikes had made some kind of challenge in his preaching. But as Elder [pg 360] Sikes says he never made a challenge, we will say that we either misunderstood the brother who wrote the article or else he misunderstood Elder Sikes. We do not wish to misrepresent any one, and beg Elder Sikes’ pardon. If he was misrepresented, it was not done intentionally.
As to the objection raised by Elder Sikes to the proposition, or the words, “good, bad and indifferent,” will say that Elder Sikes knows very well that the words “all things” are often used in the Scriptures and elsewhere in a restricted sense. If the proposition, therefore, should say that “God did, from all eternity, absolutely and unconditionally predestinate all things that come to pass,” there would be room for a quibble by applying it in a restricted sense; but with the added words, “good, bad and indifferent,” there is no room for quibbling on that point. Those words added simply make the expression, “all things that come to pass,” unrestricted. Elder Sikes certainly knows why we put the proposition that way. The elder says that in adding these words we violated the use of good language and good sense. We deny that we violated the use of good language. The words refer to “things,” and make the proposition embrace all good things, all bad things and all things that may not be classed as good or bad. If something comes to pass that the man who affirms the proposition cannot say is good, or bad, then the proposition says it is embraced in the “all things” which God predestinated. It is not, therefore, a violation of good language. It may be a violation of good sense, in the estimation of Elder Sikes. He may think no one who would oppose his position has good sense. But we will not comment on that matter now.
Elder Sikes says: “I am not preparing nor expecting to discuss at the time above mentioned, a proposition on conditional time salvation, because it is the legitimate offspring of limited predestination, and must stand or fall with that doctrine. Hence to discuss it as a separate proposition, is to side-track from the main issue, which will require all the time expediency will allow in one discussion. The agreement in this discussion is, that I am to have all the time I want to present my proof on this proposition.” Our challenge has nothing whatever to do with the discussion with Brother Towry. We don’t care how much time is used in that discussion, and we don’t care how many nor how few propositions are discussed at that time. Our challenge said nothing about that time. The time is to be agreed on by the disputants, according to the challenge. We do not care whether he discusses the question of “conditional time salvation” with Brother Towry or not. And it makes no difference whether “conditional time salvation” is the legitimate offspring of limited predestination or not. Our brethren who have held to what some call “conditional time salvation,” have been called Arminians, Bildads, [pg 361] Half-Baptists and many other such names, and we want an investigation of the matter. We want a clean, honest, fair investigation of the two propositions submitted. That is all we want. If the Bible teaches that God did, from all eternity, absolutely and unconditionally predestinate all things that come to pass, good, bad and indifferent, we want to know it. And. if the Bible does not teach that much of the happiness of God’s children while here on earth is conditional, and depends much upon the way they live, we want to know it. Hence, we repeat the challenge.
THE CHALLENGE REPEATED.
We challenge those who bold to the doctrine that God absolutely and unconditionally predestinated all things that come to pass to furnish a representative man from among them to discuss the following propositions with us:
1. The Scriptures teach that God did, from all eternity, absolutely and unconditionally predestinate all things that come to pass, good, bad and indifferent. – – – – – affirms; C. H. Cayce denies.
2. The Scriptures teach that much of the happiness of God’s children while here on earth is conditional, and depends much upon the way they live. C. H. Cayce affirms; – – – – – denies.
The discussion to be held at a place where it may be called for and at a time to be agreed on by the disputants. The challenge also embraces this:
Competent stenographers are to be employed to take the speeches as delivered, and the whole discussion to be published in book form. Not less than two days to be devoted to each proposition. The speaker on each side to have a moderator, and a third to be chosen by them to act as president moderator. The speakers to be governed by the rules in Hedge’s Logic, with an additional rule, “No new matter to be introduced in the final negative on a proposition.” We challenge them to furnish the man. C. H. C.
THE FOOTPRINTS
August 2, 1910
Elder J. W. Fairchild has resumed the publication of the Footprints of the Flock. He claims he has labored hard for peace, but his writings show that he was saying some hard things about some brethren who differed from him. In the May, 1910, number of his paper, among other things, he says: “There is no hope for peace between the high-minded bosses in the Baptist ranks, and the humble followers of the lowly Jesus. The only hope for peace now is for the Lord’s flock to be delivered from the selfish leaders. We have done all we know to pacify these lords over God’s heritage, but all to no avail.”
[pg 362] Who are the “high-minded bosses” in the Baptist ranks? Of course, if Elder Fairchild is the one to answer the question, the bosses are those who faithfully oppose some position he has been advocating. Who are the “humble followers” of the meek and lowly Jesus? if Elder Fairchild is to answer, of course it would be Elder Fairchild and those who advocate the doctrine of the absolute and unconditional predestination of all things that come to pass.
It is evident to us, from his writings, that these are the humble followers of the meek and lowly Jesus. He classes those who oppose his teaching as selfish leaders. It is clear that he uses strong terms and ugly epithets in referring to those who have the courage to oppose his views. Hence, if one has the courage and manliness and Christian fortitude to oppose something advocated by Elder Fairchild, he is a high-minded boss and a selfish leader. Hence, it appears that Elder Fairchild must be allowed to be the leader— he must be allowed to advocate what he pleases, even to the destruction of the peace of the churches— and no one must object under penalty of bringing down the anathemas of Elder Fairchild upon his head.
He further says: “Our labors with these elders who are bent on dividing the Lord’s people over predestination and time salvation are at an end; and hereafter our efforts shall be to save the flock from their tyranny.” In this he accuses those who oppose the absolute predestination of all things of being bent on dividing the Lord’s people. The truth of the matter is that the preaching and advocating of that doctrine is what causes the division. If it was not advocated there would be no need to oppose it, and then there would be no division. it is true, therefore, that advocating that doctrine is what causes the division. Elder Fairchild was bent on advocating it; hence he is the man bent on division, for he knows it causes division. But from his standpoint it is tyranny for one to oppose that doctrine; but it is not tyranny for him to continue to advocate it when he knows it causes division.
Again, he says: “Were it not for the preachers who have the spirit of bossism, there would be no trouble among us.” What preachers among us have the spirit of bossism, unless it is those who continue to advocate the doctrine of absolute and unconditional predestination of all things that come to pass, and that God caused the devil to cause Adam to sin, and who stigmatize those who oppose that doctrine? If that spirit is not the spirit of bossism we confess we are dull of comprehension.
Again, he says: “Shall a few bigoted bosses destroy the peace of Zion?” We hope not. We hope the churches will withdraw from every “bigoted boss” who continues to advocate this doctrine, when he knows it causes distress and confusion.
Merely as a matter of information to our readers we copy the following [pg 363] from Elder J. B. Hardy, Jr., which was in the Footprints for May. 1910: “I have studied the matter carefully and am ready to say the Footprints must not, will not die. Publish it, and make the world know you are publishing it. Father is here and says tell you to publish the Footprints and say some thing in it too. I am willing to reply to Bogard if you think, best, and will, but I prefer to be after some so-called Primitive Baptists. My spirit is stirred within me, and they must come to the scratch or shut up. They must let up on you or include me in the fight. I will not be left out.” We will offer no comment on this statement now. We give it simply as a matter of information to our readers.
May the Lord help us all to humbly and faithfully contend against every false way, and to contend earnestly for the faith that was once delivered unto the saints. C. H. C.
THAT DEBATE ON MISSIONS
August 9, 1910
Notice the following clear cut proposition:
1. “Missions as taught and practiced by the Missionary Baptists are authorized by the word of God.”
2. “Missions as taught and practiced by the so-called Old School Baptists are authorized by the word of God.”
For some time Brother C. H. Cayce has displayed some anxiety to discuss this first proposition, but under no consideration will he agree to defend the doctrines and practice of his people. If any of his brethren will try it let them deny this first, and affirm the second proposition and the Builder will furnish a man to look after the truth. If none of them will try to defend their anti-mission doctrines and practices they ought to say so frankly and hush. What say you brethren?— Baptist Builder, July 27.
REMARKS
It is evident that the Builder man does not intend to meet the issue. Instead of doing that, he tries to confuse the minds of the people, and throw dust in the air, to draw their minds away from the issue. It is the teaching and practice of the Missionary Baptists on the mission question that has been assailed and called in question. It was the assaults made on that doctrine and practice that caused your brother, Rev. Broughton, to make a challenge to Thos. E. Watson to debate. Our brethren then called on us to know if we would debate the question. We replied in the affirmative. Rev. Broughton failed to come to time. The Builder then took it up; but also fails to meet the issue. Why not come up squarely, like a man, and discuss the proposition or shut up?
However, if you wish us to affirm a proposition, we will affirm this: “The [pg 364] church of which I (C. H. Cayce) am a member, known as Old School or Primitive Baptists, is Scriptural in doctrine and practice.” We will affirm this. Will you deny it? And will you affirm that “Missions as taught and practiced by the Missionary Baptists are authorized by the word of God?”
Remember that you must furnish a man that your people in Macon, Ga., will recognize as a representative man. Will you do that? And will you meet the issue? We still wait to see.
C. H. C.
CHALLENGE
August 9, 1910
I notice that C. H. Cayce, editor of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, published at Martin, Tenn., has challenged the Old School Baptists to debate the subjects of predestination and conditionalism in which he proposes to deny what he, in the early part of his ministry professed to believe, and to affirm what he then denied.
If Elder Cayce and those now associated with him will put up any honorable representative man among them, who has the endorsement of his people and will sign propositions on these subjects, which express fairly and honestly the issue between us, they shall be accommodated. Elder Cayce proposes that stenographers be employed to write the debate and that it be published. To this I will say Predestinarian Baptist ministers do not wish to lord it over God’s heritage, but we are willing to leave this matter entirely with the brethren to do just as they please about having the debate published.
Now if they want a fair and honorable discussion, let them bring out their man.
W. I. C.
The above appeared in the Predestinarian Baptist of August 1, 1910. Elder W. I. Carnell is one of the editors, and we presume he is the author, as it is signed W. I. C.
As to his statement that we propose to deny what we, in the early part of our ministry, professed to believe, and to affirm what we then denied, we have only to say that we shall make no reply to this now. It will receive due notice at the proper time.
We made the challenge for your people to furnish a representative man from among them to meet us in discussion on the propositions as they appeared in the challenge. Do you accept those propositions? The first one is what you teach. Will you affirm it in [pg 365] debate? Do you believe the second proposition? Will you deny it in debate? And will your people say, by act of a church, that you are a representative man? Do you want our people to endorse us for the debate? We have not asked them to do so, and we don’t know whether they will or not; but we have been called on by them in different states to represent them in discussions. We made the challenge for your people to furnish a man to meet us. It was made on our own responsibility. But do you want one or more of our churches to endorse us for the debate? Will your people furnish a representative man if our people endorse us? It was included in the challenge that stenographers be employed to take the debate down, and that it be published.
The propositions upon which we made the challenge are fair and embrace points of difference. Why did you not put the propositions in your paper? Did you want to misrepresent us? Did you wish to keep the true issue from your readers? Now, we want a fair and honorable discussion of those propositions. If we are wrong, we want to be right. We want the truth. WILL YOU MEET THE ISSUE, provided your people will say you are a representative man? And WILL THEY SAY THAT? Will your people furnish a man? We await an answer. How long will we have to wait? Our man is out and ready to agree on a time when you people furnish the man and he signs the propositions upon which the challenge was made. C. H. C.
MISSIONS AGAIN
August 16, 1910
“In the Scripture there is no such thing found as a single minister being supported by the mother church at Jerusalem while preaching the unsearchable riches of Christ among the heathen, or Gentiles.” — C. H. Cayce, PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, July 26.
Isn’t that “cute?” He might also have said there is no record of the mother church at Jerusalem taking up a collection to pay for printing the associational minutes! The Scriptures show however, that the Jerusalem church was composed of poor people who were to some extent dependent upon the generosity of their Gentile brethren. But besides that, Paul tells us, in Gal. 2:9 that “James, and Cephas, and John, they who reputed to be pillars” in the church, gave “to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision.” It appears, then, that there was an understanding and a division of the vast mission field between the mother church and the other churches, the former undertaking the mission to the Jews, and the latter that to the Gentiles. The intimation that the Jerusalem church was opposed to the missions to the Gentiles is therefore, false: for its leading members distinctly fellowshipped two men who had been set apart for this work. And we are prepared to show from the word of God that other churches helped to support Paul “while preaching the unsearchable riches of Christ among the heathen, or Gentiles.” Will Eld. Cayce dispute it?
We have felt quite sure for some time that Elder Cayce, of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, has been waiting for an opportunity to spout off the contents of Tom Watson’s slanderous pamphlet against foreign missions. And so, in his issue of July 26, instead of attempting to defend the inconsistent practices of his own people, he favors us with a tame rehash of Watson, which, however, only exposes the bad animus and the logical weakness of the Anti-Missionary position. The first thing that we call attention to is that Elder Cayce makes no distinction whatever: he seems to charge that all the men who go out as foreign missionaries are base mercenaries, and that ALL the females are prostitutes! This is as vile a slander as ever emanated from the pit of perdition, and Elder Cayce knows it, and knowing it he retails it for the cash there is in it!
[pg 366] Now, that an occasional base character should appear among the missionary forces is to be expected; but this no more discredits the foreign missionary work as a whole than the appearance of such characters among the churches of all denominations at home discredits Christianity as a whole. As a matter of fact the argument has no more real weight against foreign missions than an argument based on the treason of Judas, the covetousness of Simon Magus and the dissimulation of Peter at Antioch has against Christianity. Even the man blind enough to swallow Hardshellism ought to see this. But we are willing to bring the matter to a concrete test. There are several men and women now on foreign fields who were born and reared right here in West Tennessee: will Elder Cayce affirm and undertake to show that these people are of the character and guilty of the practices he refers to? Will he affirm and undertake to prove that the Baptist churches in West Tennessee, for example, endorse men and women known to be of bad character, and approve of such methods and such practices as those he mentions? If he cannot prove these things why does he make statements that imply that all the foreign missionaries, both men and women, are base and unworthy of decent respect? But finally in regard to foreign mission work in general, who is to be believed, men like Elder Cayce, who deal out course slanders for the money there is in it, or men like William J. Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt and former vice President Fairbanks, who saw with their own eyes, and could have no motive in misrepresenting the facts?
The above appeared in the Baptist Builder of August 3 in Elder W. B. Clifton’s department. Now, why doesn’t the Rev, gentleman tell where we got authority for what we said? And why doesn’t he publish what we said, so his readers can judge for themselves as to whether his statements are true or false? It simply won’t do to give the facts out to his readers. If the people knew the facts concerning this mission business, the high-salaried secretaries and chairmen of boards, beggars and solicitors in the field, the high-salaried missionaries, doctors, dentists and teachers would have to look for another job. It just won’t do to let the people know the facts. If they knew the facts, they would not go down in their pockets so freely and hand over so many of their hard-earned dollars for the Rev. clergy.
The elder’s conclusion, that there was an understanding and a division of the vast mission field between the mother church and the other churches, is not proven by his quotation. Gal. 2:9. But suppose the quotation did prove his statement, would that sustain their practices? Does it authorize the existence of the Southern Baptist Convention, their state conventions, home and foreign boards, with their secretaries, chairmen and treasurers? Who divides the “vast mission field” for the Missionary Baptists who go to the field? Do the churches divide the field, or does the board do the dividing? Those who know anything at all about the matter know that the board as signs to the missionary his field of labor, that therefore, the board does the dividing. But the quotation does not sustain the contention of the elder. The first verse of that chapter (Gal. 2) says, “Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.”
[pg 367] This shows that Paul had been preaching among the Gentiles for a number of years already. His field of labor had already been assigned him. The field of labor was assigned him by the Master when He appeared to him and called hi to the work; see Acts 22:21; 26:17. Not only is this true, but the apostle says, Gal. 1:15-21, “But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood; neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord’s brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.” The apostle did not confer with the church at Jerusalem, nor with a board, as to where he should go preaching the unsearchable riches of Christ, or where his field of labor should be. He did not wait to see whether or not he would get a salary or a support from a board or from a church at Jerusalem. Evidently he was not a missionary of the modern sort.
The elder says he is prepared to show from the word of God that other churches helped to support Paul while preaching the unsearchable riches of Christ among the Gentiles. But can he show that Paul, or any other minister, was supported by the mother church at Jerusalem while preaching the unsearchable riches of Christ among the Gentiles? Our statement was that there is no such thing as this found in Scripture. If it was there, we suppose the Rev, would have produced it.
While the apostle was at Thessalonica the brethren at Philippi sent gifts unto him. Philippi was about forty miles from Thessalonica. Does that look like foreign missions? While he was in Corinth the brethren from Macedonia contributed to his necessities. These contributions were not sent from a distance of more than two hundred miles, for Philippi, in Macedonia, was not more than two hundred miles from Corinth, and Thessalonica was nearer. There is nothing in any of these that favors missions as now practiced by these modern Softshell Missionaries.
Instead of the mother church at Jerusalem sending out and supporting missionaries in the foreign field, contributions were made by the Gentile churches and sent to Jerusalem for the help of the poor saints there. But, now these modern Missionaries must have contributions sent to the foreign from the home field to supply free schools, free doctors, free nurses, free dentists, free gold leaf, free medicines (and the Lord only knows how much more) for the heathen. They reverse the order in the contribution arrangement.
We did not intimate that the church at Jerusalem opposed the Apostle [pg 368] Paul’s going among the Gentiles, and Elder Clifton knows it. But we say that the church at Jerusalem did not support the apostle, nor contribute to his necessities, while he was preaching among the Gentiles, neither did God require it. Elder Clifton also knows this is a fact. All the Softshell modern Missionaries in the United States cannot overthrow this position.
Now, the Rev. Softshell gentleman shows his anger and utter inability to meet our position. He charges that he has felt quite sure for some time that we were waiting impatiently for an opportunity to spout off the contents of Tom Watson’s slanderous pamphlet against foreign missions. He FELT IT! We have had the same opportunity all the time that we have now. This flatterer has been making remarks about us and our brethren in his dirty way for quite awhile. For some time we paid no attention to his thrusts, until he “swelled up” so large we decided to give the Rev, gentleman a few facts. As to what he says about Tom Watson’s pamphlet, will only say that he misrepresents Tom Watson. Mr. Watson is not opposed to missions, and says so on the first page of the first chapter in the pamphlet. But if the pamphlet is slanderous, why don’t you Softshell pop-guns make him pay for the slander? Why don’t you refute the things therein contained? Why doesn’t your Mr. Bryan, whose word you say the people should take, meet Mr. Watson in debate on the question? Mr. Bryan dare not discuss the question with Mr. Watson. But this Softshell windbag says we deal out course slander for the money there is in it. In the name of decency and honesty, whom have we slandered? We only told a little of what Rev. Paul Wakefield said, and he is a missionary advocate. If the language is a slander, then Dr. Wakefield is the guilty party and not C. H. Cayce. Are we a vile slanderer because we tell what their own people say who believe in and advocate foreign missions, and whose stomachs begin to ache right now when they get on the foreign mission question, but whose heart is, seemingly, as hard as flint when they are appealed to concerning the poor starving white people right here at their own doors? Slanderous, indeed!
Just at this time we have before us a copy of the Woman’s Missionary Advocate of August, 1910. On pages 63 to 67 is a letter from Miss Emma Lester, on the foreign field. The letter is headed, “One Day Out From Shanghai.” In this letter, on page 65 of the pamphlet, appears this language: “The Filipinos are Catholic, and one cannot help but admire the work and tremble at the influx of Western wickedness that is coming in faster than Western goodness. It is so in all of these Eastern lands. One ship brings the missionaries and countless barrels of whiskey. We sit at table with an American woman who is on her way to bring back girls for her evil business. They say the name ‘American girl’ in the East means a bad woman.
[pg 369] There you are! A woman missionary on the foreign field said it! Are we a vile slanderer because we tell what she said? Western wickedness is coming in faster than Western goodness! It is so in all these Eastern lands!
Pray tell us, then, how they are to be converted in the present generation? If the Western importations make them worse, pray tell us how long it will require for the West to “take them for Christ?” Imagine, too, how much influence these missionary women will have in converting these heathen and “taking the world for Christ,” when the name ‘American girl’ in the East means a bad woman?” It seems to us that, to any reasonable person, it would be clear that before they can have much influence in the East they must correct matters at home.
On page 471 of Pearson’s Magazine for April, 1910, the editor of the magazine says:
During the past year the foreign mission movement in the United States has grown astonishingly. Foreign missions seem to be based on business instead of Christianity. Great state conventions have been held in various states, and the Laymen’s Missionary Movement inaugurated a national campaign in October last year, which still continues. It is to conclude in May with a National Missionary Congress in Chicago. Already the pledged contributions indicate that more American money will go into foreign missions this year than ever came in any one year from our country. Perhaps this is due to the movement’s “business” appeal. It may be good business to Christianize foreign heathens, but it does seem that it might be better business to relieve certain heathenish conditions right at home in this day of bread-lines and the vast human-stunted under-growth of the United States. During the year 1909 several great charities for home purposes were forced to discontinue or curtail their activities because of lack of money. During the same year the gifts of the United States for foreign missions increased $600,000 over the previous year, while the gifts of Great Britain decreased $96,000 and the gifts of other Christian countries decreased $120,000. Is this because Americans are better, or is it because they are more foolish? This magazine asked Mr. Barry to answer that question. He has spent four of the last six years traveling in the far East and South America. He has seen the missionaries and their work. His story follows— Editor.
This was written as a kind of introduction to an article headed “Business vs. Christianity,” by Richard Barry. It cannot be charged that the statements of the editor of Pearson’s Magazine or Richard Barry are the product of narrow-minded prejudice against foreign missions. These men could have no more motive to misrepresent the facts than Wm. J. Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt or former Vice-President Fairbanks, and Mr. Barry has spent as much time in the East and in South America among the foreign missionaries and the heathens as any of the other three gentlemen, and perhaps all three together. We must consider Mr. Barry a good witness. We give the following extracts from Mr. Barry’s article:
These are two appeals:
The first is from the Federation of Churches and Christian Organizations in New York City. [pg 370] A page of statistics is submitted. These figures conjure of some appalling facts. They show that in a 122 blocks in lower Manhattan there are a quarter million people who were born abroad. These people are so densely packed together that there is an average of 750 of them each acre of ground. They represent eleven different nationalities, four different world religions and upward of twenty different sects of those religions.
For one minute consider the problems presented on that little handful of earth, inside our very doors, in the bosom of our national family. Sanitation! Congestion! Homelessness! Housing! Industrial welfare! Religious education! Political education! Secular education!
The second appeal is from the Laymen’s Missionary movement. It presents figures so vast that the mind recoils, stunned. It is almost as difficult a mental problem as to look into the heavens, with a text book on astronomy in one hand, and attempt to estimate the number of stars. However, let us seize the fringe of the statement as it sweeps by, comet-like, on its course, and attempt to estimate it.
There are in the world, the appeal says, a billion people who are not Christians. A thousand millions! About twelve times the population of the United States! About four thousand times as many foreigners as live in the lower part of Manhattan! Of course, this is outside of the fifty millions of people who live in the United States who are not Christians. or who do not at least belong to any Christian organization.
Now the appeal is that we shall evangelize that billion of people within the present generation. They want to carry the gospel to that thousand million within thirty-five years. At present there are 13,350 missionaries in the field. They want 40,000. Last year this country spent ten millions on foreign missions. This year the new movement asks for fifty millions.
They want one man and one woman for each fifty thousand of that foreign population, and $2,000 for each of them to spend. There, in a concrete sentence, I believe I have stated what is meant when these organizers say they want to evangelize the world. A man and his wife with $2,000 a year, for every fifty thousand non-Christians will turn the trick.
To which appeal shall we listen?
To the foreign appeal, of course. Are we not an imaginative, emotional, extravagant people? Who can beat the American in driving a bargain? And who can beat the American in foolishly spending the money he makes from a bargain? No nation has greater resources from which to draw, and no nation spends those resources more recklessly. It is for good and sufficient reasons that the United States and Canada lead the world in contributions to foreign missions.
But let us consider the matter critically, without prejudice. The new missionary movement is called a business men’s movement, and the new appeal is being made to business men for business reasons. Therefore, let us look at it in a business like way.
First a quotation from “Men and Missions”the weekly bulletin of the new movement: “I never saw a more representative gathering of the men of New York,” said Richard Barry, war correspondent, magazine writer and staff correspondent of “Pearson’s Magazine,” in speaking of the mass meeting in the Hippodrome on Sunday afternoon. “I never saw a more representative
audience of men of substance or standing at any meeting, political, religious, or commercial. I was surprised. I had no idea a missionary meeting could draw men that way.”
We call special attention just here to the fact that the promoters of the missionary movement quote Mr. Barry, who is the author of the article from which these extracts are taken. Mr. Barry continues:
This quotation is correct, so far as it goes, but “Men and Missions” did not record all that was said before that meeting opened. There were present 5,300 “key” men, the leaders of the [pg 371] churches of Greater New York, and before the exercises began I asked an officer of the convention if he would permit me to step to the platform and ask the assemblage this question: “Will every man in the audience who has in his pocket an unsigned contract with Oriental or African merchants please rise?” I offered to wager that at least half the audience, thus taken off guard, and perhaps thinking I might be an agent for such merchants, would rise. The officer would not permit me to put the question, but he laughed. I believe he thought I was joking.
* * * * *
The Japanese are a courteous people. They listen respectfully, and with a much more open mind than we listen in this country, to the teachings of any foreign people. European, Chinese, Indian, Korean, American missionaries are all welcomed. The Japanese listens soberly absorbs and says nothing.
The Japanese are also a practical people. They gratefully accept rice, meat, school buildings, education, knowledge and kind words from all benevolent foreigners, especially from Americans. But they are not Christians and never will be. After sixty years of valiant effort the Christian religion has less hold on Japan than the Buddhist religion has on the United States.
* * * * *
Another speaker for the new movement, Dr. A. J. Brown, a missionary, says, “In Korea I traveled in a car made in Delaware, drawn by a locomotive from Philadelphia over Pittsburg rails, fastened by New York spikes to Oregon ties. I sat down to a meal that included Chicago beef, Pittsburg pickles and Minnesota flour. We could afford to support all the missionaries in Korea for the large and growing trade they have developed with this country.”
Another “business” appeal! The missionaries built your trade up; therefore build up the missionaries. The missionaries developed the trade with Korea!
* * * * *
The real attitude of the new movement is this— and I am but saying plainly what its speakers say inferentially: Let us carry beef and flour and railroad ties and pig-iron to the heathen (deducting, of course, therefrom a good American profit from the transaction), and his soul will somehow take care of itself. We will carry a little side line of tracts for his soul, but we in our enlightened wisdom, are not so sure that our soul ideas are so much better than his. We will give him the benefit of the doubt on that point, and let him have his choice. On one thing, however, he shall not have any choice— that is, on Business. Our business is infinitely superior to his, and it is our sacred duty to send it to him. Beef and iron, flour and railroad ties, pickles and pork, candy and kerosene-these the heathen must have, even if he rejects the soul tracts.
The placing of those soul tracts, the side line, is to be a mathematical calculation, a placing of Christianity by the rural free delivery route, as it were . . . .
However, as good business men, we see the advantage of an approved name of good standing, a name that we can advertise. So we take the name of Christ, the methods of Mohammed and our own weapon, not the sword, but the dollar. Out of this holy trinity of name, ways and means we will evangelize the world— and in jig quick time!
* * * * *
It was stated in one of the conventions in February, as an argument that would induce double contributions, that it took one dollar to carry another dollar to the heathen or foreign lands. In other words, only fifty cents of every dollar contributed here for foreign missions ever is spent directly on the mission fields.
[pg 372] A statement that came to me several days ago, nearer the source of actual experience, is one, however, that I prefer to use. It was made to me by an American missionary while we were traveling together down the Yank Tse Kiang. He had just come from a five years’ service in interior China, and he said that for every dollar he spent among the Chinese in his district, for their own good, it cost the Foreign Missionary Board $10.75.
In other words, about one dollar in twelve actually gets to the heathen . . . . And how is that one dollar in twelve spent?
Two classes of men go to foreign missions— the great and the petty, and the great are vastly in the minority. The ordinary, everyday, well-rounded, normal man seldom goes. There have been some missionaries who have been great men, though most of that caliber are dead.
Most of the missionaries of today are of a far different type. I do not speak from hearsay, but from observation. I have traveled in nearly every “heathen” country. I have seen these men at their work. I have watched them go to and fro. And I have attended more than one missionary convention here. At the conventions here the only subject I have heard discussed (off the platform, when men usually get to talking about what really interests them) has been— how can we get our pay raised? Where there is a weakly minister, one so over-emotional or so spineless that he could be palmed off only on the heathen, he is the one that goes into the foreign fields.
Lucky man! A man who never would find in this country a congregation that could pay him more than $1,000 a year goes to China, Japan, India or Africa with an allowance of from $1,200 to $1,800 a year. And not only is the allowance larger on paper, but he gets it . . . .
When the lucky missionary arrives in the foreign field he discovers that, instead of getting only a fifth or half more than he might have had at home, that amount of money really means four or five times as much as it would in this country.
How many ministers of the gospel in the United States have six or seven personal servants, their own carriage and a country place in a delightful climate to which they may retire at rigorous seasons of the year? It is not the exception, but the rule for every American missionary in the Orient to have at least that much . . . .
What the missionary today needs is a good endowment, substantial buildings, plenty of rice money, a retinue of servants and the ever-hovering presence of a fleet of battleships.
It is next to impossible to get any man in public life to say publicly anything against foreign missions. In fact, most politicians publicly endorse them. They know the tenacity of religious beliefs.
Recently I have been trying to get some Christian ministers to declare themselves on this subject. Several times I have found ministers of high standing who did not believe in foreign missions, even where their church, as a church, did. In the past few days I have talked with two metropolitan preachers of renown who, when I expressed the views here written, eagerly assented to the justice of the ground taken.
However, when I asked these ministers if I might quote them as being opposed to foreign missions, I was quickly placed under a promise not to reveal their names. Outside of the Unitarian and Universalist faiths, I doubt if a Christian minister could be found in the whole United States who would register himself as opposed to foreign missions.
Consider the poor whites of the South, cursed with the inertia of arrested hope! Consider
the bread lines of Chicago and New York! Consider the destitute babies, the sapless
millionaires! Consider the Western deserts and their prayers for water! Consider this
vast, stunted human undergrowth of our own continent, foiled, groping, crying aloud! And if nothing but converting some one to Christianity will really salve your conscience, why, there are 50,000,000 heathen tight here within your own boundaries. The Orient and Africa are really [pg 373] absurdly far, impossibly distant. Looking at it even in a business way, I am not so sure it is good “business.”
This mania of saving worlds belongs to the middle ages . . . . It is bad business. It is windy sentimentalism.
For the saving of the world let us trust the Maker of the world.
We have given these lengthy extracts from Mr. Barry’s article in Pearson’s Magazine for April, 1910, because he is a good witness and has written plainly. We prefer to give statements from their own people, and from those of whom it cannot be said, “They are blinded by prejudice.” The statements above need no comment. Mr. Barry is well acquainted with the foreign mission business; but he is not acquainted with the Primitive Baptists, for they have not made themselves prominent advocating such measures. They have always been opposed to the modern mission system, and have always borne such abuse as Elder Clifton’s article contains, on account of it.
Elder Clifton says we “seem to charge that ALL the men who go out as foreign missionaries are base mercenaries, and ALL the females are prostitutes.” Elder Clifton knows we made no such charge. We gave missionary authority for all we said. But as Elder Clifton accuses us of base slander, we will simply refer to a few more statements made by advocates of missions, Rev. Asa Blackburn said to a reporter of the New York World:
If the “World” would employ its great facilities for gathering news to obtaining a list of the mission girls ruined by Chinese whom they were teaching it would perform a service for which all the churches would be supremely grateful. There have been enough cases of that kind to fill an entire page in the paper. That list would be read everywhere as an awful object lesson in depravity. I believe its publication would so shock the country as to correct the evil which it would aim. Nothing short of some such exposure will stop it. The people need to be horrified. I shall be in sympathy with any measure, however shocking, to save young women from a continuance of this infamy, and with what feeble force I have I will speak for it.
Miss Helen Clark, a director of a mission, said:
For seventeen years I have urged the folly of white women endeavoring to Christianize Chinamen. All about me I have seen the ruin and wrecked homes. Case after case that parallels Elsie Siegel’s, with the exception of its tragic termination. But even so, death is better than some things. I have believed from the very beginning that it was impossible for white women to properly influence Chinese men.
Dr. Paul Wakefield, of Springfield, Ill., concerning the Elsie Siegel case, said:
There are more women missionaries degraded by Chinese men than there are Chinese converted. We missionaries have known this for a long time, and were not surprised when we heard of Miss Siegel’s death.
A Mrs. Manry, who lives in Crawfordsville, Ind., in giving a report of Dr. Wakefield’s lecture to a reporter of another paper, used these words:
Those American missionaries who know the character of the Chinese men and who know [pg 374] that they cannot be converted to Christianity by American or any other women, were not surprised to learn of the murder of Miss Elsie Siegel, the missionary in Chinatown, New York. Of course the murder was a most atrocious one, but it is to be hoped that it will teach American women a lesson. No woman missionary can Christianize a Chinese man. For centuries and centuries, the men of China have had such a low estimate of women that they now can hardly respect them.
On page 88 of Foreign Missions Exposed, Thomas E. Watson says:
The Elsie Siegel case, like the lightning flash in the dark, revealed the whole world of mission work among the heathen in the home field. How is it abroad? Are the Orientals in the East different from the Orientals who come West? Is a Chinaman in New York or San Francisco any worse than a Chinaman in China? Do these Chinese “converts” ever use the religious cloak to do wrong in China? You do not know. A lightning flash may come some day which will cause “we missionaries” to let that cat out of the bag also.
Then in a footnote on same page. Mr. Watson adds:
It has come! Dr. August Bach, a mission worker of twelve years’ experience in China, has denounced the prevailing methods and has declared that there are Elsie Siegel cases in China.
On pages 113 and 114. of Mr. Watson’s book on foreign missions we find the following language:
In October last Rev. F. D. Kellogg and wife set out from this country for the Foochow Mission, China. Commenting upon this, an American Chinaman, named Charlie Good, said:
“It is a very foolish idea to send white men and pretty American girls to China. My people, and especially those in the Foochow district, are very desperate. They care nothing for your religion. Ah, yes, we like the pretty American girls. If you should send only men you would soon see a great change.”
Read that statement again, and consider it well. Then remember that Dr. Bach declared that there were Elsie Siegel cases in the Chinese field.
But they keep the facts covered up— and our sisters go blindly into a work which is fraught with perils of which they are entirely ignorant— perils which may lead them to a fate worse than death.
We clip the following statement from the Nashville American, Nashville, Tenn., of August 7, 1909:
At Crawfordsville, Ind., a few evenings since, Rev. Paul Wakefield made a talk in which he said: “There are more women missionaries degraded by Chinese men than there are Chinese converted.” Startling as this declaration sounds, it is tame when compared with the subsequent statement, “We missionaries have known this for a long time,” etc. Commenting thereupon, Tom Watson expresses the sentiment of every normal mind: “I think that is the most infamous statement that a minister of the gospel ever made.”And he adds: “The missionaries who kept that awful secret are not much better than the Chinamen who ruined the girls.” Instead of being any better, they are worse; for while the tiger is not to be blamed for regaling himself with the mutton, there is absolutely no excuse for the soft-head who sends the lamb to domesticate the tiger.
Now we suppose the Rev. Clifton will say again that we deal in coarse slander for the money there is in it. Who gets the salary? Why, sir, these missionaries. They are the ones who are out for the money there is in it.
[pg 375] Notwithstanding the fact some of them have known for a long time that there were more women missionaries ruined by the Chinese than there were Chinese converts, yet they kept the matter secret. Why did they keep it a secret? There can be but one reason— for the money, the fat salary they get. We do not say they are all corrupt— we made no such intimation— but it is a rotten and corrupt affair, and our desire is that the good people who have been deceived may have their eyes opened to the true situation and to the truth.
Now, Mr. Clifton, howl some more if you want to. Your howling hurts no one.
Are those Softshells going to furnish a representative man to discuss the mission question with us in Macon, Ga.?
C. H. C.
LUKE 13:6-9
August 30, 1910
Brother G. W. Hewett, of Brown, Ark., requested our views on this text a good while ago. The reader may turn and read, beginning with the first verse of the chapter. Those characters upon which the tower in Siloam fell are referred to. Then the Saviour tells those people present that those people were not sinners above all who dwelt in Jerusalem, and that except they repent they would likewise perish, just as did those upon whom the tower fell. Then in verse six the Saviour begins by putting forth a parable unto them, showing that the Jewish nation should be cut down. To them had been committed the oracles of God, but they were not bringing forth fruit. They were disobedient and rebellious. Hence they were to be cut down; the gospel privileges were to be given to the Gentiles. So, now, when a church continually lives in disobedience and rebellion, and fails to bring forth fruit, the candlestick is removed and planted in another place. C. H. C.
1 CORINTHIANS 9:7-15
August 30, 1910
Some time ago Brother C. W. Estes, of Falkner, Miss., requested our view of 1 Cor. 9:7-15. The reader will please turn to same and read it. The apostle was teaching the duty of the church to minister of their carnal things to those who ministered spiritual things unto them. In verse 9 the apostle says: “For it is written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.” The idea expressed is that the ox should do the eating where he does the treading. It is not God’s [pg 376] plan for him to do his treading in China and his eating in the United States. If the treading is done in China, the eating should be done there also. He should be ministered unto by those where the treading is done.
It is evident that the apostle has reference to the fact that carnal things should be ministered unto the servant by those unto whom he has ministered spiritual things, from the language of verse 11, which says: “If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?” It is true that the apostle did not use these things, neither did he write these things in order that they should minister unto him. This is true with every true servant of the Lord. He does not ask that he be ministered unto. He does not say “no pay no preach.” He will do his duty (or should do so) to the best of his ability whether the brethren minister unto him or not, it is his duty to go as the Lord directs, and unto the field of labor the Lord directs, and then it is the duty of those unto whom he ministers spiritual things to minister unto him of their carnal things. All this should be done willingly, as a service of love on both sides. When so done it is blessed of the Lord. On the other hand, He does not approve nor recognize the hireling system. C. H. C.
ELDER SIKES DID CHALLENGE
September 6, 1910
Our readers will remember that in our issue of August 2 we copied a letter from Elder J. C. Sikes, of Texas, from the Advocate of Truth, in which he denied having made any challenge, and accused us of misrepresenting him, and in which he used some very unbecoming expressions. When our issue of August 2 was printed we did not have proof of our statement at hand. The following letters show that Elder Sikes said he had not only made a challenge, but that the challenge was of five gears standing. So, while in Alabama Elder Sikes said he DID CHALLENGE; since he returned home he says he NEVER MADE ANY CHALLENGE. Since he has accused us of falsifying we must meekly ask, Did Elder Sikes tell the truth both times? The following letters show who has falsified and who has misrepresented the facts in the case. Please read them carefully, and then remember the propositions and terms upon which we challenge them to furnish a representative man to meet us. C. H. C.
ONE STATEMENT
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— I see in this week’s issue of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST that Elder Sikes is hunting a loophole to escape meeting you in debate.
It is surprising that men claiming to be Primitive Baptists would make such broad assertions [pg 377] as Elder Sikes did while here in Alabama and then try to dodge or get out of it on a plea that he made no such challenge, and if he did, you ought to be able to produce it. This proves that he sees he is in a hole and is trying to get out by claiming that you should produce the challenge with his name to it.
Now, elder, how does that sound to a thinking man? As to what you told Brother Jack Berry when you were here in the early part of the year, that you had a standing challenge of five years for any of our side to meet you, and not a one of them would meet you in a discussion, Brother Berry talked to me about your challenge and asked me if we did not have a man that would meet you. At that time I did not favor the debate, as the Baptists Elder Sikes affiliated with and preached for while here were in gross disorder, and they themselves admitted it. Yet they claimed that the wrong act must stand, and while they are still pursuing the very course that they themselves admitted was wrong, Elder Sikes came from Texas to preach for and encourage them in their course. Up to that time they denied believing the doctrine of absolute predestination of all things, but since Elder Sikes visited them they openly affirm the doctrine.
Now, is it not strange that Elder Sikes would boast about his challenge of five years’ standing and none of our folks would meet him (all afraid of him, of course), and now censure Brother Cayce as misrepresenting him for saying that he (Elder Sikes) had made a challenge while here in Alabama, and that he (Elder Cayce) therefore is not qualified to meet an honest disputant. Let us look to the honesty of the people he affiliated with while here for a moment. Another brother and myself were appointed as a committee to visit a church for her wrong and unscriptural course, and who also had a charge against her pastor for unfaithfulness. When the charge was told them their pastor said we were doing him a wrong, that we should have come to him with our complaint privately. We told him if he would point out our wrong and show us one precept or example in the New Testament where we were commanded to go to a brother privately for a public offense, we would yield the point and ask forgiveness for our wrong. Instead of trying to point out our wrongs he said that our course was a mob law and he was opposed to mob laws and wanted to put them down. Kind reader, how does this sound for Primitive Baptists? Another church confessed that she had done wrong and asked us to forgive her, when in fact she did not belong to the union at the time the wrong, as she called it, was committed. Now, dear reader, stop for a moment and think of a Primitive Baptist church asking for forgiveness for something that was done before she was in existence, and yet Elder Sikes came and preached for and held up such a course for a few churches that had been labored with and dropped by the Flint River Association. After all this inconsistency he says, “If Elder Cayce cannot show his challenge with his name to it he is not fit to meet an honest disputant.” Oh, shame, where is thy blush? O consistency, where art thou? By their fruits ye shall know them.
If anyone doubts this statement Brother Berry’s post office is Huntsville, Ala. Brother Berry is a member of one of the churches that was dropped or excluded by Flint River Association, and I suppose Elder Sikes thought he could brag a little and it would not reach us. Brother Berry is still a member of that church, but he is an honest upright Christian gentleman.
We had hoped they would see and repent of their wrong, but it seems they have been turned to their idols, and there is no repenting spirit about them. So we are now in favor of the discussion. Yours in bonds of love,
B. B. Lawler
Gurley, Ala.
ANOTHER STATEMENT
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— In reply to your letter of the third, I will say that while I was in company [pg 379] with Elder Sikes last winter I asked him if God purposed that Adam should transgress, and he said he did. After asking him a number of other questions I asked him if he debated, or would debate the subject. He said that he had had out a standing advertised challenge for five years, which no one had accepted. Unworthily,
E. J. Berry
R. 2 Huntsville, Ala.
ANOTHER STATEMENT
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— After reading your paper, THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, I see that Elder J. C. Sikes, in his reply to your challenge on the subject of the predestination of all things, misrepresents things in regard to the debate now pending between him and my father, Elder B. L. Towry. Elder Sikes says when I presented the proposition he signed it and asked me to go bring father down so we could begin at once. I did not present the proposition until after preaching. He signed it and passed it back and said that he did not have time to debate it now, but would be back sometime soon, though he did not say when. Before services I stated to Elder Jessie Towry, one of their order, that father had received a challenge the day before from Elder Sikes wanting to debate the question of absolute predestination of all things with him while he was here. I asked Jessie to tell him that father was ready to begin the discussion any time after the next day. But if Elder Sikes’ time was pressing him so he could not stay he would begin the next day, but I thought it ought to be circulated better. Elder Sikes said he did not have the time to debate it now, but would be glad if father would come over and be with him that day at Pleasant Grove schoolhouse, also that night at a brother’s house about two and one-half miles away. This was about fifteen or twenty minutes before services began, and anyone knows that it would have been impossible to have had a fair debate in that length of time, when only one side was there to judge it, and but very few of them. I told Jessie Towry we would not do that. Jessie Towry said that Elder J. C. Sikes said he had out a world-wide challenge on the subject of predestination and no one would meet him.
Elder Cayce, my desire is not confusion, but that all who are interested may know the facts of it. I have witnesses that will testify to what I have written. Yours in hope,
A. N. Towry
R. 4 Fayetteville, Tenn.
KEYS OF THE KINGDOM
September 20, 1910
We think the keys of the kingdom (or church) were delivered to Peter, and he used them to unlock the door and open the kingdom to the Gentiles when he went to the house of Cornelius and preached the gospel there. We do not think the door of the church is ever closed, or has been since it was opened to the Gentiles. It is always open to God’s little children who give a reason of their hope in Jesus and ask for a home there. C. H. C.
[pg 379]
FOREIGN MISSIONS AGAIN
September 27, 1910
In the Baptist Builder of August 24 Elder Clifton says he may have yielded occasionally to pay Elder Cayce back in his own coin, having reference to his ugly epithets which he has been hurling at us for some time. He knows this is another falsehood, for he knows that he began this mud-slinging and that we paid no attention to it for quite a while.
In the issue of August 31 and September he also says something about our last editorial in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST on the foreign mission question. He does not answer nor refute a statement from a single witness. He says he does not know why we quoted the statement from the Woman’s Missionary Advocate. Well, we are not responsible for his ignorance nor for his false statements. We showed clearly why we quoted it, and he made no reply to it.
Now, parson, you may howl all you want to. It amuses us. C. H. C.
OUR CHALLENGE
October 4, 1910
In THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of May 31 and June 7, 1910. we challenged those who believe that God absolutely and unconditionally predestinated all things that come to pass to furnish a representative man to meet us in debate. We stated that Elder J. C. Sikes had laid down the gauntlet. In the Advocate of Truth of July 1, 1910, he denied that he had made any challenge. In THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of September 6, 1910, we produced the proof. From the statements published in that issue we quote the following:
After asking him a number of other questions, I asked him if he debated, or would debate the subject. He said that he had had out a standing advertised challenge for five years, which no one had accepted.
E. J. Berry
R. 2 Huntsville, Ala.
Jessie Towry said that Elder J. C. Sikes said he had out a world-wide challenge on the subject of predestination and no one would meet him.
A. N. Towry
R. 4 Fayetteville, Tenn.
This shows clearly that Elder Sikes said he had made a challenge. He had either made it, or else he had not done so. If he had made it, then he did not tell the truth when he denied it. If he had not made it, then he did not tell the truth when he said he had. But, let us not be severe in our judgment. Perhaps the elder can explain the matter.
In the Predestinarian Baptist of August 1, 1910, Elder W. I Camel says:
Now, if they want a fair and honorable discussion, let them bring out their man.
We again say that we are ready to agree on the time when the propositions [pg 381] are signed by a representative man. It seems that they do not want to meet the issue squarely. If they do not furnish the man we will conclude that the whole fraternity are religious cowards. Put up your man or shut your mouths about us and what we teach. We repeat our challenge.
THE CHALLENGE.
We challenge those who hold to the doctrine that God absolutely and unconditionally predestinated all things that come to pass to furnish a representative man from among them to discuss the following propositions with us:
1. The Scriptures teach that God did from all eternity, absolutely and unconditionally predestinate all things that come to pass, good, bad and indifferent – – – – – affirms. C. H. Cayce denies.
2. The Scriptures teach that much of the happiness of God’s children while here on earth is conditional, and depends much upon the way they live. C. H. Cayce affirms – – – – – denies.
The discussion to be held at a place where it may be called for and at a time to be agreed on by the disputants. The challenge also embraces this: Competent stenographers are to be employed to take the speeches as delivered, and the whole discussion to be published in book form. Not less than two days to be devoted to each proposition. The speaker on each side to have a moderator, and a third to be chosen by them to act as president moderator. The speakers to be governed by the rules in Hedge’s Logic, with an additional rule, “No new matter to be introduced in the final negative on a proposition.” We challenge them to furnish the man.
C. H. Cayce
GIFTS IN THE MINISTRY
October 4, 1910
By request of Brother Leonard in his letter on another page in this paper we will try to write a few words on the above subject.
The parable of the supper as recorded in Matt. 22:1-10 and Luke 14:16-24, shows that the Lord sends His servants out into the “highways and hedges.” He sends His ministers out as hunters and as fishers, to hunt and to fish for His children. He does not send them out to make children for Him, but to find those He has made.
There are many of the Lord’s children who have never heard an Old Baptist sermon delivered. They know nothing about what Old Baptists preach. Perhaps they have heard much said by our enemies about our teaching, but our enemies misrepresent us. They cannot have a very strong desire to hear Old Baptist preaching unless they have some idea of what Old Baptists teach. The very best way in the world to let them know what Old Baptists teach is to go into the neighborhoods where they are and preach the gospel to them, [pg 381] as the Lord opens the way. This has been the practice of our fathers in the ages past. Churches are usually established by some minister, or ministers, going into a neighborhood and preaching, where there is no Old Baptist Church. This is the way the churches were established in the New Testament times. The ministers went into different localities, as they were directed by the Spirit and preached the gospel, and churches were established. This has been the gospel rule and practice all along the line. It is still the practice of the Primitive Baptists. The Fuller and Carey plan, as practiced by the New School Baptists, is for a board, or society to assign the minister his field of labor and send him out. The Bible plan is that the Lord sends them out and assigns them their field of labor, and they go trusting the Lord for guidance and for support.
Indeed, all are not pastors. “He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.”—Eph. 4:11. An evangelist is what some would now call a traveling preacher. There are some good preachers, able preachers, who are not good pastors. These are all different gifts in the ministry. The pastor is not above the evangelist, and the evangelist is not above the pastor. They are on an equality, though having different gifts in the same office. If one is satisfied laboring as a pastor, and he feels that his labors as a pastor are blessed of the Lord, and he feels to be abiding in his calling when thus laboring, then he should labor in that way. He should abide in his calling. “The Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.”—Acts 13:2. Saul, called Paul, was the apostle to the Gentiles, but Barnabas was not an apostle. He was a minister of the gospel, called by the Lord (the Holy Ghost). It does not appear that he labored much as a pastor, but that he labored as an evangelist, or traveling preacher. The Lord called him to that work, and he was ordained just like any other called minister.
If you feel an impression of mind to go into destitute places to preach the gospel, you should do so. We often think the destitute places are too much neglected. The Lord calls and impresses His ministers where to go. He assigns the field of labor, and they should endeavor to follow their impressions and labor where the Lord directs.
Much more could be said along this line, but time forbids us writing more now. May the Lord bless these thoughts to the good of our readers, is our prayer, and enable us all to follow the direction of His Spirit. C. H. C.
[pg 382]
EDUCATE THE JAPS
October 25, 1910
The little girl she wanted us to help educate, as we did Mrs. Maynard’s sweet Bible woman, now doing good work among her own people, is provided for. Last month, Dr. Willingham received $26.00 for her, and now read this letter from West Virginia:
“Enclosed please find $10.00 to help educate the little Japanese girl Mrs. Medling told us of.”—E. M. Heck.
Just see there, Mrs. Medling, what good your letter did! You need not give the $10.00 you offered, and if you choose, you can put your gift in the chapel. There are always so many things only the people on the ground see the need of. You have only to draw on Dr. Willingham now for $36.00 to be used for the little Japanese maiden! Isn’t that grand? Thank you, Mrs. Heck, a thousand times! You have often helped us before, and doubtless will again. God bless you.
The above appeared in the “Young South” department of the Baptist and Reflector of October 20, 1910, over the signature of Laura Dayton Eakin, Chattanooga, Tenn. For the education of the little Jap just draw on Dr. Willingham for $36.00. The Rev. Dr. received $26.00 for her last month. Now here comes a donor with ten dollars more for the little Jap. Oh, how they can howl for a little Jap, who so much needs an education in Japan! What authority is given for this? “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,” is the authority that they give. It is strange to us that people cannot see that our Lord’s command embraced no such things as this. But if you want to raise the sympathy of a crowd of Pharisees, just raise a cry in behalf of the Japs in Japan, the Chinks in China, the negro in Africa, and so on. But present to them the claims of the poor suffering children in our own home land, who are destitute of food and raiment and without educational opportunities, and you get nothing. The work bears on its face the marks of Pharisaical hypocrisy.
In the Baptist and Reflector of the same date we see a report of the Tennessee Baptist Convention. In the report on “Foreign Missions” we find this statement:
The report on the great denominational enterprise was submitted by Dr. O. M. Savage, of Jackson, father of Mrs. R. P. Mahon, a missionary in Mexico. The report says: “We have mission workers in South, Central and North China; in Africa, in Italy, in Brazil, in North and South Mexico, in Japan, and in Argentina. In China we have 145 missionaries, bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh; in Africa, 12, in Italy, 6, in Brazil, 44, in Mexico, 35, in Japan, 16. in Argentina, 14. These 275 leaders, with their companies of native workers, constitute an army, which must in the main receive its supplies from the home land, these Southern States. Our board has already appointed two new missionaries in this convention. Perhaps in China advancement is most marked of all our foreign fields. Africa shows hardly less advancement than China. Our Foreign Missions are operating such auxiliaries as theological seminaries, girls’ boarding schools, publishing houses, homes for blind girls, orphanages. hospitals, dispensaries, Bible institutes, Bible classes, colportage, Christian literature depots.”
What a pity our Lord did not say, “Go ye into all the world and operate theological seminaries, girls’ boarding schools, publishing houses, homes for blind girls, orphanages, hospitals, dispensaries, Bible institutes, Bible classes, colportage, Christian literature depots,” and so on. What are these hospitals and dispensaries? The hospitals are places where the sick Chinks, Japs, negroes, and so on, may have free medical attention, free nurses and free board. Oh, how their stomachs ache for the poor sick Chinamen in China, Japanese in Japan, negroes in Africa, while the poor whites in our own boasted land of Bibles and Christianity are allowed to suffer and die for want of attention —not only in their little rooms in the crowded cities, but without shelter!
What are the dispensaries? They are drug stores handling free medicines for the Chinks, Japs, negroes, and so on, in the far-off lands. But the poor suffering white creatures in our own home land may die and go to the bad place, so far as these missionary fanatics are concerned. No, sir; no free school books, free medicines, free hospitals, free doctors, free dentists, free gold leaf to fill teeth, free schools, nor free clothing or shelter for the poor crippled destitute white people in our own home land! Yet, in all their bowling for money for such objects, they are sailing under the pretense of preaching the gospel to a lost world! May the Lord pity their followers who blindly follow on without investigating for themselves, thinking they are helping to carry out the Lord’s command. C. H. C.
MY IMPRESSIONS
November 8, 1910
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother, if you will allow one as unworthy as I am to call you brother—I have just finished reading your debate with Penick, and I was induced, as I believe, from on high, to send you my best respects and praise for the work’s sake. I thank the giver of all good and perfect gifts for taking men out from among the world and placing them on the walls of Zion, who are able to defend the glorious gospel that I love so well, as you are. I cannot begin to tell you how much good it did me to see how easy it was for you to answer his questions and prove the doctrine of salvation by grace and grace alone.
Well, Brother Cayce, I have a question I want to ask you. First, I will say, if my poor heart deceives me not, that still voice you spoke about in your debate spoke peace to my troubled soul several years ago. Then I had a strong desire to join the church and did join at New Hope, in Hamilton county, Ill. After I was baptized I thought my trouble was over, but since then that same still small voice has told me there is something else for me to do. Now, Brother Cayce, that has caused me to neglect my duty as a Christian and by that I have failed to enjoy a Christian’s life. I have had brothers tell me that it was my duty to preach, and that is the way that small voice seemed to impress it on my mind. There is where my trouble [pg 384] comes from. I do not see how I can preach. In the first place I always felt too unworthy for such a call, and in the next place, it never did seem to me like I had understanding enough of the Scriptures to proclaim God’s glorious gospel in a way that would be of any benefit to God’s little children, and, then, I am so poor in this world’s goods that it seems like it takes all of my time supporting my family. There have been times I had a strong desire to get up and tell the brethren how I felt about this matter, but something seemed to say to me, “You aren’t fit to do that, and you would bring reproach on the good Old Baptist Church if you were to undertake such a work.” And then it seemed to say, “Your brethren would not listen to you anyway.
Now, when you were here that was the first time I ever saw you, and when I shook hands with you it seemed to me if I were just as good as you I could go ahead and discharge what I think is my duty.
You remember when you started up in the stand you asked if there were any of us that exercised in public. You did not know how badly I wanted to take a part with you, but that same something seemed to say, “You will insult your brethren if you do,” so I just remained where I was. When you prayed I thought that was the best prayer I ever heard, and I think so yet. You remember you took your text from Isa. 54:9, which reads, “For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.” I thought while you were preaching that if the Spirit of God did not have anything to do with that sermon I was badly fooled, and, when I got your debate and read it I knew that you could not defend the gospel that way if you were not instructed from on high.
So that is the reason I thought I would ask you if I have experienced a call to the ministry. I ask the prayers of all God’s little children.
A. T. Weatherwood.
Mt. Vernon, Ill.
REMARKS
We would humbly admonish you, dear brother, to endeavor to walk in obedience to your dear Saviour, as you feel impressed. If the Lord requires a work at your hands, no matter how weak you may feel, no one else can do that work for you. The apostle tells us that “Ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called,” etc. He also tells us something of his own feelings: “Unto me who am less than the least of all saints is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.”
Dear brother, we are just a poor sinner. We humbly hope we are a saved sinner—saved alone by the grace of God. We are no better by nature than others. “I myself also am a man.” We are very imperfect, and humbly beg our dear brethren to bear with us and allow us to have an humble place with them while we live on earth. We love them, and we love the doctrine and principles that are so dear to them, and we feel that we are willing to bear all the reproaches of this world in defending those principles, and we want to live and die with the people who love and advocate them.
C. H. C.
[pg 385]
AUTHORITY TO ORDAIN
November 15, 1910
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother in Christ— I have been thinking of joining the old Primitive Baptist Church. I have been trying to preach the gospel of Christ for twenty-five years. I was ordained by Missionary Baptists. Now, the brethren don’t want me unless I would let them ordain me again. Now, tell me why they want to do this. Did not our authority as ordained ministers come from the same fountain, the old German and Scotch and English Baptists? Is not my authority just as good as the Primitive? I don’t believe in the mission system, only as it is laid down in the word of God. Please give me your views on the question.
Yours in Christ, D. C. Bishop
Randle, Wash.
REMARKS
Some years ago the Baptists were one family. New doctrines and new practices were introduced among them, which (new doctrines and practices) finally caused division. We judge that as Brother Bishop expresses a
desire to join the Primitive Baptists, he thinks they are holding to the original doctrine and practice of the Baptists. It is a historical fact that the Missionaries do have the new doctrines and practices among them that caused the division in the Baptist family. It is, therefore, true that they have departed from the original Baptist doctrine and practice. If the fact that they were once with us gives them the authority to administer the ordinances, it would also give the Roman Catholics the same authority. They split off from the Baptists in about the third century. But the fact that the Baptists and Catholics were once together does not prove that the Catholics have a gospel right to administer the ordinances. They have no such right, because they have departed from the true doctrine and practice of Christ and the apostles. For the same reason the Missionary Baptists have no gospel right to administer the ordinances.
If your authority, Brother Bishop, which was given you by the people you are now with, is as good as the Primitive, there can be no good reason why you should leave them and join the Primitives. They have no gospel authority to administer the ordinances because they have departed from the original practice of the gospel.
The ordinances can be administered by those, only, who are authorized by the church to administer them. The Missionary Baptists are not authorized to administer the ordinances for the Primitive Baptists. If the Primitive Baptist Church is the church of Christ, then Missionary Baptists have no authority to administer the ordinances for the church of Christ. An ordinance is not valid unless it is administered by the proper authority. Hence an [pg 386] ordinance of the gospel is not valid when administered by the Missionary Baptists.
We have written on this question before, and haven’t time to write at more length on it now. But these reasons, if there were no more, are sufficient. May the Lord bless these thoughts to the benefit of our readers, is our prayer.
C. H. C.
1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11
November 15, 1910
W. F. Haley, of Eastman, Miss., requests our views of this text. The apostle shows that certain characters shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Then he tells the Corinthians that they were once in the same condition of these characters. “Such were some of you.” But the Lord bad cleansed them by His Spirit and had brought them out of their former condition. It was not done because of their good works, because they had not been doing good works. But since the Lord has washed them and cleansed them by His Spirit they are capacitated to do good works. C. H. C.
EZEKIEL 16:24-55
November 22, 1910
Brother T. W. Osborne, of Blackford, Va., requests our views on this Scripture. Israel had been guilty of lewdness, and the chastening rod of the Lord was to fall heavily upon them on account of their wrong doing. He was going to punish them for their wickedness, yet He would not forget His promise or covenant. The Lord’s people of this day commit the same abominations by uniting and affiliating with the institutions of men. The Lord will punish them for it, but He will not forsake them in the end. He will not forget nor forsake His promise or covenant.
C. H. C.
SOME QUESTIONS
November 22, 1910
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— There are about one thousand and one questions I would like to ask on points of Scripture for my own satisfaction,
not for controversy, but that I may learn the truth, and believing you competent to enlighten me on these hard points, I will trouble you with a few of the said questions.
1. Is there proof in the Bible that man was created an immortal being? If so, why does Paul say that this mortal shall put on immortality? Webster says the soul is immortal— it will [pg 387] never die, and it seems to be the popular belief that man is immortal; then if we already have immortality, why does Paul say that we will put it on at the resurrection?
2. What is meant by the meek inheriting the earth?
3. What is meant by the second coming of Christ? Do you understand that He will come in person in the like manner in which He left, in a bodily shape, or do the Scriptures mean that He comes only in Spirit?
4. What do you understand is meant by the 1000 years that Satan is to be bound, or so-called millennial?
Please answer as much in detail as space will permit, and oblige, one of the unlearned,
H. D. Leonard
Albertville, Ala.
OUR ANSWER
We are not a standard, and do not wish the brethren to consider us as such. We haven’t time nor space to go into detail in answering the foregoing questions. But we will give a brief answer by number.
First. The Scriptures teach that man was made in the likeness and in the image of God. God is represented as having a body, head, ears, nose, mouth, hands, arms, feet, and so on. Man, in this respect, is in the likeness of God. There are three persons in the God-head— the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Hence God is one composed of three. So man is one composed of three— the soul, body and spirit. Thus man is in the image of God. The body is mortal; it decays and returns to dust at death. It was the body Paul was talking about when he said this mortal must put on immortality. He was not talking about the spirit or the soul. The word immortal has more than one meaning. One meaning is, always living and never dying. Another is, always existing. The soul or spirit never ceases to exist. It may be always dying, yet never dead, or never ceasing to exist. The soul or spirit of the child of God is always living and never dying.
2. Those persons who manifest the spirit of meekness shall inherit blessings here on earth.
3. The Saviour comes now in the person of the Holy Spirit, but the promise of God is that He is coming again in person. He is coming to gather His children home. He is coming just as He went away. The statement of the angel was that He should “come again in like manner as ye see Him go away. The same Jesus who was here and suffered for our sins and who died, was buried, rose again and ascended to His Father, will come again.
4. The so-called millennial reign of Christ, as taught by the Russellites or Millennial dawn people, is a religious humbug. It is an invention of man. Jesse Cox, in his “Exposition of the Revelation,” we think, gives a good exposition of this matter. C. H. C.
[pg 388]
WHEAT AND TARES
December 6, 1910
Brother H. E. Rouw, of Holdenville, Okla., requests our views of the parable of the wheat and the tares. We will give only a brief reply. The parable refers to the closing out of the law dispensation and the ushering in of the gospel dispensation. The wheat was gathered together in the gospel kingdom in gospel worship and service. The tares were not admitted in the gospel worship and service. The law service and worship was then done away. It was destroyed. C. H. C.
REMARKS TO C. B. OWEN
December 13, 1910
Dear brother, you cannot excuse yourself for your failure to obey the Lord with the idea that the right time has not come. God always does His work at the right time, hence Jesus was born into the world at the right time; but we do not always do our work at the right time. If it is your duty to unite with the church, but the right time has not come for you to do so, why would the Lord chastise you for not doing so? “Now is the accepted time,” says the apostle. The right time to do our duty is now. C. H. C.
END OF VOLUME ONE
INDEX
Note: The page numbers in this index correspond to the bolded and bracketed numbers such as [pg 182] in the body of the text. They do not correspond to the numbers at the bottom of the page.
Absolute Predestination of All Things— Beebe the Author, 17
Absoluter’s Inconsistency, 18
Accusation Answered (W. A. Gaugh), 277 A Challenge—Elder J. C. Sykes, 351
A Challenge—To Absoiuters, 351 Acknowledgment by Elder W. R. Vickers, 68
Acts viii. 16, 17, 245
Acts xix. 1-8, 295
Acts xiii. 3—The Word They, 70
Acts xiii. 2—Barnabas and Saul, 381
Acts xxvi. 18 and 20, 108
Acts ixii. 16, 241
Acts ii. 39 and Ephesians ii. 10, 344
Adam a Figure of Christ, 150
Adam’s Transgression—Did it Cause Eternal Condemnation? 172
Adam—What He Lost, 342
Adultery and Fornication, 177
Adultery—Disorder, 204
Advertisements Complained of, 330
“Afflictions, Though They Seem Severe,” 225
After a Following—Kirkland, 59
Aid to the Ministry, 297
Alabama, In, 331
America, First Baptist Church in, 335
American Girl in East Means Bad Woman, 365
American Missions—Carey the Father, 154
Annihilation of the Wicked, 257, 259
Another New Scheme Among Missionaries, 157
Another One (A. M. Kirkland) Gone Home, 192
Appointment at Memphis Not Published, 11
Arminians in a Dilemma, 211
Article of Faith Number Eleven, 244
Assassination of Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley, 19, 20
Associations, 66
Associations Endorsed Dropping Kirklands from the Union, 27
Atonement and Election, 325
Atonement Applied to Infants and Insane, 325
Atonement, Universal or Restricted? 232
Authority to Ordain, 385
Away from Home, 280
Backed Down, 247
Backsliding Israel (W. C. Moore), 319
Baptism by Others Not Accepted, 352
Baptism, Valid, 212
Baptist and Reflector Asks Questions About R. S. Kirkland, 115
Baptist Builder Not Surprised, 317
Baptist Flag on Cayce-Tucker Debate, 23
Baptists—First Church in America, 335
Baptists in Georgia, 55
Baptiied by the Missionaries (Kirkland and Pettus), 189
Baptized Into Christ—Galatians iii. 27, 81
Barry, Richard, on Missions, 369
Bars to Fellowship, 58
Basis of Agreement, That, with Kirklands, 84
Basis of Agreement with Kirklands, 74
Began Twenty Years Ago, 118
Begging Money to Buy Little Negroes, 356
Begging Money to Educate the Japs, 382
Beginning of American Missions, 155
Believe Before Calling on the Lord, 207
Berry, E. J., on Sikes’ Challenge, 377
Biggs, J. C, Remarks to, 321
Blackburn, Rev. Asa, Says Girls Ruined by Chinese, 373
Black Rock, 155
Black Rock Address, on the Commission, 51
Boards Control the Churches, 262
Boaz Swore What They Believed, 265
Born of Water, 343
Born of Water—John iii. 5, 250
Brother Sidwell’s Letter, 56
Broughton, Len, Will not Debate, 346
Brown, A. J., in Korea, 371
Calvinism, 285
Calvin, John, Founder Presbyterians, 335
Campbellite Defeated, 16
Campbell’s Church Organized 1811, 15
Can a Gentile be Saved if Unconditional, 209
Can an Alien Resist the Holy Ghost? 326
Candle Under a Bushel, 169
Card Playing and Dram Drinking, 336
Carey the Father of American Missions, 154
Carnell, Elder W. I., on Our Challenge, 364
Cause Defended—Statement by J. V. Kirkland, 105
Cayce Annoying Penick, 171
Cayce, Elder S. F., Dead, 24
Cayce, Elder S. F., Statement Regarding Kirkland’s Condensed History, 143
Cayce is Willing (to Debate), 165
Cayce-Penick Debate in Martin, 173
Cayce-Tucker (Baptist Flag), 23
Challenge—Carnell, W. I., 364
Changed, What Is, 343
Children of God Before They Repent? 232
Christ and Belial, 179
Christ Did Not Die to Save All the Race, 199
Christ Did What He Came to Do, 199
Christians, Only One Way to Make, 202
Christ Our Surety, 186
Christ, Was Born, When? 164
Church at Jerusalem Did Not Contribute for Heathen, 365
Churches Charging Other Churches, 205
Churches Controlled by the Boards, 262
Churches, Organs in. Should be Dropped, 316
Church Members and Saloons, 184
Church Meetings—Keep a Record, 173
City Set on a Hill, 169
Clark, John, First Church in America, 69
Clark, John, Founder First Baptist Church in America, 335
Clark, Miss Helen, Testifies, 373
Clifton, W. B., on Court Decision at Luray, Va., 334
Clifton, W. B., Reply to, on Ministerial Aid, 354
Close of Volume Twenty, 47
Close of Volume Twenty-four, 326
Close of Volume Twenty-one, 145
Close of Volume Twenty-three, 272
Close of Volume Twenty-two, 218
Cole, M. C, Reply to, 198
Colley, A. O., Asks Who Will Debate for the Primitive Baptists, 332
Colley, A. O., Refused to do What He Said, 333
Colored Brethren, Our, 114
Commission Given to the Apostles, 198
Commission Not Given to the Church, 31
Commission Not Given to the Church—Hassel, 64
Conditions Sad (Elder H. W. Newton), 310
Conduct of Deacons, 285
Consistency, Oh, 18
Contradictions in Moore’s Answers to a “Hardshell,” 9
Converts Cost Less in Tennessee than in Oklahoma, 257
Converts for Nine Dollars, 257
Cotten, T. H., Reply to, on Feet Washing, 289
Court Decision, That, at Luray, Va., 334
Craig, W. D., Debate with, 15
Cron, J. E., Remarks to, 29
Cross, W. M., Questions from, 232
Crouse’s Letter, Elder, Concerning Elder Kirkland, 103
Cut Them Off (Matthew xviii. 8-14). 37
Daughters of Men (Genesis vi. 1-4), 203
Day of God’s Power, 20
Deacons, How They Should Conduct Themselves, 285
Death of Christ and Atonement, 232
Debate at Perkins with W. D. Craig, a Campbellite, 15
Debate, Cayce-Tucker, 23
Debate in Martin (Cayce-Penick), 173
Debate, Len Broughton Will Not, 346
Debate on Missions—Baptist Builder, 349, 355
Debate on Missions—Remarks to L N. Penick, 354
Debate Wanted, by a Missionary Church, 172
Debate Wanted, by I. N. Penick, 149
Debate, Who Will, for the Primitive Baptists? —Asked by A. O. Colley, 332
Debate with A. Malone, 44
Debate (with E. M. Borden) and Meeting at Buffalo, 117
Debts Unpaid—Disorder, 204
Dedication, 3
Definition of the Word Predestination, 335
Denied the Bible, but Got His Papers, 302
Deuteronomy vi. 6, 7, 271
Did Christ Die for Only Those Saved? 232
Did God Ordain that Adam Should Eat the Forbidden Fruit? 232
Did God Put Adam in the Garden to Keep the Law? 321
Disobedience, Some Die in, 216
Dispensaries in Foreign Fields, 382
Does God Do All His Pleasure? 9
Does God Will the Eternal Salvation of all Mankind? 9
Does He Want Peace (J. V. Kirkland)? 74
Dog and Sow, 261
Do the Children of the Devil Sin? 172
Double Minded Man, A (James i. 8), 270
Dram Drinking and Card Playing, 336
Eating Meat, 222
Eaton, Dr., Disappointed, 231
Educated African Turned to Heathenism, 38
Educate the Japs, 382
Elder Hassell Again, on the Commission, 64
Elder Mayo Joined the Missionaries, 236
Elder Sikes Did Challenge, 376
Election and Atonement, 325
Election, Does it Precede Faith? 325
Elect, the Very, 293
Eleventh Article of Faith, 244
Elledge, W. I., A Wrong Impression, 345
Encouragement from J. D. Huffman, 221
Enter Into Rest (Hebrews iii. and iv.), 158
Ephesians iv. II, 381
Ephesians iv. 17-19, 326
Ephesians ii. 10 and Acts ii. 39, 344
Eternal Justification, 232
Eternal Life Without Written or Preached Word, 199
Explanation by Kirkland Does Not Explain, 142
Explanation Wanted, 151
Ezekiel xvi. 24-55, 386
Fairchild, Elder J. W. 361
Fairchild Peace Proposition, 264
Fallen From Grace (Galatians v. 4), 212
Fashion—Predestination of All Things, 17
Feet Washing at Hollow Rock, 185
Feet Washing Not a Test. 278
Feet Washing—Reply to T. H. Gotten, 289
Fellowship. No, 268
Ferguson, V. P., Remarks to, 201
First Cause Again—Mrs. Georgia Townsend, 321
First Cause, God the (J. W. Fairchild), 314
First Church and Association, 69
First Corinthians viii. 8-13, 222
First Corinthians xiv. 34, 35 and Philippians iv. 2, 249
First Corinthians ix. 7-15 (Carnal Thtnga), 375
First Corinthians ix. 13, 14; Luke x. 7; Matthew I. 10, 297
First Corinthians vi. 9-11, 386
First Corinthians xvi. 2, 341
First Corinthians iii. 14, 15. 128
First John v. 16, 223
First John v. 16 and James v. 19, 20, 247
First Peter iv. 18, 166
First Peter iv. 17. 18, 318
First Peter iii. 18-2], 121
First Peter iii. 19 (Spirits in Prison), 284
First Peter ii. 13, 262
First Resurrection and Sin Unto Death, 223
First Samuel xii. 9, 341
First Timothy iii. 7 and Second Timothy iii. 12, 181
Fitzpatrick, S. N., Report of Paine-Oakley Debate. 351 .
Flee From the Wrath to Come (W. C. Moore), 319
Fleshly Ties Done Away, 197
Flint River Association (Ala.) Split on Missions, 156
Florida, Now in, 282
Florida, Still in, 287
Fool, The—Did He Say All in Psalm xiv.? 325
Football and Missions, 216
Footprints, The, 361
Foreign Missions Again—Clifton, W. B., 379
Fornication and Adultery, 177
For Whom is the Gospel? 161
Free Doctors and Medicines in Foreign Fields, 382
Fuller and Carey Departure, 154
Galatians v. 4 (Fallen from Grace), 212
Galatians iii. 17, 175
Galatians iii. 27 (Baptized into Christ), 81
Galatians ii. 9, W. B. Clifton Uses, 365
Gaugh, W. A., Not Sincere, 277
Genesis vi. 1-4, 203
Genesis iii. 22-24, 269
Georgia, Home from, 63
Georgia, Still in, 280
Gifts in the Ministry, 380
Gill and Brine, 153
Gill on the Commission, 156
Gives it Up—W. H. Nosier, 340
God Repented (Jonah iii. 12), 195
God’s Purpose in Creating the Goats (W. C. Moore), 319
God the First Cause (J. W. Fairchild), 314
God Works All Things, 337
Going Too Fast—Missionaries, 22
Good Report of Them Without, 181
Gospel for Children of God, 198
Gospel for the Child of God, 161
Gospel Hid to Them that Are Lost, 260
Gospel is Not for the Regeneration of Sinners, 151
Gospel Not for the Unregenerate, 94
Gospel Not Given to Impart Life, 199
Gospel the Power of God, 94
Got His Papers, Yet Denied the Bible, 302
Great Investment, The, 293
Greenfield-Philesic Association, 204
Hall, J. N., and Kirkland, 61
“Hardshells” Back to the Missionaries, 24
Hardy, Elder J. B., with Elder Fairchild, 361
Has Changed (R. S. Kirkland), 171
Hassel, Elder. Again, on the Commission, 64
Have Been Baptized—R. S. Kirkland and H. E. Pettus, 189
Have Primitive Baptists any Written Creed? 159
Heathen Question, The, 356
Hebrews vii. 1-4, 283
Hebrews vi. 4, 5. 6, 137
Hebrews iii. and iv., 158
Hebrews ii. 9; John iii. 16, 17; Romans ix. 15-25, 239
Hebrews ii. 2, 3, 252
He Will Not Debate—Who Will (Len Broughton)? 346
High and Low Seats, 339
High-minded Bosses, by Elder Fairchild, 361
Hireling and Wolf (John z. 12), 63
Historian, Wonderful, 253
History Repeats Itself, 153
Holy Ghost, Can An Alien Sinner Resist the? 326
Home from Georgia, 63
Hopper, Elder D.—Spirits in Prison, 305
Horner, R. F., Questions by, 324
Horseleach Daughters, 355
Hospitals in Foreign Fields, 382
How Can the Dead Perish? 151
How Glaring!—Contradictions by Wm. R. Welborn, 13
How Many Are There (Primitive Baptists)? 294
How Much God Reveals to His Children, 19
Illegitimate Softsbell, 356
“I Love Thy Church, O God,” 327
Impression, A Wrong—W. I. Elledge, 345
In Alabama, 331
Inconsistent Teaching in Signs of the Times, 18
Indiana and Ohio, Tour in, 183
In East and Middle Tennessee, 200
Infant Cannot Be Saved by Means of the Gospel, 193
Infant Salvation. 268
Infants and Insane, How Does Atonement Apply to? 325
Infants. What Becomes of, if Not Elect? 209
Information Wanted, 149
Information Wanted, Again, 150
Information Wanted, C. S. Gregory, in Flag, 255
Information Wanted, Penick Again, 166
In Indiana (White Water Association Came Together), 304
In Missouri, 307
Instrumental Music, by Lipscomb, 237
In the Days of Noah (Matthew xxiv. 37), 328
Introduction to Volume Twenty-four, 274
Introduction to Volume Twenty-one, 49
Introduction to Volume Twenty-three, 219
Introductory to Volume Twenty five, 329
Introductory to Volume Twenty-two, 147
Investment, The Great, 293
Isaiah xiv. 12, 197
Is Faith the Act of Man or the Gift of God? 159
Is It Annoying? 171
Is It True?—Something New, 262
Is Man Responsible for His Salvation? 159
Is Our Faith Wrong? 226
James v. 19, 20 and First John v. 16, 247
James v. 20; Mark ix. 43; Luke xi. 30, 350
James i. 8, A Double Minded Man, 270
Japanese Not Christians, 371
Jeremiah ixiii. 19, 20 (Reaping Whirlwind), 348
Jerusalem, Killing and Stoning the Prophets, 41
Jesus, Suited to All Our Needs, 100, 101
Jesus, the True Shepherd—John x. 12, Again, 72
John viii. 31 and 47. 144
John xi. 39—Lazarus, 78
John Exiled, 343
John xiv. 2, 317
John x. 12 Again, 71
John x. 12—Wolf and Hireling, 63
John iii. 5, 250
John iii. 16, 17; Hebrews ii. 9; Romans ix. 15-25, 239
Jonah iii. 9, 10, 297
Jonah iii. 12, 195
Keep a Record, 173
Keys of the Kingdom, 378
Kind Words from Elder J. G. Webb, 237
Kirkland After a Following, 59
Kirkland, A. M., Gone Home, 192
Kirkland Departed on the Commission, 31
Kirkland Forcing His Views, 66
Kirkland, J. V., at Soldier Creek, 61
Kirkland, J. V., “Do Not Know Where Church Is,” 192
Kirkland Refused to Sign Statement Submitted by Elder Crouse, 105
Kirkland, R. S., and H. E. Pettus Baptized by Missionaries, 189
Kirkland, R.6., Changed, 171
Kirkland’s Departures, Facts Concerning, 57
Kirklands Dropped from the Association, 30
Kirklands Dropped from the Union—Endorsements, 27
Kirkland’s Remarks to Sister Lovelace, 76
Kirkland Willing to Fellowship Missionaries, 104
Know as We Ate Known, 197
Kuykendall, J. H., Questions from and to, 209
Ladies’ Aid Society, 189
Latter Class of “baptists (?)” Gone to the Missionaries, 145
Lawler, B. B., on Sikes’ Challenge, 376
Law, The, Satisfied, 172
Lay By in Store (First Corinthians xvi. 2), 341
Lazarus Raised (John xi. 39), 78
Leonard, J. F., Remarks to, 90
Letter to Elder Kirkland, Serving Notice Agreement Violated, 77
Let Your Light so Shine, 170
Leviticus xvi., the Scapegoat, 271
Liars Not All Dead, 185
Light of the World, 169
Lost Sheep, Parable of, 223
Luke xi. 30; James v. 20; Mark ix. 43, 350
Luke XV., the Parables, 223
Luke XV. 8, 344
Luke XV., the Prodigal Son, 102
Luke xiv. 16-24; Matthew xxii. 1-10, 380
Luke xix. 10, 295
Luke xvi. 1-9, Mammon of Unrighteousness, 127
Luke xvi. 21 (Rich Man and Lazarus), 298
Luke x. 7; First Corinthians ix. 13, 14; Matthew X. 10, 297
Luke xiii. 6-9 (Tower in Siloam), 375
Luke xiii. 34 (Killing and Stoning the Prophets), 41
Luray, Va., That Court Decision, 334
Making a Brother to Offend, 222
Making Money Not the Object of The Primitive Baptist, 221
Malone, A., Debate with, 44
Mammon of Unrighteousness (Luke xvi. 1-9). 127
Man an Immortal Being, 386
Manry, Mrs., of Crawfordsville, Ind., 373
Mark ix. 43; James v. 20; Luke xi. 30, 350
Mark vii. 28, 29, 296
Mark iii. 29 (Sin Against the Holy Ghost), 35
Mark ii. 21,22, 181
Masonry Superior to Softshellism, 23
Matthew viii. II, 12, 134
Matthew viii. 22—”Let the Dead Bury Their Dead,” 82
Matthew v. 13-16, 168
Matthew v. 32 (Formcation), 177
Matthew v. 32 (Putting Away Wife), 299
Matthew rix. 8; Romans liii. 1-8, 286
Matthew xviii. 8-14 (Cut Them Off), 37
Matthew x. 10; First Corinthians ii. 13, 14; Luke x. 7, 297
Matthew xiii. 4-8 (Tbe Sower), 130
Matthew xiii. 24-30 (Parable of the Tares), 163
Matthew iii. 11 and xii. 43-45
(Mode of Baptism), 44
Matthew xsiv., 94
Matthew xiiv. 19, 165
Matthew xxiv. 19-22, 347
Matthew xxiv. 24, 293
Matthew lii. 43, 44 (Unclean Spirit Gone Out), 114
Matthew xiv. (Slothful Servant), 248
Matthew xxiv. 37, 328
Matthew sxiii. 37, 191
Matthew ixiii. 37 (Killing and Stoning the Prophets), 41
Matthew xxii. 1-10 and Luke liv. 16-24, 380
Mayo, Elder G. T., Joined the Missionaries, 236
Meaning of the Word Predestination, 335
Means, With or Without, 193
Meek Inherit the Earth, 386
Meeting at Mt. Tabor, 21
Meeting at Raulston (Ordination of C. H. C), 7
Melchisedec (Hebrews vii. 1-4), 283
Memphis, Appointment at. Not Published, 11
Mill Creek Then and Now, 298
Millennial Reign of Christ, 386
Ministerial Aid (Reply to W. B. Clifton), 354
Ministers May be Neglected, 56
Ministry, Aid to the, 297
Misrepresentation, No (Answer to C. M. Weaver), 263
Missionaries Going too Fast, 22
Missionaries Seventy Years Old, 22
Missionary Baptist Backed Down, 247
Missions a Failure (Wilberforce), 202
Missions Again (Clifton and Reply), 365
Missions and Football, 216
Missions and Methods, 315
Missouri, In, 307
Mode of Baptism (Matthew iii. 11 and xii. 43-45), 44
Moore, T. F., Answers Questions by a “Hardshell,” 9
Moore, W. C, Questions from, 319
Mormon, Debate with, at McKenzie, Ala,, 331
My Impressions (A. T. Weatherford), 383
Names Written from the Foundation of the World, 162
Nashville American, 374
Natural Child, a Child of its Patents, 199
New Wine in Old Bottles, 181
Noah, In the Days of (Matthew xxiv. 37), 328
No Fellowship, 268
No Misrepresentation (Answer to C. M. Weaver), 263
No Non-fellowship, 279
Nosier, W. H., Gives it Up, 340
Nosier, W. H. (Predestination Again), 337
Not Surprised (Baptist Builder), 317
Now in Florida, 282
Objections to Sunday School Affiliation, 73
Occupying Same Ground, 24
Of the World (Missionary Baptists). 117
Ohio and Indiana, Tour in, 183
Oldest Church in United States, 69
One Dollar in Twelve Gets to Heathen, 372
One Way of Giving Life, 194
One Way, Only, to Make Christians, 202
Only One Salvation (Wm. R. Welborn). 13
Operations of Foreign Missions, 382
Orderly Baptism, 294
Ordination of C. H. Cayce, 7
Organs in Churches (Should be Dropped), 316
Organs, Remarks on, to Elder A. B. Whatley, 301
Our Association Dropped the Kirklands, 30
Our Challenge—Sikes and Carnell, 379
Our Claim Admitted by “The Methodist,”‘ 202
Our Faith—Is it Wrong? 226
Out Father is Dead, 24
Our Trip in August (Tenn., Ohio, Ind.), 276
Our Trip West (Okla., Texas and Ark.). 275
Our Work Endorsed (Kirklands Dropped from the Union), 27
Paine-Oakley Debate, 351
Papers, Got His, But Denied the Bible, 302
Parable of tbe Lost Sheep, 223
Parable of the Sower (Matthew xiii. 4-8), 130
Parable of the Tares, 163
Paul Not Sent by a Board, 365
Paul’s Field of Labor Assigned by the Lord, 365
Peace Agreement with the Kirklands, Why We Signed it, 10+
Peace Proposition, Fairchild, 264
Pearson’s Magazine, Quotations from, 369
Penick Wants a Debate, 149
Peter a “Hardshell,” by C. H. Bell, 91
Pettus, H. E., and R. S. Kirkland Baptised by the Missionaries, 189
Philadelphia Association, 69
Philippians iv. 3, 187
Philippians iv. 2 and First Corinthians xiv. 34, 35, 249
Potter, Elder Lemuel, on the Commission, 31
Pray for Laborers, 254
Preachers Sent, 208
Predestioarian Baptist (Absoluters). 257
Predestination Again (W. H. Nosier), 337
Predestination, Meaning of the Word, 335
Predestination of All Things—Gives it Up, 340
Preface, 5
Presbyterian Church Founded by Calvin, 335
Primitive Again (Mississippi Baptist), 235
Primitive Baptists Founded, 253
Primitive Baptists, How Many? 294
Primitive Baptists Opposed to Education (G. H. Bell), 91
Primitive Baptists, Who Will Debate for the? 332
Primitive (From Mississippi Baptist), 213
Prodigal Son (Luke xv.), 102
Prodigal Son, The, 223
Provision Made for the Lost? 233
Psalm xiv., 325
Purify Your Hearts and Souls, SO
Questions Asked T. F. Moore by “A Hardshell,” 9
Questions by a Presbyterian, 159
Questions (by C. W. Lyens) and Answers, 284
Questions by D. C. Wacaser, 317
Questions by R. F. Horner, 324
Questions from and to J. H. Kuykendall, 209
Questions from W. C. Moore, 319
Questions from W. M. Cross, 232
Questions of Order, by M. L. Barrett, 204
Quickening and Giving Life Same Thing, 198
Ralston, Meeting at—Ordination of C. H. C., 7
Reaping the Whirlwind (Jeremiah xxiii. 19,
20), 348
Record It—Should be Full and Complete, 349
Refused to Do What He Said (A. O. Colley), 333
Regeneration Before Hearing the Preacher, 206
Religious Papers, 67
Remarks to A. T. Weatherford, 383
Remarks to C. B. Owen, 388
Remarks to Elder A. B, Whatley on Organs, 301
Remarks to J. C. Biggs, 321
Remarks to J. E. Cron, 29
Remarks to J. F. Leonard, 90
Remarks to J. H. Hall, 186
Remarks to V. P. Ferguson, 201
Reply to M. C. Cole, 198
Reply to T. H. Gotten (Feet Washing), 289
Reply to W. B. Clifton on Ministerial Aid, 354
Report of Tennessee Baptist Convention on Foreign Missions, 382
Resisting the Holy Ghost, 326
Responsibility of Man, 232
Revelation i. 9 (John Exiled), 343
Revelation xx. (First Resurrection), 223
Revelation xxii. 18, 19, 261
Reward in the Service of God (First Cor. iii. 14, 15), 128
Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke xvi. 21), 298
Righteous Scarcely Saved, 166, 318
“Roll Ye Away the Stone” (John xi. 39), 78
Romans viii. 1, 262
Romans viii. 9, 10, 174
Romans v. 14, 150
Romans ix. 15-25; John iii. 16, 17; Hebrews ii. 9, 239
Romans vii. 24 , 25, 242
Romans vi. 23, 295
Romans x. 17, 216
Romans x. 13-15, 206
Romans ii. 6-8, 296
Rusher, Daisy—Questions on Acts xiii. 3, 70
Sad Conditions (Elder H. W. Newton), 310
Salary of Foreign Missionaries, 372
Saloons and Church Members, 184
Salt of the Earth, 168
Salvation Before Faith, 125
Salvation, if Unconditional, Why Did Christ Come to Call? 209
Salvation, is it Conditional or Unconditional? 209
Salvation Neglected (Hebrews ii. 2, 3), 252
Scapegoat, The, 271
Scriptural Right to Marry Again, 177
Scripture the Only Rule, 226
Seats, High and Low, 339
Second Coming of Christ, 386
Second Corinthians iv. 6, 285
Second Corinthians iv. 3, 260
Second Corinthians vi. 15, 179
Second Corinthians xii, 324
Second Corinthians tii. 2-5 (Visions), 348
Second Peter ii. 18-21, 284
Second Peter ii. 22, 261
Second Peter ii. 2, 248
Second Timothy iii. 12 and First Timothy ii. 7, 181
Secret Orders Not the Only Cause of Trouble, 69
Selah and Luke xvi. 1-9, 127
Serve God Out of the Church, 317
Service of God Should be First, 83
Shares in the King’s Business, 293
Sidwell, Brother—His Letter, 56
Siegel, Elsie, Missionary, Murdered in Chinatown, 373
Signs of the Times, Inconsistency in, 18
Sin Against the Holy Ghost (Mark iii. 29), 39
Sin Unto Death, 247
Sin Unto Death and First Resurrection, 223
Slothful Servant, The, 248
Some Die in Disobedience, 216
Some Plain Facts About J. V. Kirkland, 57
Some Questions by Frank Harder, 172
Some Questions by H. D. Leonard, 386
Soul, The. After Death. 270
Spirits in Prison (D. Hopper), 305
Spirituality of the Gospel, 94
Srygley, F. B., Debate with. Then to Georgia, 280
Standard of Truth (or Untruth), Wm. R. Welborn, Editor, 13
Stars in the Crown—Baptist and Reflector, 116
Statement Changed by Elder Kirkland, 106
Still in Florida, 287
Still in Georgia, 280
Sunday School Affiliation, 73
Sunday School Instituted by Robert Raikes, 73
Sunday Schools, Objections to, 201
Sykes, J. C, Denies Making Challenge, 357
Sykes. J. C, Did Challenge, 376
Tennessee, In Middle and East, 200
That Basis of Agreement, With Kirklands, 84
That Challenge, J. C. Sykes Denies Making. 357
That Court Decision, Luray, Va., 334
That Debate on Missions, 363
Things Causing the Trouble, 69
Titus iii. 3-5, 303
Tour in Indiana and Ohio, 183
Tour in Missouri, 11
Tour in Ohio and Indiana, 119
Tower in Siloam (Luke xiii. 6-9), 375
Towry, A. N., on Sykes’ Challenge, 378
Trip in August, Our (Tenn., O.. Ind.), 276
Trip West, Our (Okla.. Texas, Ark.), 275
Trouble Caused by New Things, 67
Trundle Bed for Claud Cayce, 24
Turned to Heathenism (Wilbcrforce), 38
Twin Brothers, 356
Two Salvations (Wm. R. Welborn), 13
Unclean Spirit Gone Out (Matthew xii. 43, 44), 114
Union Meeting in Forked Deer, 60
Unregenerate Cannot Eat Spiritual Food, 198
Unregenerate Sinner is Dead, 198
Valid Baptism, 53,212
Variety of Baptists, 145
Very Elect, The. 293
Vickers, Elder W. R., Acknowledgment, 68
Views Given, Several Passages, 295
Volume Twenty. Close of, 47
Volume Twenty.five, Introductory to, 329
Volume Twenty-four, Close of, 326
Volume Twenty-four, Introduction to, 274
Volume Twenty-one, Close of, 145
Volume Twenty-one, Introduction to, 49
Volume Twenty-three, Close of, 272
Volume Twcnty-three, Introduction to, 219
Volume Twenty-two, Close of, 218
Volume Twenty-two, Introductory to, 147
Wakefield. Dr. Paul, Testifies. 373
Wallace’s Letter. Elder, 65
Watertown Debate (Paine-Oakley), 351
Watson. Thomas, in Foreign Missions Exposed, 374
Watson, Tom, a Missionary, 365
Webb, Elder J. G., Kind Words from, 237
We Could Not Satisfy the Law, But Jesus Could, 100
Welborn, Wm. R., Contradictions, 13
Welch Tract Church, 69 What Adam Lost, 342
What are Children of God Before Regeneration? 172
What Arminians Preach, 23
What Board Sent Paul to Rome? 235
What Does He Believe (R. S. Kirkland)? 115
What Does the Word Selah Mean? 137
What Do They Think? 231
What is Baptistic is Scriptural, 68
What is Changed? 343
Whatley, Elder A. B., Remarks to, on Organs, 301
Wheat and Tares, 388
When Born of the Spirit, 324
When Was Christ Born? 164
When Were They Written? 162
Which is First, Salvation or Faith? 125
White Water Association Came Together, 304
Who Are the Primitive Baptists (C. H. Bell in Baptist Builder)? 91
Who Are the Primitive Baptists (Quotations from Potter-Throgmorton Debate)? 31
Who Is Right (Baptist Builder)? 279
Whom Did John Baptise? 184
Who Will Debate for the Primitive Baptists (A. O. Colley)? 332
Why Did Not Christ Die for All (W. C Moore)? 319
Why Not Mercy For All (W. C. Moore)? 319
Why We Baptise Them, 53
Wilberforce, Daniel, Turned to Heathenism, 38
Will All Mankind be Saved Eternally? 9
Will Not Meet the Issue on Missions. 363
With or Without Means. 193
Wolf and Hireling (John x. 12). 63
Woman’s Missionary Advocate, 365
Women Helpers, 187
Women Preachers, 176
Women Preachers (First Cor. xiv. 34, 35 and Phil. iv. 2), 249
Wonderful Historian, 253
Word Made Flesh, 99
Work of Foreign Missions. 382
World Coming to the Missionary Baptists. 117
Wrong Impression, A, 141
Wrong Impression, A (W. I. Elledge), 345
Zechariah iv. 14 (Two Anointed Ones), 286