EDITORIAL WRITINGS
FROM
THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST
Beginning with 1922
By Elder C. H. Cayce
Volume 4
Elder Harold Hunt
P O Box 5356
Maryville TN 37802
TO
My Beloved Wife
who has untiringly labored with me and for me
during these many years, and
TO
My Sainted Father and Mother
who cared for me when I could not care for myself, and
TO
My Dear Brethren and Sisters
who have been so kind and good to poor me all these years is this and any following volumes
Lovingly Dedicated
PREFACE
We deem it unnecessary to write another preface for this volume. We will, therefore, just copy the same preface we used in Volume III, and give it the present date, on which we are beginning this present volume, Volume IV.
We have received many words of endorsement of the previous volumes. This volume, and the volumes which may follow, if we are permitted to continue the publication of our editorial writings in this form, will show clearly that we are still endeavoring to maintain the same principles upon which we have stood during all these years. They will also show that our people are still standing where they have always stood.
If we know our poor heart our desire in the publication of these volumes is the glory of God and the advancement of His blessed cause, and the benefit of His humble poor. We desire that the Lord’s dear children who are blinded by false teachers may be enabled, by the reading of some of these pages, to see where the true church is, and where the truth may be found. May the blessings of our Lord rest upon the reader, is the humble prayer of
The Author
Thornton, Arkansas,
March 9, 1938
WHERE ARE WE DRIFTING?
January 15, 1922
For sometime we have been wondering and asking the question in our mind, over and over, “Where are we drifting?” It seems that vice and immorality is on the increase everywhere. It is not only in matters of state that we find corruption and immorality, but we find it in the different institutions of the world, as well as in the institutions professing to be the church of God — institutions which profess to stand for morality as well as Christian advancement. Not only are such things to be found in all these places, but we find it in the church of Christ— the Old Baptist Church. It is deplorable that vice and immorality is practiced by those holding membership in the church of God, but it is true— and what is worse, it is sometimes “winked at,” and the guilty parties retained in the church. Lying, stealing, forgery, adultery, false swearing, truce breaking, and other like crimes are gross sins, and those who are guilty have no place in the church of God. Surely the time foretold by the Apostle Paul is now upon us: “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”— 2 Tim. 3:1-5. Without us naming the instances of guilt of some of the things here enumerated, we are sure that many of our readers can call [pg 8] to mind some guilty party, and yet we find such retained in the church sometimes. Any church that will retain such in her borders is not worthy of the name church. These things and other such crimes are open and plain violations of the moral law, and of the command of our God, and are not to be tolerated in the church for a moment. Persons who are guilty of such things should be excluded from the membership of the church at the very first conference after the evidence is produced. If the church refuses to hear the evidence, she is no better than the guilty party she thus protects. She is in open rebellion against the King, the only Lawgiver in Zion. She is party to the crime. The party who helps to conceal a crime is guilty, as well as the party who commits the crime.
The church is no reformatory. If people are guilty of immoral and wicked practices who are members of the church, they should be excluded, and let them reform on the outside of the church; and not let the church bear the reproach of their guilt. The apostle, in the language quoted above, emphatically instructs, “From such turn away.” We have been informed that a certain perjured man has been restored by a certain Old Baptist Church. As for us, we do not propose to fellowship any such. This is plain language, we know; but if there has ever been a time when people need to be plain, it seems to us that it is now. We know that we make mistakes, and that we do wrong; but we do not propose to fellowship such gross immorality in the church of God as some people have been guilty of. The lovers of truth and righteousness need each other; but we do not need immorality in the church. We do not need to retain those in the church who are guilty of any [pg 9] of the things enumerated, as well as some other gross sins that might be mentioned.
One thing that caused the division in the church which gave rise to Romanism was the church having those among them who were guilty of gross immorality. Novatian contended against such being retained in the church. Others advocated the reception and retaining in the church those who were guilty of immoral and wicked practices. This brought about a division or separation. As for us, we prefer another separation rather than fellowshipping such practices. Those who are eligible for membership in the church of God are those who are spoken of as being zealous of good works— not zealous of wicked works. If a man’s life is such as to dishonor the cause, he should not have membership in the church. If he is a member, he should be excluded. If he is not a member he should not be received for membership until he has proven that he has reformed. Reformation should be outside of the church, for as we said before, the church is not a reformatory. We do not mean by this that if a church makes a wrong step she cannot or should not reform. Churches do wrong; they make mistakes. It will be that way as long as the church is composed of imperfect men and women. Of course, if the church is composed of sinless spirits, she would not do anything wrong. But the church is composed of men and women who are imperfect beings, and therefore the church sometimes does wrong. When the church does wrong, she should repent— turn from the wrong— reform, and do that way no more. We should profit by the mistakes we make, by not doing the same thing twice. But when a member commits a gross sin, he should be excluded so that the church does not bear [pg 10] the reproach of his wrong doing. When a member has been thus dealt with, all the members should be submissive to the church. We may have one who is near to us by the ties of nature who has been guilty of some gross wrong, and it may grieve us much; but we should submit to the act of the church. We may believe that the guilty one is a child of God; but we should remember that a child of God can so act as to deprive himself of the privileges of the gospel church. He can so act as that he has no right in the kingdom of God here on earth. “If ye live after the flesh ye shall die.” “There is a sin unto death. I do not say that ye shall pray for it.”
The world is watching the Old Baptist Church, and more is expected of them than is expected of any other people on earth. How necessary that the discipline of the church be administered and strictly attended to. It should be done in love and in the fear of God, without malice or prejudice— but should be attended to regardless of fleshly ties. May the good Lord help us all to attend to the business of His kingdom, and to administer the laws of the same, which He has given, without fear or favor, relying upon Him, and knowing that He will not leave or forsake those who walk as He has commanded. C. H. C.
ONE HUNDRED YEARS OLD
February 1, 1922
The church at Briar Fork, Madison County, Ala., is one hundred years old, and met on Friday before the fourth Sunday in October, 1921, to celebrate their hundredth anniversary. They had preaching by Elders [pg 11] L. M. Walker, S. F. Best, and E. J. Joiner. This church has stood firm through the storms of a century, and are yet standing upon the principles of the old-time doctrine. Elder B. G. Stephens is their faithful and humble pastor. They invite all the brethren of the same faith and order to visit them. They sent us a minute of their conference meeting, but we deem this notice to be of the same interest to our readers, and we gladly give space to tell our brethren of them. C. H. C.
THAT PEACE MOVE
February 1, 1922
On another page of this paper will be found a letter from Brother J. H. Carroll, of Andalusia, Ala., in which he asks us to speak out on the question under consideration. A few issues back we made just a few remarks concerning this matter following a letter from C. C. Little, of Abbott, Ark.
Now, we wish it distinctly understood that we are not opposed to any right and Scriptural method of obtaining peace or a union of the different factions of Primitive Baptists. But we would have it clearly and distinctly understood that we are opposed to any wholesale coming together of all factions everywhere, and the wholesale reception of all work done by all factions. In our issue of January 15 we plainly told of some things which we have no fellowship for, and stated that we would prefer another division to the retaining in the church those who are guilty of such gross sins and immorality. We have no fellowship for fornicators and adulterers, perjured persons, truce-breakers, and those [pg 12] who are guilty of like criminal conduct. We have no fellowship for such conduct as having a house sold in which others are interested, and then writing one of the partners that no money has been received, when the whole thing had already been paid in cash and was placed in bank to the man’s credit. This may be in harmony with the Christian life; but if it is, we confess that we “have not so learned Christ.” We have no fellowship for such things as these. A wholesale coming together would mean the fellowshipping of all these things. We may be in fellowship with some of them now, but if we are we do not know it— and will not if we know it.
Not only are these things true; but it is also true, as we think we said before, that some in every faction will object to such a move. Some in every faction may approve of it. Suppose those in every faction who do approve of the move should come together, what would be the result? It would simply be that some would come out of all the different factions and unite into one faction— thus making still another faction, and not eliminating a single one. That would be the result of a universal and wholesale movement to come together, or to bring together all the different factions.
Then, you may ask, what have we to suggest? We simply have this to suggest— that every case in every locality should be dealt with according to its own individual merits. It is a matter to be dealt with locally, and not universally. In some localities they may be tired of living apart, and they may be essentially one people. In such cases they should come together and live in peace as one people, which they are. In other localities there may be prejudices and no [pg 13] fellowship or love existing. In such cases, no matter what others do, they will not come together. There will be no coming together until the prejudice is overcome. So, we say that it is a matter that can be dealt with in no other way only as the local conditions warrant. This is the way we see the matter; but we do not intend now to raise any fight against the movement until we see that it brings us into fellowship with some such things as we have objected to and that we have no fellowship for. May the good Lord keep us all in the right way and guide our feet in the paths of peace, is our humble prayer.
C. H. C.
CHRISTIAN CONFLICTS
March 1, 1922
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Sir— Tonight I am thinking of my sinful self, and often wonder if such a sinner as I am will ever reach the kingdom of God. This will, no doubt, sound foolish to you, but that is the way I see my poor sinful self tonight. Sometimes I feel lost and downcast in this world, and forever lost in the world to come. I don’t know what would become of me if I were called to die. For some cause I have been thinking of writing to you, to see if you ever knew one that got in this condition, and at the same time keep that same old path they had been traveling, and when they would do better they do worse than ever.
This is the condition I find myself in every time I examine to see where I am. I don’t want to serve the devil all the time, but it looks like that is what I do. I like the Old Baptist Church more than any I have ever seen. I feel like they are right, if I know what right is— but as for myself, I am wrong all the way through.
If not asking too much of you, I would like to have your views on the matter asked about. Please answer through your paper, and excuse me for bothering you. I [pg 14] believe you are a worthy man, and that is the reason I have written you as I have. Yours truly,
Anderson B. Boyett.
R. 3, Kenly, N. C.
OUR REMARKS
In another place in this paper will be found a letter from Anderson B. Boyett in which he asks us in regard to one desiring to do good and yet doing evil, etc. Desire springs from life. There can be no such thing as desire for natural things without natural life first. There can be no such thing as holy and righteous desires without the righteous life. The life is first.
When the Lord gives a poor sinner the divine life He does not take away the natural life. The natural life— the Adamic life— has a nature peculiar to itself. That nature is poisoned and contaminated with sin. Having that nature, sin is mixed with all we do. The divine life which God gives by the direct operation of His Spirit on the spirit of the sinner, has a nature peculiar to itself. It is called the divine nature. From that life, which is a holy life, and which nature is divine, springs all our hatred of sin, and all our desire to live a holy and righteous life. From that life springs the desire to “do good.” “When I would do good, evil is present with me,” says the eminent apostle to the Gentiles. This shows clearly that he had both natures— the divine nature, by reason of which he “would do good.” It was his desire to do good all the time. Though he had such a desire, yet “evil is present with me.’‘ This shows that he also had the evil, or sinful, nature— “evil is present.”That evil nature remains with us as long as we live in the world. These two natures are contrary to each other. They are not in harmony. They do not work together, but at variance. [pg 15] This is the reason of the warfare within— a continual fighting. There is no cessation of hostilities.” I find, then, a 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,’‘ says Paul. Here are two laws, two natures in the one man, in the child of God. He was a child of Adam and a child of God— both at the same time. Being both at the same time, he had both natures at the same time. Having both natures at the same time, there was a continual warfare all the time.
“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.” — Paul. Here are the two natures again— and they are contrary to each other. One is the opposite of the other. One is holy and divine; the other is depraved, poisoned, and contaminated with sin. One is against the other. There is a continual striving— a continual warfare, “so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.’‘ What would you do? You would live above sin; you would live free from sin; you would live without the conflict and warfare here— but”you cannot do the things that ye would.’‘ We cannot attain unto such a state of perfection and happiness here— yet it is required of us, and we are encouraged, to press forward; always we should strive for the things that are good. Paul said that he had not attained unto perfection, and did not expect to attain unto it here, yet he says, “I forget those that are behind, and press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ.” To “press toward the mark” requires a continual exertion. There is to be no “letup,” no quitting.
[pg 16] We often make resolutions, and then break them. Still we have the desire, the will, to do good. We remember once, years ago, in our young days, a brother said, “Brother Cayce, you say you desire to do better; you want to do better, and yet you don’t do better. Now, why don’t you do better?” We answered, “There may be several reasons why I do not do better. Sometimes it may be for one reason, and sometimes it may be for another reason. Sometimes it is laziness.” The brother asked no more questions about it. We gave a Scriptural answer. “Thou wicked and slothful servant.” Slothfulness is laziness. We are so often slothful, or lazy, in regard to religious matters. If we were all as slothful and lazy in our secular affairs as we are in church affairs, many of us would starve to death. No wonder so many of us are starving religiously. No wonder the poverty! No wonder the emaciated condition so many of us are in. We have been slothful, lazy, indolent, careless, unconcerned— “no matter; just any way will do.” Just any way will not do. God’s way is the only way that will do. “If a man will not work, neither shall he eat.” This is God’s way, and there is no avoiding it.
But we have wandered. Not so much, either, but a little from the original question. We remember one New Year’s day a long time ago as we were going to our office to work we met two sisters who were busily engaged in conversation. Now and then they would stop and turn, facing each other. They did not observe us until we were within a few feet of them. One of those good sisters long since “crossed over the river,” and we are sure she is resting from all her trials and conflicts here. The other sister is yet living and may [pg 17] remember the circumstance. As we approached the sisters who were thus so busily engaged in conversation, we said, “What in the world are you all talking about? What is it that is so interesting?” They turned to us and said, “Brother Cayce, we were just telling each other of the many good resolutions we have made, especially our New Year resolutions, and how we have broken all of them, and how it seems that we get worse all the time, instead of better, and how we felt that we had as well quit making good resolutions— had as well quit trying. Brother Cayce, how is it with you?” In a second it flashed into our mind to show by a joke the absurdity of such a thing as to quit trying. So we said, “Well, I have just about decided to do as the boy I once heard of who was late at school one morning. That morning the ground was all covered with sleet and ice. When Johnnie arrived, so late, the teacher said, ‘Johnnie, what is the matter? Why are you so late today?’ Johnnie replied, ‘Every step I took, I slipped back two.’ Then the teacher said, ‘At that rate, I do not see how you got here at all.’ Johnnie replied, ‘I just happened to think about turning around.’ Now, I have been trying, and making resolutions to do better and to live better, and it seems that every step I take, I slip back two. So perhaps it would be better if I would turn around and try to see how mean I can be. Perhaps I may slip back two steps each step I take, and get there that way.” We felt that Johnnie’s absurd position, or statement, of turning around was a fitting illustration of the necessity of us continuing to try, though the obstacles may seem to be insurmountable. We should endeavor to continually follow that holy and righteous desire to live a Christ-like life. The fact that [pg 18] one has such a longing desire is good evidence of the possession of the righteous life. May the Lord help us to constantly strive to keep the old nature in subjection and to follow the influence and teaching of the new or divine nature. C. H. C.
SHOULD MAKE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
May 1, 1922
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother in Christ— I wish to ask a few questions through the columns of The Primitive Baptist, and hope you will answer them.
1. If an elder’s application is received by secret orders and he a servant of a church, what should be done? Is he due the church an acknowledgment?
2. If he preaches with other orders, such as Missionaries, Methodists, and Free Will, must he be retained as moderator, or is he not to be retained? Is not an elder called a watchman placed on the walls of Zion, and if he sees the enemy coming is he not to cry aloud and spare not? If he engages in these things is he not bringing the enemy in instead of crying against it?
3. If these things are named in the church and he says he has no acknowledgment to make, and the church is in confusion most all the time in his care, what is best to do? And if the church is partly against these things and part for holding with him, what is best?
4. If he casts reflections on other members is he in the right spirit?
5. Does not the New Testament condemn all this? Hoping you will be blessed to explain all this for the benefit of poor weeping Zion, and with best wishes, I remain, as ever, Your little brother in hope, C. M. Baldwin.
Cedar Bluff, Va.
OUR ANSWER
We will try to answer the above questions by number.
1. If an elder, or any other member of the Primitive [pg 19] Baptist Church, sends in his application for membership in a secret order, he should be promptly excluded from the fellowship of the church, unless he promptly makes confession and acknowledgment for his wrong.
2. A man may preach with ministers of other orders under certain conditions or circumstances without bidding them godspeed. It is a general custom of the Primitive Baptists, so far as we know, to engage in funeral services with ministers of other orders when called upon or requested to do so, though we are aware that some brethren refuse to do so.
Again, when one of our brethren engages in preaching with a minister of another order, the express and avowed object of which is to disprove the other man’s position and to show that his doctrine is wrong, it is not objectionable. The apostle fought with beasts at Ephesus. He most certainly disputed with somebody there on the question of the resurrection. On the other hand, to preach with others, and to affiliate with them, and to take part in their services, is to bid them godspeed and to be partakers of their evil deeds. This is plainly condemned in the New Testament.
3. If the church is not agreed, and they cannot settle the matter among themselves, the rule is to call for help from sister churches, to get them to come and help to settle the matter.
4. If he casts reflections on other members, he is most certainly not in the right spirit.
5. This question is already answered in the answer to the others. C. H. C.
[pg 20]
TO “ONE IN THE WOODS”
May 1, 1922
In our last issue was a letter written to “One in the Office” and signed “One in the Woods.” We wish to inform the writer of the letter that we know who he is. He thought he was disguising his hand-writing, but he failed. We know his name, and the number he has in his family, and the name of all his children except one, which is a very young one, and a girl. Now, brother, are you not ashamed that you have stooped so low as to do the thing you have done? Do you not profess to be an honorable, upright man? And do you not profess to be an Old Baptist? Do you think you have acted in a way that is becoming an Old Baptist? Your letter was mailed on the train, and we know the train you mailed it on, and the time the train is due at your place. You should be ashamed of yourself, if you are not. This is all we care to say about the matter just now. C. H. C.
Note.-The party referred to above is “in the woods,” and has been for some time, before we began publishing these writings in book form.
C. H. C.
PARSON COOK(ED) AGAIN
May 15, 1922
Below we give space for another harangue from one Parson”Heady Egotistical” Cook. The reason why we use this expression with reference to this gentleman is because of the language he has used from the beginning in his reference to the Primitive Baptists and the claims he has made for himself. He has pretended that he is so [pg 21] wonderfully versed and has done such great things in overthrowing Brother Copeland’s arguments, with reference to language as well as the Scriptures, that we have decided we would publish his letters this time”verbatim et literatim”— just as he wrote them, word for word and letter for letter. We have been spending the time to correct them heretofore; but since he has used the language which he has, we have decided that we will not accommodate him that much this time.
Mr. Cook refers frequently to Brother Copeland violating the rules of honorable controversy; but is so careful to observe the rules as to say,”I haven’t been in but one hole, and that was when I went into it to drag you out into the air and sunshine of God’s eternal truth, to get some of the stench of decay off of you, and I almost had to hold my nose while I was doing it.”Poor thing! Who ever did, before this, hear of a skunk having to hold his nose? But here are the letters.
Note.— We do not think it necessary to up take space in this book with the letters referred to. Below are remarks we made following the letters.
Parson Cook must be a hell-sent preacher. He is preaching the same doctrine that Dives preached. Dives argued that his brethren might escape that place of torment though preaching, and Cook advocates the same thing.
Note that Cook says to Brother Copeland: “My Lord, and you accuse me of adding to and taking from God’s word. When did I ever do such a thing? Point out just one instance, or stand as a false accuser.” That is, according to Cook, if Brother Copeland does not show where Cook has added to or taken from the word of God, then Copeland has lied. Brother [pg 22] Copeland, we suppose, overlooked this, and we wish to call the attention of the reader to just one instance in Cook’s letter above. He pretends to quote 2 Pet. 1:10, but cites 2 Pet. 1:6. He quotes it this way:”Give diligence to make my peace calling and election sure.” He does not add a word by way of explanation, as Brother Copeland did, but writes it as though that is the way it reads in the Book. Here is the way it reads: “Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure.” NOW WHO LIED? C. H. C.
SHOULD THEY BE RETAINED?
May 15, 1922
Brother Cayce, should an Old Baptist Church retain a member who plays cards, dances and gets drunk? I would love to see you and hear you talk of Jesus and His love. I wish you would come out through the West sometime. Please pray for me and mine when you have a mind to do so. Your brother, I hope,
Oren P. Greathouse.
Harrisburg, Nebr.
Most assuredly an Old Baptist Church should not retain a member who practices such things as mentioned. A true Old Baptist Church will not do so if they know it. C. H. C.
AN ENDORSEMENT
May 15, 1922
We heartily endorse what Brother Davis (Elder J. T. Davis) has said concerning repentance and forgiveness; but there are some things that are not to be forgiven and fellowshipped in the church of God. And some of [pg 23] those very things are connived at, winked at, covered up, fellowshipped, and carried in churches claiming to be Primitive Baptists. As we said before, so we say again, that we do not, and WILL NOT, fellowship such in the church of God. A man guilty of perjury, or a man guilty of adultery, has no more business in the Old Baptist Church than a hog has in a parlor. And yet they are there! Do you ask us to fellowship that? If so, you ask what we cannot do. Now, we can name some of the churches and guilty parties. Ask us, if you want to. C. H. C.
BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF THE LORD
May 15, 1922
Quite a while ago we received the following request:
What is meant in the last chapter of Daniel, where it says that it shall be for a time, times, and a half; and there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Also, the nineteenth chapter of Acts, where the people were baptized over when they had been baptized unto John’s baptism. Why do the people now baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, when the apostles baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus? I understand it that Jesus was in the name of the Father and the Son, and to Him the Holy Ghost was given. If the apostles had not understood Jesus, it looks like He would have told them while He was here. Please answer these questions, and explain Acts 8:16.
The language of Daniel was prophetic, and a “time’‘ is generally understood to mean a prophetic year, or three hundred sixty years; so a time, a time and a half, would be twelve hundred sixty years, the time the church was hid in the wilderness. In verse 11 the same time is stated in different words, with an addition of [pg 24] thirty years, in which years other things in connection were to occur.
It is not a settled fact that those people referred to in Acts 19:3-5 were baptized again. John Gill contended that they were not. Verses 3 to 5 read: “And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on Him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” What Paul said is included in the language beginning “John verily baptized,” and ending with “When they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” That is, Paul said those people who heard John’s preaching were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
To be baptized in the name of the Lord was the same as being baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The Saviour commanded the apostles to go teach all nations,”baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” If they were not thus baptized they were not baptized in the name of the Lord, or in the name of the Lord Jesus. There were and are three Persons in the one God— that is, God is one composed of three. Hence, to be baptized in the name of the Lord one must be baptized in the name of the three. There is no inconsistency here. C. H. C.
[pg 25]
WHAT DO YOU SAY?
June 1, 1922
Again we feel called upon to call the attention of our readers to the move that is spreading and that is being advocated among our people to recognize and fellowship those who may agree to fellowship each other. Of course a perjured wretch can fellowship any who will fellowship him. We know of a church which has restored a man who was excluded for false swearing. There were other charges besides. Some of the other charges were such that it would be necessary to settle before being restored, but no effort was made to settle the same. Now, are you willing to fellowship that? The church where he was excluded has restored him. Yet no settlement was made of the trouble for which he was excluded. Therefore, gospel discipline was ignored. Suppose the association retains that church, and the church fails to undo her wicked course? Then will you the fellowship the whole thing? Shall the association and the church be fellowshipped, when the church retains such as that in her border, and the association retains the church that does that? We think not. It is true that many times a whole association should not be non-fellowshipped on account of disorder in one church; but if a church has such disorder in it, and the association retains such a church, then the whole association should be non-fellowshipped. If a man is guilty of fornication or adultery, and his church refuses to hear the evidence of his guilt and exonerates and retains him, and the association retains the church, then the whole thing should be non-fellowshipped. Not only the whole association, but just as [pg 26] many churches and associations as recognize and fellowship such should be non-fellowshipped. We wish to say again that we will not fellowship such things as these. Reader, we put the question to you: How do you stand on this? Some of the things that have been sent to us seem to us to indicate that things like this will be fellowshipped. What do you say? What does your church say? May the Lord help us. C. H. C.
AN OLD CIRCULAR LETTER
June 1, 1922
In this issue of The Primitive Baptist we copy an old circular letter. It was written by Elders W. A. Bowden, J. K. Stephens and Wm. Howard, and published in the minutes of the Bethel Association in 1878. The churches of that association were in Southwest Kentucky and Northwest Tennessee. It was endorsed by the Greenfield Association in 1911, and published in their minutes for that year. The Greenfield Association met that year with the church at Shiloh, Weakly County, Tenn. Elder A. B. Ross was the moderator. The following ministers were members of the association at that time: Elders J. C. Ross, A. B. Ross, C. H. Cayce, W. T. Jackson, K. M. Myatt, J. K. Stephens and W. I Moore. The following are the names of the visiting ministers who were at the association that year: Joshua Cabbage, J. N. Wallace, L. F. Wallace, A. H. Insco, D. Hopper, J. H. Phillips, John Grist, W. C. Freeman, J. B. Halbrook, E. M. Verell, W. L. Murray, J. L. Butler and W. E. Brush. When [pg 27] that circular letter was read before the body at Shiloh there was not a dissenting voice against the adoption of it. Elder Stephens had the old minute of the Bethel Association containing the circular, and it was read by perhaps a large number of brethren before it was read before the body. It was read slowly and carefully and was heartily endorsed. We believed the sentiment then that is contained in that circular, and we believe it yet. We stand today on the same principles that we did then. We have seen no reason why we should change. It is not only true that there was not a dissenting voice against the adoption of the letter in and by the association, but there was never any complaint against it from any quarter when it was published. It contains the main principles for which the Old Baptists have contended all along the line. C. H. C.
HOT SHOT OBJECTED TO
June 15, 1922
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— You may be surprised to get this from me. I want this to be published in your paper, The Primitive Baptist. It is my desire to know the real truths of the Scriptures. We cannot change its truths. We may believe them as they really are, or we may believe to the reverse, but that does not change it a particle. We cannot change our destiny by believing the truth or by believing an untruth.
I have your “Hot Shot” pamphlet before me and I think it is somewhat hard on some folks, but I think, also, that some questions indicate an opposition to some of the other questions. I may be in error myself but I stand ready to give up any belief that I now have if I am shown by the Scriptures and good logic. I do not expect to take up the questions that I think indicate an opposition to some others in this letter, but may some time if I should ever write again.
I want to begin as follows: I understand the Scriptures to teach that God, only, inhabiteth eternity; that God, only, is eternal; that God, only, is immortal. Is this what you believe? Answer yes or no, as the case may be. If this is true, and it certainly is, then at one time, or before time, there was not anything except God. This being true, it certainly follows that whatever God made was made in time or at the beginning of time, and that they are time creatures only. They could not be, or any part of them, eternal, because, to be eternal they would have to be without beginning or without ending. They must be time creatures, mortal, finite; of the earth, therefore earthly. They had a beginning, they will have an ending. Is this what you believe? If so, you believe what I think is unavoidably so. But if you, on the other hand, believe that some part of man is eternal, immortal, as most you hear speak about it believe, then I want to know how he got it. That which is first is Spirit, that which is second is natural. The natural was produced, or made, by the Spirit, or God. Many believe that God, in creating and making all things, made some part of the things eternal and some not eternal. I do not think God could create an eternal thing, as I said above, as an eternal thing cannot have a beginning. If anything is or ever will be eternal it will be a part of God Himself. For a thing to be eternal, it must be a part of God. Eternal life comes directly and immediately from God to whatever has it. It does not come through man, or by man, in any way or form, but it must be transmitted directly from God, and it is God. Natural men and women can beget and give birth to natural children only. By them mortality, only, is transmitted. They cannot transmit both mortality and immortality. If they cannot transmit both mortality and immortality, then how can part of the natural man be mortal and part immortal? If man in nature can transmit both, it undoubtedly uproots every fundamental sentence in the Scriptures. If not so, give me some tangible reason, so that I, by my dull reasoning faculties, may understand. If that can be done, then why cannot fine watermelons and fine pumpkins both grow on the same vine? No, nature produces nature only; God’s Spirit produces or puts His Spirit, only, in man; God’s Spirit is put in man in the act of regeneration. And when it is put in there it is there to stay. It does not just change man’s natural spirit, which is his natural life, but He puts His Spirit in there to bear witness with our spirits. That is the way we learn anything about a change. That is what gives us reasons for our hope, or is what makes us hope. It makes us believe sometimes that we are the children of God.
There are but two universal groups of things. First is the great spiritual or eternal group. Second, is the great natural or material group. The first group includes all things that were not created. The second group includes all things that were created, both of animate and inanimate things. The nature that was given any specific thing at the beginning has continued from then until now, and will continue the same as it was when God made it until time shall be no more. When time is no more, there will be no more nature. That will leave nothing but the great spiritual or eternal group. Then all things will have been put under Him who rules all things. If God is a sovereign, which He is, that means that He is the ruler of all things. All things mean just what He created and made. What He created and made are all the things that are, or ever were, or will ever be.
I must close for this time. I certainly hope, Brother Cayce, you or anyone who feels an interest in me, will show me wherein I am wrong, and give your Bible as well as your logical reasons for it. I hope it is my humble desire to know the truth as is revealed by the word of God and corroborated by His divine Spirit. J. I Caneer.
3731 South Hope St.,
Los Angeles, Calif.
OUR REPLY
On another page in this paper will be found a letter from Brother J. I. Caneer, of Los Angeles, Calif., in which he says that he has a copy of our pamphlet called “Hot Shot,” and has asked us a few questions, to which we wish to reply, and we desire to do so in a brotherly way.
He says that some of our questions in the pamphlet seem to indicate an opposition to some of the other questions, but that he does not expect to take up those [pg 30] questions in this letter. This is the very first thing that Brother Caneer should have done, if he has found objections to the contents of that pamphlet. The very first thing required would have been to show the inconsistencies.
Brother Caneer says he understands the Scriptures to teach that God, only, inhabiteth eternity; that God, only, is eternal; that God, only, is immortal. Then asks, “Is this what you believe? Answer yes or no, as the case maybe.” To this we say that we believe what Paul said in 1 Tim. 1:17 “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever.” We also believe what Paul said in 1 Tim. 6:15-16. Which in His times He shall shew, which is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting.” We suppose this answers the question. We do not believe that God only hath immortality; but we do believe that God only “hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto.” A distinctive doctrine of the Baptist Church has ever been that man possesses an immortal soul— not immortal in the sense that God is immortal— that is, dwelling in the light— but immortal in the sense that it never ceases to exist, or will never cease to exist. We say that this has ever been a distinctive doctrine of the Baptist Church.
We also hold that “Whatever is Baptistic is Scriptural.” That is, whatever the Baptists have ever taught— whatever has been a distinctive doctrine of the Baptist Church— is Scriptural. If this is not true, then [pg 31] the Baptists have been wrong all along the line; and if they have been wrong all along the line, then the Baptist Church is not the church of Christ. If this be true, then the Primitive Baptists should surrender the claim that they make that the Primitive Baptist Church is the church that Christ established while He was on earth, and that it is therefore the church of Christ. But we are not ready to surrender that claim. The Primitive Baptist Church is the church that Christ established while He was on earth, and it is the church of Christ. This being true, that church is Scriptural in doctrine. As that church is Scriptural in doctrine, then whatever is Baptistic is Scriptural. No man can deny this conclusion without denying that the Primitive Baptist Church is the church of Christ. Brother Caneer must admit the one or deny the other. Surely he is not ready to admit that the Primitive Baptist Church is not the church of Christ.
As evidence that the Baptists have held that man has an immortal soul, we quote from the London Confession of Faith as follows, Chapter 5, Section 2: “After God had made all other creatures He created (Gen. 1:27) man, male and female, with (Gen. 2:7) reasonable and immortal souls, rendering them fit unto that life to God for which they were created, being (Eccl. 7:29; Gen. 1:26) made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness and true holiness; having the law of God (Ro 2:14-15) 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 (Gen. 3:6) subject to change.” This Confession plainly says that man, male and female, God made with [pg 32] reasonable and immortal souls. The Baptists as a body have believed this all along the line.
In “Word and Works of God,” written by John Gill, is a chapter on the “Creation of Man.” This chapter was published in The Primitive Baptist of May 21,1896 — twenty-six years ago. There was no objection raised against this at that time. We will quote here just a little from that chapter: “These are two, body and soul. They appear at his first formation. The one was made out of the dust, the other was breathed into him; and so at his dissolution, the one returns to the dust from whence it was, and the other to God that gave it. And, indeed, death is only the dissolution, or dis-union, of these two parts: the body without the spirit is dead; the one dies, the other does not.”
“The soul is * * * * immaterial; and so immortal.” “It is better to let this difficulty lie unresolved, than to give up so certain a truth, and of so much importance, as is the doctrine of the immortality of the soul.”
Buck’s Theological Dictionary says: “The immortality of the soul may be argued from its vast capacities, boundless desires, great improvements, dissatisfaction with the present state, and desire of some kind of religion. It is also argued from the consent of all nations; the consciousness that men have of sinning; the sting of conscience; the justice and providence of God. How far these arguments are conclusive I will not say; but the safest, and, in fact, the only sure ground to go upon to prove this doctrine is the word of God, where we at once see it clearly established; Matt. 10:28; 25:46; Dan. 12:2; 2 Tim. 1:10; 1 Thess. 4:17-18; John 10:28″
These references and extracts are enough to show [pg 33] that the Baptists have ever held to this principle. The above also cites Scriptural proof. The reader can turn and read those passages for himself, and it is not necessary to quote all of them here. We will refer to only one or two. Matt. 25:46 reads, “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” If “these” do not possess an immortal soul, and have only an existence in time, we do not see how they could go away into everlasting punishment. And remember that the word translated everlasting with reference to the punishment of “these” is the same word that is translated eternal with reference to the life of the righteous. One is of equal duration as the other.
Again, Matt. 10:28“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” If the soul is not immortal, and does not live after the death of the body, then men are able to kill the soul as well as the body. If a man kills the body, and the soul does not continue to live after the death of the body, then he kills the soul also. But the Saviour said that men cannot kill the soul. Therefore, when a man kills the body he does not kill the soul. As he does not kill the soul, then the soul continues to live.
If man does not possess an immortal soul, then when a man dies that is the last of him, and there is no such thing as future punishment; there is no such thing as an eternal hell, or a place of eternal punishment. Most articles of faith of Primitive Baptist churches say “we believe that the joys of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked will be eternal.” They say that or that “the punishment of the wicked will be everlasting and the joys of the righteous eternal.” [pg 34] They mean the same thing. We wonder if these articles of faith have been wrong all the time? We wonder who has advanced so far in learning as to inform the Primitive Baptist Church that they have been wrong all along the line in one of their fundamental principles? As for us, we are satisfied with what has been the distinctive doctrine of the Primitive Baptist Church all through the ages. We are not yet ready to surrender a single one of her principles. Others may side step, and become wise above what is written, but we are still content with the same old time-honored principles which our fathers loved and advocated.
As for the “Hot Shot,” we are aware of the fact that some of those questions are rather hard on some things which have been advocated; but we can answer every one of them in perfect harmony with the doctrine of the Bible, and in harmony with the principles upon which we have stood ever since we have had a name among the Primitive Baptists.
Brother Caneer says, “If anything is or ever will be eternal it will be a part of God Himself. For a thing to be eternal, it must be a part of God.” We wonder when space began to be? We wonder if there was no such thing as space before time was? We wonder if space is a part of God? If so, we wonder what part it is? True, God is as boundless as space, but space is not God, nor is it any part of God. We wonder what kind of god Brother Caneer claims to have, since he has made the statement that he did. He says, too, that God could not make an eternal thing. We suppose he got that from his “think so,” as we do not remember the text that says so. The Bible says that God cannot lie, and that He could sware by no greater than Himself. It also teaches us that He [pg 35] cannot do a thing that is contrary to His divine attributes. But we do not remember any of His divine attributes that would forbid His being able to make a thing eternal. The only way we can reach that conclusion is from the simple and finite reasoning that the maker must exist before the thing made. From the same principle of reasoning one might deny that Jesus Christ is, or was, equal with the Father. The reasoning would be that the father must, of necessity, be older than the son; and for this reason the Son is not the eternal Son of God— that He could not be eternal, being the Son, and the son cannot be as old as the father. Such as this would simply be a denial of the Lord Jesus Christ. This shows the fallacy of the reasoning.
Brother Caneer also says, “Eternal life comes directly and immediately from God to whatever has it. It does not come through man or by man in any way or form, but it must be transmitted directly from God.” To this we agree; but he adds, “and it is God.” Now we cannot understand that eternal life is God any more than the natural life which a man has here is man. The man is not the life. If so, what is he when the life has become extinct? How could there be any such thing as a dead man if the life is the man? Life is a state or condition, a conscious or animate condition, an organic condition; the opposite to inorganic or dead condition. God exists in a living condition, and always has existed in that condition, and always will. He has always been just as He is now, and always will be. But the life itself is not God. He possesses life, and always has, and always lives. He is the fountain and source of life. Life comes from Him. And life is always imparted directly and immediately. There is no such thing as a [pg 36] medium in the impartation of life. If the life and the thing living are one and the same thing, then that “which is born of God is God.” According to that, when a man is born of God (“whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.”— 1 John 5:1), he is then God. We would have an innumerable company of little gods, according to that. This is clearly fallacious, and further argument is unnecessary.
Brother Caneer wants a tangible reason so that he can understand. Now we are sure that he believes some things which are true that he cannot understand, and which no man can explain. Surely he believes and is sure that the lily grows; but he cannot explain it. Neither can any other man do so. Surely he believes that Jesus was the son of Mary and the Son of God at the same time. He cannot explain that, for it is above the comprehension of finite mind; it is too wonderful for man to understand and explain it. But it is the truth all the same. And all the hope we have of a better home beyond this vale of tears is based on that great and sublime truth, though it is far beyond our being able to give tangible reasoning upon it so that we may understand how it can be. It is true, even if we cannot understand it.
Yes,”the Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.”— Rom. 8:16. If that Spirit bears witness to the truth, then those in whom the Spirit of God dwells have been made the children of God. It is not simply something in or about them that is a child of God; but they are children of God. The Spirit does not bear witness to our spirit that our spirit is a child of God; but it bears witness WITH our spirit that WE are children of God. We are not [pg 37] gods, but children of God; that is, those are who have this witness of the Spirit. This cheers us along life’s rugged pathway, and gives us hope of a better home beyond. C. H. C.
BLESSED HOPE
June 15, 1922
Elder C. H. Cayce:
My Dear Little Brother— I don’t feel like saying it, but that is just the way I feel about it. I have known you so long, and all the boosting you have ever got never has made you feel big. Now I will try to explain myself. I have been reading The Primitive Baptist ever since the first issue. I have not been a subscriber all the time, but I always found it among my Baptist friends. If it has changed in all these years I have not got sense enough to see it. I have a box of old papers here by me now. I have just been reading “The Work of The Church,” by Elder D. Bartley, copied from the Gospel Messenger and printed in The Primitive Baptist of November 4, 1892. Well, I have been reading again “This Good Old Hymn” (Jesus, lover of my soul), written by dear Sister, Mrs. W. F. Waddell, June 27, 1911. Oh, my dear ones, entreat me not to leave thee, nor to return from following after thee. I can’t be here long. My dearest friends are over there. Surely I have drunk of the bitter cup— so many of my family have outstripped me and gone my dear husband and twenty-five little ones, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Wonderful, indeed! The natural mind cannot comprehend it! Just think one moment how sweet it would be to hear thirteen little girls and twelve little boys all dressed in white singing “Home, sweet home,” and dear old grandpa enjoying the music. Now change your mind to heavenly things. Oh, how sweet! Grandpa, Jennie, Newton, and Becca, together with those little ones, all join in singing the song the angels cannot sing. Now that is not all my family — there are here in this world of sorrow nine children, fifty-one grandchildren, thirty-nine greatgrandchildren, besides the “in-laws,” making 125 living. Now I [pg 38] am old, will soon have to enter the pale nations of the dead. The same hand is leading me that never has failed. I am still trusting with child-like simplicity— just waiting to hear the welcome applaudit, “Child, come home.” Oh, my Lord, I may be deceived in it all, but I am not deceived about them that have gone on before — my dear one that left me December 17, 1920. We had lived together fifty-four years, ten months and four days. Three days before he left me the Lord gave me a song and I began to sing “There’ll be no sorrow there.” I sang three verses and my soul was lifted above the troubles of this world. I commenced shouting and went to him and told him the Lord had promised to keep me. He said,”I know He will do it, Old Woman.” The power of the Almighty gave me strength to see him breathe his last breath. I feel so sad and lonely, but I do not wish him back. I thought of your dear mother many times, and dear Sister Rachel. Brother Miller has been at my house. That was not long before he died. He came to Brush Creek, and he was so humble I thought he surely was one of the little ones. Oh, will you, dear beloved sister, just pray for the least one, if one at all? May the Lord bless His people everywhere. S. J. Perry.,
Dresden, Tenn.
REMARKS
Dear sister, we have read the above with a feeling sense of our unworthiness, yet we trust that we fully appreciate your kind words. We feel that you are prepared to judge as to the course we have pursued, and as to whether we have changed, or whether we are occupying the same ground the paper occupied when it was started by our sainted father the first of January, 1886. You have been through wars in the camps of Israel, as well as the natural wars, and you know what those old servants of God advocated when the writer was a boy— even before he ever claimed a hope, perhaps. Please pray the Lord that we may be enabled to continue in the good old way. We wish we could see you once more. May the good Lord bless and keep you, [pg 39] is our humble prayer. You have our sincere sympathy. We feel to know how to sympathize with those who are in trouble. C. H. C.
A SUGGESTION
June 15, 1922
Dear Brethren Webb and Newman:
My Very Dear Brethren— I have been impressed for some time to write you brethren, and I am taking advantage of The Primitive Baptist to reach you both. Very dear brethren, I write you both this short letter to ask you both, for the sake of the dear children of God throughout the state of Texas, won’t you both agree to meet each other at some special point in Texas, and also serve notice in the several Baptist papers for as many brethren and sisters as can to meet you both, and become reconciled to each other, forgiving each other, as our Master has commanded, and thereby bring peace and fellowship back home again to God’s little ones? Dear brethren, that would be the day of days, if you dear brethren would and could see fit in yourselves to do the great deed of your lives. Won’t you, for your own comfort, as for others, do this?
Well do I remember twenty-five years back when you were young fellows preaching the same grand truth, going hand in hand, seeing the same great truth together, trying to further the blessed gospel of the dear Saviour. I feel sure the flesh has dominated somewhat in both of you. It would be a happy day in Texas for the Baptists if those differences between you dear brethren could be adjusted.
Now, dear Brother Newman, I have got back home. Would love so much for our dear people to get together again. You and Elder Webb and I haven’t got many years on earth to do things for each other and our dear people and to please our Master. So let us be in haste to do the things that make for peace and love and Christian fellowship. Away back down the way, twenty-five years ago, I kept you both in my home all night, and we were all happy. Won’t you blot out all the little things that have severed you and [pg 40] be happy again before we die? May God, in His richest mercy, help you both to prayerfully consider this proposition. Cayce Publishing Co., would you, if it isn’t asking too much of you, give this letter a place in your paper? And many thanks. J. G. Grant.
Hico, Texas.
REMARKS
We feel duty-bound to offer just a few remarks in regard to the above proposition. In the first place we wish to say that it would have been well if Elder Webb and those who joined with him in the unholy war in their accusations against their brethren to have considered the matter of striving for the things that make for peace before they had destroyed the peace and fellowship of the church as they have. A boy can take a timepiece all to pieces, and then not be able to put it together again. He may take a club and break a watch to pieces so that it cannot be mended. If he wants a timepiece, he should consider that matter before he uses his club.
Next, we wish to say that while we do not wish or propose to justify Elder Newman in any wrong which he may have done, yet we wish to say that he has, more than once, stated publicly that he is sorry for every wrong thing that he did in the trouble, and begged all to forgive him. We do not know how much more could be asked of him.
Next, we would suggest that if Elders Newman and Webb should get together and settle any personal difference that may exist between them, that would not bring the Baptists of Texas together. Churches and associations are divided and torn asunder. In order for them to get together, it will take more than for these [pg 41] two preachers to get together. This is one trouble now in the church of God— preachers control too much. They are too much like lords and masters, instead of “your servants for Jesus’ sake.”
Next, we wonder if the Baptists of Texas want to fellowship such a thing as that “shady transaction.” The idea of a man having a house and lot sold, in which several parties are interested, and the deal being a cash transaction, and several days after the deal was made and the check delivered and the money put on deposit in the bank, then write one of the parties interested that the property has been sold, but no money received yet, and the man who had the deal made letting his son have the money to be paid back in installments! Nice thing for an Old Baptist preacher! Do orderly churches crave to fellowship that? Does a man who loves honest living crave a home in the church where that is fellowshipped? Has that all been wiped out?
Again: And again: Well, we might mention several things, but we will “drop the curtain” here for the present. May the good Lord help us, and may He grant that we may keep a clean house. C. H. C.
“WHERE ARE WE AT?”
July 1, 1922
Please read what we here have to say, and then please answer the question above for us, if you can. We moved to this place from Martin, Tennessee, the last week of October, 1919. Elder S. C. Bozarth moved here from Kentucky, in the bounds of the Highland Association, or thereabouts, before we came here. [pg 42] In Kentucky he was a member of Antioch Church. He got a letter of dismission from them in good standing and full fellowship. Elder J. B. Hardy, who lives in Cleveland County, Ark., had been visiting the churches in Kentucky where Elder Bozarth lived, so that Elder Bozarth was acquainted with him. When he came to this section he put his letter in Elder Hardy’s church. He soon discovered that he was not at home, and that these people were not like those he was with in Kentucky.
On the second Sunday in April, 1920, Elder Bozarth was at Thornton at meeting there. He had been at several services with our people at different places just before that. At that time he asked Elders T. B. Little, Jno. R. Harris and us what course to pursue to get with our people. He said that he thought Elder Hardy was in line with our people, but that he had found that there was a difference; that he had put his letter in one of Elder Hardy’s churches, and did not know how to proceed. We all three advised him to write to Antioch Church in Kentucky and tell them where he had disposed of the letter, or where he had deposited it, and that Elder Hardy’s church was identified with the Baptists in this country called “Absoluters,” and ask them to grant him another letter or to authorize the clerk to send him a duplicate, so that he could unite with the people who are not identified with that doctrine. Elder Bozarth wrote to the clerk of that church, Antioch, in Kentucky. He received the following reply:
Madisonville, Ky.,
April 18, 1920.
Elder S. C. Bozarth: Dear Brother— I received your letter a few days ago. Was glad to hear from you, but sorry to learn you had gotten into trouble. [pg 43] My health is some better. I still have a bad stomach; have to be careful what I eat. Hope you are all well.
Say, brother, what kind of trouble did you get into with the elder? Was it on doctrine? If so, state it, and give me those names you said in your letter— not that I doubt your word; but I guess it would be best, so I can put it before the church. I think they will grant your request. I talked to Brother Pilate and Brother Bud Clayton. They thought it best to get the names of the elders you referred to. They think we can give you another letter. So I want to attend to it next meeting, if I can, 2nd of May. We can say you have always proved to be sound in doctrine and practice, and we can’t say anything else. I hope everything will work out all right and you can have a home with the people that advocate the doctrine of old Antioch. So let me hear from you soon. Your unworthy brother in hope, D. F. Siria.
P. S. — I can tell any people, or set of people, that you have been, ever since I knew you, sound in doctrine and practice. I am sure the whole association will say the same. You have always preached good sound doctrine, if I know anything about what the Bible teaches. Yours.
Now on Saturday before the second Sunday in May, 1920, Antioch Church authorized the clerk to send Elder Bozarth a duplicate of the letter they had granted him before that time. Here is the letter the clerk wrote him in regard to it:
Madisonville, Ky., May 10, 1920.
Elder S. C. Bozarth:
I will answer your letter and also send you a duplicate of the church letter. We are as well as usual. Hope you are all well. We had communion and feet washing Sunday. Had a good meeting. Wish you could have been with us. Hope you will come out all right in the church affairs. Answer and tell me how you made it when it suits you. Your brother, in hope, D. P. Siria.
P. S.— Hope this will be all right.
This shows that the duplicate letter was authorized by the church, and that it was sent to Elder Bozarth on the 10th of May, 1920. The duplicate was authorized [pg 44] by the church on Saturday before the second Sunday in May. On the second Sunday in June, or Saturday before, Elder Bozarth was at Thornton again (Cane Creek Church then meeting in Thornton) and presented the letter and was received by the church on the letter.
Cane Creek Church is in the New Hope Association. About twelve years ago there was a division in the New Hope Association on the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things. Elder Hardy’s church is identified with the side known as the “Absoluters,” and the Cane Creek Church is with the side that they call “Conditionalists.” There was a division in the Highland Association, in Kentucky, a number of years ago on the same question, and Antioch Church is with the party there that are called “Conditionalists” by the other party. Now, Elder Hardy goes among the people in that section that are thus known in that country, just as Cane Creek, and those with her, are known here.
Now, on Thursday before the third Sunday in October, 1920, we organized a church in Fordyce. Elder Bozarth got a letter of dismission from Cane Creek, in Thornton, and was one of the charter members of our church here.
Now, in the Messenger of Zion of July 21, 1920, published by Elder J. D. Shain, in Madisonville, Ky., the following statement may be found on page 2:
To All Whom It May Concern:
Whereas, Elder S. C. Bozarth, formerly a member of Antioch Church of Kentucky, and whereas in September, 1919, he was granted a letter in full fellowship and later joined Pine Grove Church in Ark., by this letter. And whereas the said Elder Bozarth did by letter of May, 1920, request our clerk to send him a duplicate of the letter of dismission which he had received of Antioch Church and saying nothing about the action of Pine Grove Church in excluding him from their fellowship, that Antioch Church did instruct the clerk to send Elder Bozarth a statement certifying that he had been granted a letter in full fellowship.
Therefore, we, Antioch Church, desire to make this statement to all whom it may concern that: We do not intend to reinstate Elder Bozarth, nor to repudiate the act of Pine Grove Church in his exclusion; and be it further known that the certificate sent Elder Bozarth is only to certify that he left us in good standing, and has no bearing on his standing now. We warn all Baptist churches that Elder Bozarth is not a member of Antioch Church, and cannot be received into fellowship of any orderly Baptist Church on that certificate. We make this statement for the sake of peace and for the good of all concerned.
Done and signed by order of the church called Antioch while in conference this May 12th, 1920.
Elder J. P. Clayton, Moderator.
D. F. Siria, Clerk.
The reader will note that the clerk sent the duplicate letter on May 10th. Then on May 12 Antioch held conference again and had the above statement made. But on the second Sunday in June, or Saturday before, the duplicate letter authorized by the Antioch Church was received with the bearer in Cane Creek Church in Thornton. Then on July 21 following, the above statement appears in Elder Shain’s paper.
As already stated, Elder Hardy’s church is identified here with the party known as “Absoluters,” there having been a division about twelve years ago in the New Hope Association on that question, and Elder Hardy is with that side of the New Hope. Thus it is seen that Elder Shain and his people in Kentucky will not, or do not, recognize the “Absoluters” there, but recognize them here in Arkansas. We wonder if that suits his corresponding editors? And we wonder how it suits the Baptists all over Southwest Kentucky, in [pg 46] Tennessee, and in North Mississippi, and some in Southern Illinois, and in Missouri?
Now, it appears a little strange to us that the church would authorize that duplicate letter on the 8th day of May, the clerk forward it on the 10th, and then on the 12th (Wednesday) the church hold another conference and authorize the statement published in the Messenger of Zion of July 21. Elder Bozarth was received on the letter in good faith on June 12th by Cane Creek Church, in Thornton, before the statement was published.
Now, our question at the head of this article, “Where are we at?” Can you tell us? It seems to us that we are in the clear. If not, why not? Will those churches in Kentucky recognize the “Absoluters” in Arkansas and refuse to recognize them at home? If so, why? We would be glad if somebody can “untangle the hank” for us. C. H. C.
SECRET ORDER INSURANCE
July 1, 1922
Elder C. H. Cayce: Dear Brother— Please answer these three questions through The Primitive Baptist for the benefit of Brother James C. Flowers:
1. Do the orderly Baptists keep in fellowship members who keep their policy paid up in a secret order?
2. Is it right to keep them in the church if you know it?
3. Would it be wrong to contend against it?
ANSWER
There has been, and we suppose is yet, a difference of opinion in regard to this matter among the brethren. Some brethren think it is wrong to retain a member who has nothing whatever to do with the order but the paying of his insurance dues. Not only is this true, but there are a few who would refuse to fellowship one who carries old line insurance. Our people— the Primitive Baptists— as a body, have held that insurance in an old line company, where there are no secrets and no lodge meetings, is purely a matter of business, and that there is no faith denied in a transaction of that kind. Some brethren, who think this way about it, also think that it is a bad business transaction, and admit that we cannot afford to exclude a brother because he makes a bad trade. If we were to do that, not many of us would be left.
While we were living in Martin, Tenn., and our church was in the Greenfield Association, we had a member in our church who was keeping his insurance paid in a secret order, although he never visited the lodge, nor had anything to do with them, and had not done so since before he united with the church. We knew of other members in the association who were doing the same thing, and we suppose they are doing so yet. We do not know whether they have quit it or not. But we heard of some complaint against our church on account of the matter, though no complaint was ever heard about the others. So the church took the matter up with the brother and he laid his insurance in the order down. We then held that a brother should be willing to lay down even a financial connection with a secret order for the sake of peace in the church, and we think that way yet. This complaint which we mention— was not an official complaint. It was not made by any church, but was some talk among some of the [pg 48] brethren in the association. Now we think that this is a sufficient answer to the above questions— that a brother should be willing to lay down his insurance in a secret order for the sake of the peace of the church. Though he may have no affiliation with the order, he is contributing some of his means to help sustain the order. We think the safe thing to do is to have nothing whatever to do with those things— even if it were permissible, and no objection raised against them. Such insurance is not sound insurance. That is, it is not on a sound financial basis, and they will all fail, unless they work on the old line plan with adequate rates; and few, if any, of them do this. We once had a list of the names of about eighteen hundred assessment insurance companies that failed in twenty years. Many hundreds of poor people lost all they had paid in. Better stay out, is what we think about it.
C. H. C.
A DEBATE
July 1, 1922
About a year ago we were to have met C. R. Nichol in debate near Lebanon, Mo. We were called by telegram on Saturday before we were to start on Sunday to go to Kentucky. It was on account of a matter of business over which we had no control, that is, which we could not change, so we had to wire them to postpone the debate. Quite a while ago we wrote and set the time for Monday, August 21, for the debate to begin. The Campbellites have written us they want to get another man. We wrote our brethren there that they might get any man they please, just so they take the propositions signed [pg 49] and be ready for the date set, August 21. We had a letter from N. L. Clark wanting to change propositions and to set another date. We wrote him that we agreed for them to get another man provided the propositions and date were accepted. We expect to be on hand on that date to meet any man that they may have there to meet the issue. Trains will be met on Monday, August 21, at Phillipsburg. Write Elder D. F. Coones, R. 2, Lebanon, Mo., if you expect to go, and if you can write him. Be sure to get to Phillipsburg Monday morning. That is nearer to the place of debate than Lebanon. All are invited. C. H. C.
ENDORSEMENT
July 1, 1922
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— It is in much weakness and fear and trembling that I try to write to you concerning the peace move among the Baptists. First, I want to say that I endorse your firm stand concerning this move. There is but one way to have lasting peace, and that is to have it on Bible principles. Now, little child of God, how did you first have peace with God? Was it not a God-given blessing? So is peace to the church. You remember our Saviour said,”My peace I give unto you.’‘ So you see that peace was a gift of our Saviour to His disciples. You remember, too, that He said, “My peace I leave with you.” Now since He was so good to us that He gave His peace to us, and then left it with us, how careful we ought to be in trying to keep it. Now, the man or men that broke this peace are the ones to make amends. They should acknowledge their wrongs to the church and ask forgiveness, instead of saying just quit saying anything about it. Suppose I steal a horse, and the owner sees me steal him, and I go home and say nothing about it. What do you guess would be next? Now I could come as near satisfying the owner of the horse by saying nothing [pg 50] as the man can that brings trouble in the church by saying nothing. “Well,” says one, “if begging for peace is not the way to it, what must we do?” Just remove the cause of trouble and you have got peace. I believe I love peace as dearly as any man on earth, but I want it on Bible principles; and I believe every sound Old Baptist wants peace just like I do. Now, Brother Hanks, I understand you want peace just like I do, and I do not believe you or any other sound Baptist would say it is gospel order for Old Baptists to ordain a preacher twice; neither do I believe that a man who will tell a willful lie or swear a lie is fit to live in the Old Baptist Church. Now I believe the Primitive Baptists are keeping house for the Lord. Oh, Lord, help them to keep His house in order; keep us all at each other’s feet, esteeming others better than ourselves. May we never forget that we should walk as children of light. Dear brethren, don’t you think that many of God’s dear children are watching you and me, and at the same time wanting a home in the Old Baptist Church? Now if we are backbiting each other and devouring each other, do you think these people would want to come in the Lord’s house to live in war? Don’t you believe that we, as a people, should keep a clean house? Brethren, have you forgot what our Saviour said about a house that is divided against itself? You know it cannot stand. We all know that the last little stir we have had among us was a shame before the Almighty God. I am not wondering about the coldness in the churches — all of this for the lack of discipline. Did you know that a preacher needs discipline drawn on him sometimes? If this had been done, our Master’s cause would not have been bleeding. So, God’s dear little children, let us return to our first love, or else He will spue us out of His mouth.
Now, a word to the brethren in the West. Is there one among you that is not willing to take just what the Bible says? I don’t believe there is. We, here in the East, are going to tell it just like the Bible tells it; and the man or men that don’t like it are unsound in the faith. Our people here in the East love what Jesus said to Nicodemus,”A man must be born again, or he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Now a word to the Baptists that are divided over this point. Don’t you believe it is a shame before God that Baptists would divide over the only thing that prepares men to serve and worship [pg 51] God? Now if any man has said more than Jesus said, he has said too much; and if any man has said less, he lacked some of saying enough. A poor ignorant boy like me that did not get to go to school enough to learn how to read is perfectly satisfied with what the Bible says without fixing one word. I would rather take the testimony of our Lord than all of the men in the world. Where the Bible says “a new creature in Christ Jesus” I have no better sense than to believe it; but do not believe that it makes gods, but children of God. Now, brethren, for God’s sake let us all be content with what the Bible says and don’t be disturbing the peace of Zion.
Now, one more word to the brethren in the West. We Baptists in this country love you all. Brother Ritchie, I have not forgotten the good preaching you did at Rock Spring; and Brother Newman, I have read your writing in The Primitive Baptist, and learned to love you. Now, you brethren come together and be brethren; and as Brother Claud has said, let each church settle their grievance, taking the Bible for your guide, and let us be one people, and let us keep ourselves unspotted from the world, such as secret orders, and fornicators, adultery, and false witness. Let us always be ready to sacrifice for each other. When I am down at my brethren’s feet on my knees I feel like I am nearer at the right place than any other time.
Now, when you have prayed for yourself and everybody else, remember me, the least one of all, if one at all.
R. L. Perry.
Palmersville, Tenn.
REMARKS
While we were in Tennessee there were some preachers over there who had become so far advanced in wisdom as to find out that what the Saviour said to Nicodemus, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God,” would not do without some kind of modification. Because we would not say more or less they said we believed the whole man doctrine, whatever that may be. We were satisfied then with it just as the Saviour said it, and we are satisfied with it that way [pg 52] now. Some were not. Brother Perry knows who some of them were. If they are now satisfied with it as the Saviour said it, we are glad of it. Brother Perry, we suppose you are aware that a church in your association has restored a man who was excluded for false swearing, as well as upon other charges? We think the church is in your association. You know about it. Other brethren there know. We think it about time that this thing was seen after. The Baptists around here would not much like to fellowship such as that. How about it in West Tennessee? What about the churches in the surrounding associations? Do they fellowship such as that? We want peace, but we want a clean house, and we cannot have peace without a clean house. Such ungodly things in the church as we know have been winked at have always caused trouble, and they always will. Instead of trying to get everything together, including such ungodliness, let us clean up the house, and then we will have peace. If the cleaning up removes us with the other trash, let us go. The church needs peace and rest more than she needs any man on earth. C. H. C.
SHOULD BE SEPARATE
July 15, 1922
Sometimes I am impressed to speak out in defense of the cause and truth. I can hardly rest, day or night; but many think you are uncharitable if you do, and set you aside and have no use for you. I hope my one desire is to serve my God and to do His will, regardless of what I may be called to endure for His sake. While charity is the best of all graces, I am impressed that true charity, like Paul had, means not only love, but candor, sincerity, earnestness, [pg 53] firmness. Honesty becomes the professed followers of Christ- men and women who are honest to their Lord; who will not go hand in hand with Babylon, and yet try to pose as being meek and humble and charitable followers of God. Charity— true charity, as Paul possessed-will not sacrifice the blessed truth and principles of Christianity to gain the friendship of the world. “Whosoever, therefore, will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” This is plain language, and forever condemns God’s people in affiliating with the world and her societies as others; but it means that God’s children should not walk hand in hand with the world and her churches, so-called helps, societies, clubs; and I am thinking we ought also not follow the world’s vain pride and her vain amusements which abound on every side. When I meditate on Jesus’ life, and Paul’s life, and the life of all true Christians who have lived near the cross (to live near the cross is to daily deny self), I feel like falling in the dust. Oh, to be more Christ-like; to have that charity which will not let us be conformed to the world, but ever seeking to be more like Jesus, and to obey, love and honor Him in our bodies and our spirits which are His. Oh, the selfishness in this old unfriendly world. Many have become rebellious and stiff-necked, desiring to please self and men rather than the Lord; and we find recorded in the Bible that when His children became stubborn, self-willed, and would not receive and obey the word of truth and correction and rebuke and forewarning delivered unto them by God’s dear prophets and servants, that God sent His rebuke upon them, and that most severely oft-times, as when His children forsook Him to worship the inventions of men, as the golden calf. Today God’s rebuke has already begun, and Zion will never have rest or peace until God cleanses her of the wickedness crept in her borders, the worldliness and carnality. Submitted in love. If one at all, the least of all,
Mrs. Lora E. Smith.
Greenville, New Mex.
REMARKS
How true the above is, that we will never have rest and peace again in the church until she has been cleansed of some of the wickedness that has been practiced and harbored within her borders. Brethren may [pg 54]cry peace, peace; but that will not bring peace. Brethren may propose to recognize any and all factions, and all their work; but that will not bring peace. It seems to us that the only thing that will bring peace and rest in the church is for her to be cleansed from some of the filthiness that has been brought in. While there are perjured persons, adulterers, traitors, truce-breakers, and such like persons retained in the church, there can be no peace. Put such things out-remove the cause of the troubles-and then there will be peace, and not before. C. H. C.
QUESTIONS OF ORDER
July I8, 1922
In October, 1920, we received a letter containing the following questions on order, with the request that we give our answers. We were so far behind then that we could not answer many letters that we received, nor could we answer many requests. We simply had to let those things go by without attention, not because we did not wish to comply with the requests of the brethren, or answer their letters, but just because we were compelled to do other things in order that the work of getting the paper out and other work be done. We are now trying to catch up with our work, and trying to answer many things which had not been answered. We will give the questions and then give our answer as best we can and in as few words as possible.
1. Has a church the Scriptural right to hold a sister in their church fellowship who, while a member, [pg 55] marries a man separated from his former wife by divorce without cause of fornication? Answer: We think not— that is, if his former wife was not an adulterer, or a fornicator. The man and wife might be separated before it is found out that she is guilty, and that fact become known later; in which case he is free.
2. Does a brother or sister commit adultery for putting away a wife or husband for the cause of fornication and marrying again? Answer: No.
3. Did Christ ever teach a lesson and afterwards condemn the same lesson? Answer: No.
4. Is a church constituted in disorder for using a preach brother in her constitution whose church held members who were unscripturally married, without the knowledge of members constituted? Answer: No. The fact that a member of the presbytery who constitutes a church is in disorder does not invalidate the work of the orderly members of the presbytery.
5. Would it cause churches to become in disorder by affiliating with members whose churches held non-feet-washers, secret orders, and unscriptural marriages, without the knowledge of the affiliating church? Answer: We think not.
6. Can a church be justified by the word of God, holding to a disorder knowingly, because other churches are holding to same disorder? Answer: We think not. One church doing a wrong does not justify another church in doing the same wrong. That only adds wrong to wrong, or is simply more wrong doing.
7. How could this church in question (No. 6) be justified by the word of God and live in order? In other words, has she anything to do, and what is it, that she have the approval of God’s word? Answer: She should [pg 56] keep herself in order; and as a loving sister, she should labor with her sister church to get her to rid herself of her disorder.
8. In Matt. 19:9 did Christ have reference to what was done under the law, or what was right under grace? Answer: He had reference to what is right in all time- under the law dispensation as well as under the gospel dispensation. These are the questions, and the best we know how to answer them. This we think has been the view held by the great body of Primitive Baptists all along the line.
C. H. C.
REGENERATION AFTER DEATH
July 15, 1922
In the Illlinois Baptist of March 4, 1922, Elder W. P. Throgmorton, the editor, says that “Infants are not regenerated before they die, but immediately after they die, and this in order to fit them for the happy world which Jesus has made sure for them by His death. This part of making it sure for them is just as necessary as is the part of the heavenly messengers who convey them to the goodly place whither they must go.” Elder Throgmorton says at the beginning of the article that infants are saved by the atoning death of Christ. The elder did not seem to know so much about this matter in his debate with Elder Daily. And Elder Penick said in his debate with us in 1907 that he did not know how infants are saved. It seems to depend very much upon where some folks are as to what they know, or what they say. [pg 57] But the idea that infants are not regenerated before they die but immediately after, is a stunner! That is another invention of man. God’s Book nowhere teaches that one is regenerated after death. But the Saviour says,— John 8:21 “I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.” From this expression it is clear that those who die in their sins cannot “come” to where Jesus is.
According to Elder Throgmorton’s own statement, infants die in their sins, because they are not regenerated before they die. And he says they must have regeneration to fit them to live with the Lord. But as the Saviour teaches that those who die in their sins cannot come to Him; and, according to Elder Throgmorton, they die in their sins-then according to Elder Throgmorton, they cannot come to where Jesus is-unless Jesus was mistaken in what He said. But Jesus was not mistaken; and Elder Throgmorton does not tell the truth when he says they are not regenerated before they die. This position taken by Elder Throgmorton savors much of the Roman Catholic purgatory. C. H. C.
TOUR IN TENNESSEE
AND MISSISSIPPI
August 15, 1922
We left home on Tuesday night after the first Sunday in July to fill appointments in Tennessee and Mississippi, as published in The Primitive Baptist some time ago, and to attend the debate between Elder J. H. Phillips, representing the Primitive Baptists, and Elder West, representing the Missionary Baptists, which was held near Johnson’s Cross Roads Church, a few miles from Jack’s Creek village, in Henderson County, Tenn. That is, the debate was held in Henderson County. Our first appointment was at Providence (Michie, Tenn.), in McNairy County, Tenn. We went from home to Corinth, Miss., reaching there on Wednesday night. Our companion and babies went with us as far as Corinth, they leaving with us to visit her father (B. B. Lawler) and mother and family, near Brownsboro, Ala. As we missed connection in Memphis, they stopped with us in Corinth, where we spent the night with Brother M. C. George. Next morning wife and babies went on to Brownsboro and we went out to meet the first appointment. Had services at Michie two days, Thursday and Friday. Elders J. W. and N. Hardwick, were at these services, which were pleasant. On Saturday and Sunday we were at Gravel Hill, where there was another pleasant meeting. Elder J. W. Hardwick is the pastor, and was with us there. Sunday afternoon we went to Henderson, Tenn., and found that they had announced an appointment for us there in the Christian (Campbellite) meeting house. A large crowd was in attendance. We spent the night with Brother Bun Griffin. On Monday we went to Jack’s Creek, where we were met by Elder J. H. Phillips, and went with him to his home. We made our home with him until the close of his debate. The discussion closed on Friday afternoon. It was a great victory for the truth. Elder Phillips was equal to the occasion, and showed up the fallacy of Elder West’s position on the different points involved in the discussion. Everything went off pleasantly during the discussion, but Elder Wast was so hard pressed on the last day that he made the assertion that some who belonged to the Missionaries had married into [pg 59] Primitive Baptist families and were persuaded to join the “Hardshells.” As soon as the service was dismissed a number of those present who had come to our people from the Missionaries went directly to him and told him to his face that he had falsified, or that what he said in regard to that matter war untrue. The Old Baptists were rejoicing and felt good over the discussion.
On Saturday morning Elder Phillips went with us to Hurricane Church, where we had a pleasant meeting Saturday and Sunday. On Monday we were conveyed to Turman’s Creek by Brother E. V Hardeman, where we had a pleasant meeting on Monday and Tuesday. Elder J. A. Burcham was with us there. He is the pastor of the church. On Wednesday and Thursday we were with the church at Barren Springs, where we had another pleasant season. Elder D. M. Neisler was with us there. He is the pastor of the church. We spent Wednesday night in his pleasant home. Thursday afternoon we went with Brother Wyatt to the home of Brother J. M. Brantley, near Johnson’s Cross Roads, where we spent the night very pleasantly. Friday, Saturday and Sunday we attended the union meeting at Cross Roads. It was a pleasant meeting indeed. A sister Lewis joined the church during the meeting and requested that we baptize her, which was attended to.
On Sunday afternoon we went to Henderson, where we boarded the train for Corinth, Miss. Elder Phillips was with us, and went with us the remainder of the tour. The train was late, so we were late getting to Corinth, but went to the home of Brother George. Our wife and babies were there, having come in the evening from Brownsboro. We all went out to Antioch next morning, where we had meeting for two days— Monday [pg 60] and Tuesday. On Wednesday morning our wife and babies boarded the train on the Southern for Memphis to come on home, while we, with Brother Phillips, boarded the train on the M. & O. for Rienzi to reach the next appointment, which was at Sardis Church, near Rienzi. Then we filled appointments at Sardis, Booneville, Hopewell, New Hope, McKey’s Creek, New Providence, Friendship and Little Flock Churches. There were large crowds present at nearly every service. We met Elders J. E. Shackelford, E. W. Shackelford, J. A. Miller, J. W. Hardwick, G. N. Gober and R. W. Owens at some of the churches. We do not remember now whether we met Elders J. D. and J. R. Thomas or not. We did not make a note of the brethren met, and have to write from memory.
At Booneville a Sister Burnett, who lives in Rienzi, united with the church and was baptized by Elder Phillips. She certainly had to forsake her kindred in the flesh to follow her Saviour, as her father and relatives were of another persuasion and some of them very much prejudiced. Brother Burnett was overjoyed. The day will be long remembered by him, we are sure. It was a pleasant meeting at this place, as well as at the other places.
We met many dear brethren and sisters whom we had never met before, as this was our first visit in this association. We hope the good Lord may open the way for us to visit them again some day.
We failed to mention the fact above that a large crowd was in attendance every day at the debate. Several brethren in the ministry were present, and several brethren from a distance.
The brethren were kind and good to us all the way on [pg 61] the trip. They were much better to us than we feel to deserve. May the good Lord bless and keep them, is our humble prayer. We trust they may find it in their hearts to pray for us, that we may be sustained and kept by the grace of God, and that we may be found contending for the principles of eternal truth-the principles that were loved and cherished by our fathers.
We arrived home Saturday morning before the second Sunday in August and found all as well as usual, for which we trust we are thankful. Saturday and Sunday was our regular meeting time at our little church in Fordyce. We had a very pleasant meeting both days, though our attendance is not large as in some places. We are in peace among ourselves in our little church, as well as in our association, for which we desire to thank the Lord. Peace is much to be desired. A few in peace is better than a multitude in confusion. Our people here are content with the plain and ancient order of God’s house, and we desire no new things. We are content with the old paths and desire to continue to walk therein. C. H. C.
QUERY
September 1, 1922
Dear Brother Cayce:
Your remarks about insurance were very interesting to me. Brother A goes to a wheel of fortune, lays down a nickle, gives the wheel a turn, and draws thirty-five nickles. (I once knew of a man, not a brother, to make such a deal.) Brother B goes to an old line company, pays fifty dollars on a thousand dollar policy, dies, and his people draw nine hundred and fifty dollars clear. [pg 62] What, if any, is the difference in the two propositions? Please answer in paper. Yours in hope,
Wm. L. Phillips. R. 4, Corsicana, Texas.
ANSWER
The difference is simply that there is absolutely no law of nature connected with the wheel of chance. But there is a law of nature that about so many will die every year at a given age. Statistics having been kept over a long term of years, and of a large number of people, shows that about so many will die out of a certain number of a certain age every year. True that sometimes an epidemic, like the flu, a few years ago, will be an exception for that year, but the average remains the same. Hence, the old line companies, having these records and tables, make their rates so as to meet all necessary expenses and to have enough to meet the claim at the time of the death of the last man. Hence, when the man pays the premium in an old line company, he gets just what he pays for. The premium he pays is enough, with what the others pay that year, to meet all death claims, pay all expenses, and set aside a sufficient amount to meet other claims as they come due.
We are not answering this question to defend insurance, but simply to answer the question asked. We haven’t time or space to go into details in the matter. We will only add that true old line insurance is based on a fixed law of nature, as is revealed in carefully kept statistics over a long term of years. We care nothing about insurance, and do not care to have any personal quarrel over it— and will not. This ends it, so far as our columns are concerned.
C. H. C.
[pg 63]
THE DEBATE
NEAR LEBANON, MO.
September 15, 1922
We left home on Saturday afternoon, August 19, for Little Rock to meet our regular appointment there on the third Sunday. Had meeting on Sunday at the regular place of meeting, the home of Sister Byrd Warren, 814 East Fifteenth Street. The congregation was small, but we had a very pleasant meeting. There are a number of members in Little Rock who hold membership at some place far away. This is not right, we are sure. Time has been when it would have been considered disorder for a person to live so near to an Old Baptist Church and let their membership remain at a church so far away, where they could seldom, if ever, attend.
On Sunday evening we left Little Rock for Hoxie, where we changed cars for Springfield. We arrived in Springfield Monday morning and changed cars again for Phillipsburg. Arrived in Phillipsburg at about ten o’clock. Elder C. C. Agee got on the train before we reached Phillipsburg. Elder J. H. White and wife were also on the train. They all went with us on to the debate. Several brethren in the ministry were in attendance, and there was a good crowd present every day. Elder Clark lives in Fort Worth, Texas, who represented the Campbellites. We found him to be a pleasant man, in a general way; but, like most all his brethren, will make incorrect statements concerning the Old Baptist doctrine. But from what we were told in regard to the way C. R. Nichol acted when he was there last year to meet us, when we were unavoidably prevented from going, we are sure that Mr. Clark is a much nicer man than Nichol. The Campbellites got Mr. Clark instead [pg 64] of Nichol on account of the unbecoming manner in which Nichol conducted himself and on account of some small difference between them in regard to teaching in the Sunday school. Any way, we are satisfied with the debate. We trust that it may do good in the community. We have not space to give a synopsis of the discussion. We had a very pleasant time and the brethren and friends were kind and good to us. We hope to see them again some day. C. H. C.
SUGAR CREEK ASSOCIATION
September 15, 1922
From the debate with Mr. Clark, near Lebanon, Mo., we went to the Sugar Creek Association, which was held at Providence Church, near Garfield, Ark., beginning on Friday before the fourth Sunday in August. Arrangements had been made to feed the crowd right on the ground all the time during the meeting, so those who were there lost no time in going to and from the place of meeting. Six discourses were delivered each day— two in the morning, two in the afternoon, and two at night. Between times of the preaching service the time was spent in singing and in conversation. Those who attended to the preparing of the meals seemed to get along with little trouble. Twelve ordained ministers were present. Their names, associations, and post-offices are as follows: Elder R. L. Piles (Salem), Hon, Ark.; Elder J. K. Corley (New Hope, in North Ark.), Paris, Ark.; Elder C. C. Agee (Ozark), R. 5, Springfield, Mo.; Elder M. T. Cockrell (Sugar Creek), Jenkins, Mo.; Elder Gabe Brown (Sugar Creek), Granby, Mo.; [pg 65] Elder C. L. Smith (Center Creek), Cato, Mo.; Elder J. A. Alberty (Center Creek), Sarcoxie, Mo.; Elder D. F. Coones (Ozark), R. 2, Lebanon, Mo.; Elder Wm. Henson (Sugar Creek), Jenkins, Mo.; Elder J. G.Taylor (Sugar Creek), Garfield, Ark.; Elder W. A. Barham (New Hope, in North Ark.), Watalula, Ark.; Elder C. H. Cayce (New Hope, in South Ark.), Fordyce, Ark. The preaching was all a oneness. We heard no hobby riding, and all seemed to be satisfied with the goodness of God’s house, and with the plain and simple gospel truth, linewithout any speculation on questions that no man can understand. Hungry hearts were fed, and the Lord’s presence was manifested. It was an enjoyable meeting. May the good Lord have all the praise. C. H. C.
MOUNTAIN SPRINGS ASSOCIATION
September 15, 1922
On Thursday morning, August 31, Elder John R. Harris, of Thornton, Ark., came to Fordyce in his car, Brother Loyd Bozarth and wife accompanying him. They took us in with them and we all set out for the Mountain Springs Association, held with Salem Church, near Bee Branch, Ark., beginning on Friday before the first Sunday in September. We arrived in Little Rock at a little after eleven o’clock and had dinner with Sister Byrd Warren. About one o’clock we left Little Rock for Wooster, Sister Warren and Brother T. D. Gardner going with us. We arrived safely in Wooster a little after five o’clock and went to the home of Mr. and Sister Patton, who kindly entertained us, and where we [pg 66] spent the night very pleasantly. Sister Patton had announced an appointment for us in a hall for that night. We tried to speak to the people, and Brother Harris also delivered a short discourse.
Next morning we went on our journey to the association, and arrived there on time. The introductory discourse was delivered by Elder J. H. O’Neal, who spoke ably and to the comfort and instruction of the Lord’s people. Their home ministers present at the meeting were Elders G. A. Jones, Hazen, Ark.; A. Holland, Damascus, Ark.; Marion Russell, Heber Springs, Ark.; J. M. Chastain, Shirley, Ark.; Jacob Sandage, Bee Branch, Ark.; L. G. Montgomery, Bee Branch, Ark.; W. H. Moore, Vilonia, Ark.; J. H. O’Neal, Rupert, Ark. The visiting ministers were Elders C. M. Monk, Salem Association, Abbott, Ark.; John R. Harris, Thornton, and C. H. Cayce, Fordyce, of the New Hope in Southern Arkansas. The preaching was all a unit— not a discordant note was heard in any of the preaching that was done. And those people are good singers, too. They use the Good Old Songs and “sing with the spirit, and with the understanding also.’‘ They study the music, and practice what they know. Such singing as they do makes the preacher feel like talking. He feels like they are interested, for in their singing they manifest an interest in the service of God.
On Sunday Brother H. C. Brannon, son of Elder A. M. Brannon, deceased, came forward and related a reason of his hope in the Saviour and was received as a candidate for baptism, which was to be attended to at the next regular meeting of the church. Many of the saints rejoiced aloud, and shouts of praise and thanksgiving to the Lord for His manifold blessings went up [pg 67] from thankful hearts. It was a sweet meeting indeed, for surely the Lord’s presence was felt and manifested. To Him be glory forever and ever.
C. H. C.
OLD-FASHIONED CHURCH
SERVICE TO BE PRESENTED
October 1, 1922
An old-fashioned church service, typical of the mode of worship 40 years ago, will be reproduced at the First Baptist Church of East Point Sunday evening, September 24.
The electric lights will be discarded and in their places candles and oil lamps will give the only illumination. The choir will disband for the night and no piano will be used. The minister will have the only song book and will read each line, after which the audience will sing the hymns in the old-fashioned manner.
Not even families who attend will be permitted to sit together as the men will sit on one side of the building, while the women will be on the other.
A number of elderly women have been asked to wear bonnets, and the men will probably don denim overalls to add to the realism. Dr. J. R. Roop, of Carrollton, will be in charge of the service and will preach an old time gospel sermon, similar to those still preached in some of the most remote rural districts.
REMARKS
The above is copied from the Atlanta Constitution of September 17, 1922. Those poor ignorant people seem to have peculiar ideas as to what it takes to constitute an old-fashioned church service. They seem to think that there cannot be an old-fashioned church service engaged in under an electric light, as though the light is a part of the service. They seem to think that the reason why people did not have electric lights where they worshipped forty years ago was because their worship [pg 68] was different from what it might be now. The fact is, there were no electric lights in the smaller towns or rural districts, or even in the cities, until a few years ago. And they seem to think that the women must wear bonnets and the men wear overalls in order to worship in the old-fashioned way, as though the clothing worn was a part of the worship. They do not seem to know that the clothing people generally wore forty years ago was the kind that was in style then. Forty years ago people often walked many miles to attend the service and carried their shoes in their hands, and when they got near the meeting house they would stop and put their shoes on. We wonder if these people who propose to have one day of the old-fashioned worship will do that? Truly the ignorance of some people concerning the worship of God would be amusing if it were not so serious and pitiable. And those people claim to be so much enlightened, too! The fact is, though these people are ignorant of it, that the Lord still has a people on earth who continue to worship Him in the same old-fashioned way that our fathers worshipped.
The lights used and the clothing worn are no part of the worship, and have nothing to do with it. They wear clothing to be respectable, like other folks. If they have clothing made in the latest style, that is what they wear to the service. If denim overalls is the best suit the man has, that is what he wears to the service. If the good sister has a new season’s hat, that is what she wears. If the old sun bonnet is the best she has, that is what she wears. It is the sweet and delightful service of the Master that engages their mind, and not the clothing, or the outward appearance, just so they are respectable. But the worldly religionists must have the worldly pomp [pg 69] and show. They may engage in an occasional mock of the old-fashioned service— or pretend to— but the service itself is not what they care for. What they really care for is the fashion and show. They cannot go long without the piano and the choir. Those things are a part of their worship, and they will not dispense with them permanently. Such service as is rendered with their instruments and fantastic music is not acceptable service to the Lord. He is not to be worshipped with men’s hands, but in spirit and in truth. The truth is not what these modern worshippers want. They do not love the truth, and they do not have it preached. They make their own preachers, so they will preach that which tickles the fancy of the world, and the world hears them. They pay large salaries, and a high price, for worldly preaching by worldly preachers for worldly churches. But the old church goes on with her old-fashioned service and worship. They have their trials and conflicts; but the Lord preserves her and keeps her through all the trying scenes through which she comes. He has never left Himself without witness. His witnesses are not so numerous as the witnesses of the worldly religion; but there are enough for the truth to be maintained, and always have been and always will be. To Him be glory forever and ever. C. H. C.
WILDCAT WHISKY
October 1, 1922
A brother asks us this question: “What do you think of a brother preacher that upholds wildcat whisky and runs in that crowd, to the hurt of good brethren who oppose it?” We certainly think that such a thing is [pg 70] very unbecoming any man, much less a gospel minister. We need men in the ministry whose lives are morally above reproach. A minister should be “of good report of them that are without.’‘ His life should be such that all who know him must say that he is an upright man, and that his morals are good. His life should be such that if anything contrary to that is said, it may be a false charge. His life should be an example of truth, piety, godliness, and sobriety.
Immorality in any form should not be practiced by one professing to be a gospel minister. He should keep good company. It does not look well for his associates to be running wildcat stills and bootlegging whisky. That is, it does not look well for him. It is wrong. C. H. C.
POSITION ENDORSED
October 1, 1922
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— I have read several articles in The Primitive Baptist concerning a peace proposition. I read one in the last issue with your comment on same. I sure do endorse you. I would like to offer a few thoughts. I, like you, think if Brother Webb and Brother Newman were to get together and make peace with one another that would not settle the trouble with the Baptists. There is a cause that started the trouble, and if I understand correctly it is the “half man” or the “whole man” doctrine that started it. If Brother Webb still believes the “half man” doctrine and Brother Newman believes the “whole man” doctrine and advocates it, they might make all the peace they could and it would not settle the difference. The wrong party must always see and realize their wrong before they can make lasting peace. I know this by experience. Now if Brother Webb’s party commenced advocating the “half man” doctrine before anything was said on the other side, then that side is responsible for the trouble. On the [pg 71] other hand, if Brother Newman’s side advocated the “whole man” doctrine, before Brother Webb’s side advocated the “half man” doctrine, then Brother Newman’s side is responsible for the trouble, because, the Bible is silent on the “half man” or the “whole man” so far as the expression is concerned. Our Saviour never said anywhere in the Book that it is the whole man that is born again, or a part of the man— He just said “ye must be born again,” and left off the expression “whole” or “half.” Just as long as the Baptists left off these expressions they were not divided on them. Then whichever side led out first on these expressions are responsible for the trouble. Whoever uses an expression that causes trouble is responsible for that trouble. Now I don’t think either side has the right to advocate either side when they see that it causes trouble. When I left Mississippi five years ago I had not heard anyone advocate the doctrine that the “whole man” or that a “part” or the “half man” was born again. Elders Morris and Smith, of Oxford, Elders Neal, Williams, Easley, Verell and others, all always preached that “ye must be born again,” with the “whole man” or “half man” left off. Elders J. A. and S. A. Paine, Goodwin and Edwards, of Texas, all preached in the old Hopewell Association, of Mississippi, and all of them just preached “ye must be born again, “with the expression of “whole” or “half man” left off. Yes, Brother Cayce, I remember hearing you and your dear father preach in the old Hopewell Association, and you both preached Jesus and Him crucified, and that an alien sinner must be born again, with the expression “whole” or “half man” left off. Now, whoever started this “whole” or “half man”— that is, using the expression whole or half-doctrine is responsible for the trouble; and until both sides quit using the expression “whole” or “half” the division will continue. My honest opinion is that if both sides will agree to stop using those expressions and use the expression just like Jesus and the apostles and like our preachers used to, “ye must be born again,” “you hath He quickened,’‘ I feel like there will be a gathering together of the dear children of God. Dear brother, I have felt like, for a long time, that I wanted to write on this subject, but feeling my weakness and unworthiness so much I have put it off. If this is printed I do hope that none of the dear brethren and sisters on either side will get offended at me, for if I know my poor heart I [pg 72] love them all, and I do pray that we may all see alike and speak one and the same thing, and that all may be done to the glory of our heavenly Father who knows all things— who is wrong and who is right; who is stubborn and who is not. May it be God’s will to give us all a penitent heart and forgiving spirit. Remember me in your prayers. Your brother, I trust, in the Lord,
G. W. Anthony.
Kemp, Texas.
REMARKS
What this brother says all seems to be very good. But suppose a brother has never used the expressions mentioned, and yet brethren have said he advocated the “whole man” doctrine— what about that? We never did use the expression any other way only the way it is recorded in Holy Writ, and said all the while that no man had the right to add to or to take from that expression. We stand on the same ground yet. The truth of the matter is, though, that the difference and the trouble was not on regeneration. We know that was what was said the trouble was on, but that was not it. But we do not care to revive the matter, or to raise the issue again on the matter that it was said the trouble was over. While there was a division, we were sure then, and we are sure yet, that a large number did not know then, and do not know yet, what they divided over. There were many good Baptists on both sides, and there are yet many good brethren on both sides. The division should have never been. Instead of there being a division the discipline of the church should have been administered, and every disorderly walking person should have been excluded and the body of Baptists remained together. We would be glad now to see all orderly walking Baptists who are agreed on the [pg 73] fundamental principles of the doctrine of the Bible come together and live in peace. But we are opposed to any coming together that brings in false swearers, fornicators, adulterers, liars, and those who are guilty of such like ungodly conduct. C. H. C.
JOHN 13:8
October 15, 1922
In another place in this paper will be found a letter from Dr. J. E. Anderson in which he asks for our views on the latter clause of JohN 13:8. “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.’‘ We understand that the Saviour meant by that expression that if He did not wash Peter’s feet that Peter would have no part with Him in that service. In the same connection the Saviour said, “If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.” This shows that there is a happiness promised the child of God in doing the things the Lord requires. If the apostle refused for the Saviour to wash his feet, or if the Saviour did not wash his feet, then he would miss the happiness, joy and satisfaction. He would have no part with the Saviour in the matter.
The querist also asks us what interpretation people put on this who do not believe feet washing is essential in the worship of God. We confess that we do not know. We have expressed our views several times in the past in regard to feet washing. C. H. C.
[pg 74]
EXPLANATION WANTED
November 1, 1922
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— I have some Scriptures on my mind that I have heard people explain, but not to my satisfaction. I want you to explain them. They are these: Matt. 12:22-32; Mark 3:22-30; Luke 12:10; Acts 7:51-52; 1John 5:16-17. What is the sin against the Holy Ghost? Is it done by acts or by words? Are the sins mentioned in Acts 7:51-52, and 1 John 5:16-17, the same as in Matthew, Mark and Luke? If not, what is the difference? If they are not the same, what is that sin unto death? Is it a child of God that sins against the Holy Ghost, or the alien sinner? If it is a child of God, then he never can get back, according to Heb. 6:4-6. Did those who crucified the Son of God commit the unpardonable sin? If you will explain and harmonize the above Scriptures, you will do me and others a great favor. I have heard it discussed in many ways. Some of it I think I understand, and some I do not. I have about come to the conclusion that I know but very little. Yours in hope,
Noah Ellis.
Henderson, Texas.
REMARKS
The citations in Matthew, Mark and Luke refer to the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. What gave rise to the expression was that the Jews said that Christ cast out devils by the prince of devils. The sin, or a sin, against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness. There is no remission of sin against the Holy Ghost. The person who sins against the Holy Ghost is in danger of eternal damnation; see Mark 3:29. The child of God is not in danger of eternal damnation. One for whom the Saviour died is not in danger of eternal damnation. Jesus was surety for His people, and all their sins were charged to His account. Hence, every sin they commit is directly against Him, being laid on Him. No sin committed by a man for whom Jesus did not die is [pg 75] against Him, but every sin such a person commits is against the Father or the Holy Ghost, because not laid on Christ. They are in danger every day of receiving the just sentence for their sins— eternal damnation. This lesson teaches the doctrine of special atonement as plainly to us as any passage in the whole Book, and that is taught as plainly as that salvation is by grace. Acts 7:51-52 says, “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have your fathers not persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers.” This is the language of Stephen spoken to the people who stoned him to death. They were doing as their fathers did. They resisted the Holy Ghost in the sense that they resisted His teaching as presented by the prophets, and stoned the prophets the Lord sent. They did not resist the regenerating power of the Holy Ghost, but the teaching as presented by the prophets and apostles. Neither did such persons believe the teaching of the Saviour when He preached His own gospel. The power of the Holy Ghost in the gospel is one thing, and the power of the Holy Ghost in regeneration is another thing. Life is not given through the medium of teaching, or through any other medium. It is necessarily a direct work. Wicked men who have not the love of God in their hearts have never accepted gospel teaching. They may pretend for a time to do so, but deep down in their hearts they do not believe it. The sinner must be born again in order to receive the gospel, or in order to understand it. “Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” If he [pg 76] cannot see the kingdom, neither can he see the things that are in and pertain to the kingdom. The gospel pertains to the kingdom. Hence, the man must be born again in order to see the beauty there is in the gospel of the grace of God. The sin unto death, as spoken of in 1 John 5:16-17, is a sin a member of the church may commit which is so grievous that the church cannot afford to pass by and retain the member, or even to restore such a one to membership. We might mention several things that a man might do which we are sure would rightfully bar him from membership in the church of God. Suppose a man who has rightfully forfeited his citizenship by perjuring himself— swearing falsely— could he be righteously retained in the church, or restored to membership? We hardly think so. There are other things, too, that a man might be guilty of that would be a reproach for the church to retain him as a member. C. H. C.
REPENTANCE
November 1, 1922
Elder C. H. Cayce:
I assure you that we enjoy the dear old Primitive Baptist’s visits. I do hope sometime to meet you and hear you preach. I found Brother Knighten had visited you and talked with you, and I asked many questions about you. I have read your debate with Elder Penick and I wish I had the chance to read it again. Will you please sometime express briefly your views on what became of Ananias and Sapphira his wife? Were they lost? Not long since I was talking with a good Missionary Baptist and he made the remark that the Primitive Baptists had been preaching repentance only about forty years. Now, I believe and understand that they have preached it ever since they have preached [pg 77] anything. If not asking too much, please give an article on that matter sometime when convenient. Yours in hope of eternal life,
Irvin Canady.
Eros, La.
REMARKS
We have thought that Ananias and Sapphira were children of God, and had membership in the church. We do not know that there is any positive proof that they were, or that they were not, children of God. They lied to the Holy Ghost, and they died, as a result of their sin. The Primitive Baptists have preached repentance all along the line. They do not preach it, and never have, as the world does, but as the Bible teaches. There is a repentance which is worked by godly sorrow. God grants repentance unto Israel and the forgiveness of sins. Then God’s children should repent or turn from any wrong course they may have pursued. Then there is a moral repentance-any person who has been living an immoral life should repent— turn from it— and live a moral life. As we understand it, Old Baptists have always preached it this way. We cannot write at length on the question now. C. H. C.
HOW TO GET PEACE
December 1, 1922
Dear Brethren and Sisters:
I have just read the last number of The Primitive Baptist, and read a letter from Brother G. W. Anthony, in which he calls attention to some peace propositions in regard to a coming together of the Baptists. From what I can gather it seems that Elders Newman and Webb are the bones of contention. I wrote a short letter some months ago, in which I made a proposition to Elders Webb and Newman, asking them to become reconciled to each other if possible, and did not at all mean for either of them to endorse anything that was not in perfect accord with the divine word. I just thought that it might be one step toward bringing about a condition of peace among God’s poor and afflicted people that some pastors have caused to err. God has pronounced a woe on such a man, or men, called pastors. I feel sure that good preachers have become carnal in the divisions and have widened the breach instead of healing it.
I notice Brother Anthony uses the words half or whole man doctrine often. Of course if any brother preacher uses any such expression, it is out of order, if he is trying to set up some kind of doctrine of his opinion. The Saviour just said to Nicodemus, “Ye must be born again.” We know that our Master addressed the man in his entirety. To cut the man up into several parts, and find no use for a part of him— we will just say our bodies can’t and don’t serve God all alone. And that Jesus was addressing a renewed spirit within us, the man, the Adam man, would not be in it at all-and just the renewed spirit that is in the man, then the body is lost and the great doctrine of the blessed resurrection is a farce. But, dear brethren, my hope is built on the resurrection of these mortal bodies. If such expressions as half man or whole man is, or has been, the cause of so much trouble and dividing, I agree with Brother Cayce in the fact that there were, and are yet, good Baptists on both sides of this question.
Now Elder Newman has done all that any man could ask to adjust all this matter in its infancy, but many years have passed away, and many of God’s little ones have died wondering, no doubt, what it all meant; and I am sure there are many of God’s dear people who do not yet know the seat of all this wrangle about words to no profit. We should strive to bring about conditions of peace. In my letter to Elders Newman and Webb I did not have in mind at all for a wholesale coming together. I cannot see at the present time any way for a coming together of any of the factions, only by individually coming to orderly churches, tried and true, in keeping with the faith as has been kept by our fathers. So I feel that when brethren want peace in earnest they will seek for it. May the God of peace guide us in all things that make for peace and whereby we may be strengthened in the faith. If we had that tenderness in our hearts for each other that Jesus had for His dear people, we could look over many faults we might find. When we get willing to pay the price for peace among ourselves we can have it.
In conclusion, Elder Newman does not preach, and has not preached, that our flesh is made pure in regeneration, but that the flesh is subjected; but in the resurrection our bodies are made pure, immortal, and ready for eternal glory. May God, in His mercy, bring His dear people together in peace and love. I am, I hope, a poor sinner saved by grace. J. G. Grant.
Hico, Texas.
REMARKS
It is true, very true, that but few know the seat of the trouble that brought the division in Texas— or that started there. We are aware that some claim that it was because Elder Newman advocated what some called the whole man doctrine. But that was not the seat, or origin, of the trouble. That which gave rise to it was the question of adultery in the church. A certain preacher had a daughter who married a man that was separated from more than one woman without a Scriptural cause, and she and her man were received into the church. Some said they were living in adultery, Scripturally. Then the preacher set in to kill and to destroy all who would not say that they were not in adultery. This is and was the start of the whole thing. Something must be “hatched up” to destroy Elder Newman on this account— hence the “hatched up” charge that he was advocating the whole man doctrine. Now, if those parties who “hatched up” such charges want peace, let them “pay the price.” There are some of them whose credit is not good. For instance: At the Forked Deer Association, in West Tennessee, in 1917, [pg 80] the ministers present all signed an agreement and settlement. Two weeks later one of those preachers was present at the Predestinarian Association, in West Tennessee, at Clark’s Creek Church, and stated publicly that the agreement was signed, and that he was glad of it and had been happy over it ever since. In May following he had an article in the Trumpet renouncing the agreement, and in which he said he was sorry of it from the first night after it was done, and slept but little that (first) night on account of it. This same man is pastoring a church that restored a man who was excluded for false swearing and malicious slandering of another, and also another charge, and approves the action and course of the church. What about such as this— and then saying he wants peace? This man had an article in the Gospel Messenger in which he would make it appear that he was willing to do anything in the world for peace. He wrote us a private letter, which we answered and asked him a few questions, but he replied not.
Peace in the church? Yes, there will be peace, and all who love order and upright living, can come together and can have peace, if they will have a “spring cleaning” and sweep such ungodly trash out of the Lord’s house as fornicators, adulterers, liars, slanderers, perjured persons, moonshiners, bootleggers, trucebreakers, false accusers, traitors, the devil’s ministers who have been transformed as ministers of righteousness. Such as these cannot be kept in the church of God without trouble. We want all good and orderly walking brethren to come together in love and peace-but we do not want to come together with such as these. Do you? Say, DO YOU? We mean any of you. We would like [pg 81] to hear from the man who does-if there is one. Perhaps one who loves sin as well as he ever did would like to be with such.
Enough at present. We know that by speaking out on these things we bring down upon our heads the curses and condemnation of many-but God requires faithfulness. Some have quit taking the paper, and some have refused to take it, because we have spoken out against some things that have been put forth as a “peace move.” But we expect, by the help of God, to warn our people against everything we think is wrong, even if every subscriber we have stops his paper and we never get another subscriber while we live. It is not a matter of subscribers— but a matter of what is right. Take a certain church in Texas, for instance, that took a preacher in that had been excluded for adultery— and the case had been in court and the church that excluded him would not restore him, but this church took him in. Then they gave him a letter and he went to another state and joined on that letter, we suppose. How is that for order? Do you think such as that will produce peace and order in the house of God?
May the good Lord deliver us from the hand of the enemy and keep the city, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
[pg 82]
REMARKS TO OLIVE DODD
January 15, 1923
Dear sister, we feel to appreciate your kind words and expressions of Christian love and fellowship, and your desire to encourage us along life’s rugged way. Our pathway has been rough. Many times we have felt that the trials of life were more than we could bear. We trust it is by the grace of God we have come thus far, and our trust and confidence are yet in Him. We feel unworthy the love and esteem of the Lord’s dear children. We would deny the faith and forsake the true principles of the gospel if not kept by the grace of God. Were it not for the manifestations of the love and esteem of some of the Lord’s dear children, such as your letter, we feel that we would have to give up. May the Lord bless you, dear sister. Please remember us in your prayers. C. H. C.
TOUR IN ALABAMA
January 15, 1923
We bade our loved ones farewell and left our humble home on Wednesday night, Nov. 1, to fill appointments which had been made for us in north Alabama and Tennessee. We were blessed of the Lord to reach every place where appointments had been made for us. In the Mount Zion Association we visited the following churches: New Clear Creek, Zion Hill, Mt Moriah, Mt. Joy, Salem, Brown’s Creek, Shiloh, Mt. Vernon, Mt. Olive, Dripping Springs, Gum Pond, Harmony, Little Vine, Rocky Mount, Little Branch, Bethlehem and New Hope-all in the order named. We made no note or [pg 83] memorandum of the homes we visited, or who conveyed us from place to place. We do not suppose this is of any interest to the readers anyway, and we think many brethren take too much valuable space in relating such things. There were good congregations at most all these churches, and they seem to enjoy going to meeting and engaging in the service of the Lord. We made no note or memorandum of the ministers we met, but believe we can remember the names of most, if not all, of them. We remember the following: Elders A. Whitworth, M. Sparks, W. A. Childers, F. B. Moon, W. J. Dendy, J. N. Bobo, B. G. Parker, G. E. Graves, J. E. Yancey, and G. W. Heath. These are all in the Mt. Zion Association. Besides these we met Elder Henry Moon, who is a member of Ephesus Church in the Sand Mountain Association. The next appointment was at Ephesus Church. On the way there we visited Elder R V Hood, who was confined to his bed with rheumatism. We were glad to meet all these dear brethren, and truly hope Elder Hood may be restored to health again. If we met any other brethren in the ministry we trust they may pardon us for not mentioning their names, as we are writing from memory. We also met several “licensed ministers.” It was expected that Elder J. J. Turnipseed would make this trip with us. We received word to that effect just before leaving home, and the news had been circulated at all the places; but he did not meet us until Monday, Nov. 20, at Little Vine. He was with us there and at Rocky Mount and one day at Little Branch, and at Arab on Monday night, where we had consented for an appointment to be made for us. Brother Turnipseed was prevented from making the trip, as he expected, on [pg 84] account of illness of his wife. We were sorry that he did not come sooner, and sorry that he could not stay longer, but glad to be with him the three days. May the good Lord bless his labors, is our humble prayer. If we are not deceived, these are good brethren in the Mount Zion Association, and they have been blessed of the Lord. They have been persecuted, but have been faithful and true in the service and devoted to the cause. Our next appointment was in the Sand Mountain Association. We visited Ephesus, Pleasant Hill, Pilgrim Rest and Macedonia, the four churches of the association. We were at Ephesus two days. The weather was very cold and disagreeable, so that the congregations were not as large as they would have been, but were very good considering the inclemency of the weather and that the church is small and the membership scattered. At Pleasant Hill the congregations were small both days on account of the fact that many families in the community were down with the flu. Appointments were made for three days at Pilgrim Rest, but nearly every family in the community had flu or other illness— some of them had pneumonia. The two last days were the regular meeting time, but on account of so much sickness among the members it was thought advisable to call in the meeting for Saturday and Sunday and go on to Macedonia and have meeting there four days instead of the two days that had been announced, which was done. The congregation was small at Pilgrim Rest on account of so much sickness, and small at Macedonia on Saturday on account of not having time to get the appointment circulated, but good congregations were present on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday. In this association we met Elders [pg 85] H. D. Leonard, W. L. Garrett, J. T. Roberts, W. J. Ball,—Durham and J. K. Phillips. On Tuesday night, Dec. 5, and Wednesday, Dec. 6, we filled appointments in Langston.
On Wednesday evening we went to Scottsboro and boarded the train for Brownsboro and spent the time with Brother B. B. Lawler and family until Friday morning. Our wife is a daughter of Brother Lawler. On Friday we filled an appointment at Hurricane Church, where there was a small congregation. Elders J. W. Bragg and H. P. Houk were with us at this place. Brother R. L. Tillman, of Decherd, Tenn., was there and went to all our appointments in this association- the Flint River. On Saturday and Sunday we were at Flint Church, the regular meeting time. This is the oldest Baptist Church in the state of Alabama. It was organized Oct. 2, 1808, and the one hundredth anniversary was celebrated Oct. 2, 3, 4, 1908. Elders H. P. and A. J. Houk were with us at Flint. On Monday and Tuesday, Dec. 11,12, we were at Briar Fork. Elders B. G. and G. A. Stephens were with us both days. Elder S. F. Best was present on Monday, but was sick on Tuesday and not able to be there. On Wednesday and Thursday we were at Pleasant Grove. Our wife and children came Monday night, arriving in Huntsville at 2 o’clock, to visit her mother and father and family. She and her mother went with us to Pleasant Grove on Wednesday. We had very pleasant meetings at all these places, though the congregations were not as large as they would have been had not the weather been so bad.
On the third Sunday and night we were with Bethel Church in Nashville, Tenn. We tried to serve this church from its organization until we moved to [pg 86] Arkansas in October, 1919. We enjoyed being with them once more. It seemed like coming home to us. Elder Geo. W. Inyart, of Olney, Ill., was with us here, he being on a tour filling appointments in that section. We enjoyed a pleasant meeting with this church. They are a good band of faithful brethren.
On Monday morning we went to Decherd, Tenn., where an appointment had been made for us at 1:30 p. m. Here we met Elders Dunaway and Byrom. We enjoyed a very pleasant meeting there.
On Thursday and Friday, Dec. 21, 22, we were with Union Church at Woodville, in Mud Creek Association. Only a short time was had to publish the appointments, and there was some sickness in the neighborhood, so the congregations were small, but the meetings were pleasant both days.
On Saturday and Sunday we were with Bethel Church, in Mud Creek Association, the regular meeting time. Elder W. T. Flanagan was with us there. Very good congregations were present both days, and we enjoyed a very pleasant meeting.
On Tuesday, Dec. 26, we went to Decatur, to fill an appointment that night. The meeting was at the Missionary Baptist Church in East Albany. A good congregation was present and the meeting was a pleasant one. Those people were kind and good to us. The pastor, Elder Stuckey, was present. We returned to Brownsboro on Wednesday morning.
Thus the appointments have been filled. Much of the time since the third Sunday until the time of this writing, on Friday, December 29, we have been at the home of Brother B. B. Lawler. Our wife desired to spend this Christmas time with her mother and family, [pg 87] so we have been here and have been putting in some of the time writing, answering letters and preparing manuscript for The Primitive Baptist. We are expecting to leave here tonight to go to Little Rock to be with the little church there on Sunday, and to go from there home.
This has been a very pleasant tour to us, and the brethren have been kind and good to us-much better than we feel to deserve. We often feel that our efforts are poor and worth nothing to the cause, but we are kindly received, and the brethren endorse the principles we try to defend, and this makes us feel that our efforts, though poor, are not altogether in vain. We feel thankful, we trust, to the good Lord for His mercy and loving kindness to us, and to the good brethren for their care of us while among them. May His richest blessings be showered upon them, is our humble prayer. We trust the Lord may spare us to meet many of them again on earth, but if we meet no more in this world, our hope is that we may meet in that world of bliss and glory, where Sabbaths never end and congregations never break up. We desire an interest in the prayers of the Lord’s dear children, that He may grant us grace and Christian courage and fortitude to fight the good fight of faith until we come to the end of our pilgrimage and stay on earth. C. H. C.
[pg 88]
DEBATE AT PARRISH, ALABAMA
February 1, 1923
We have agreed, the Lord willing, to meet J. D. Tant (Campbellite) in debate at or near Parrish, Ala., to begin on Tuesday, March 13, and continue four days. The question of church identity will be discussed. We hope as many of the brethren and friends will attend as can.
C. H. C.
REMARKS ON A COUNCIL
February 1, 1923
We feel duty bound to dissent from one paragraph in the foregoing, which says,”We hold that discipline belongs solely to the church, and all investigations and labor must be bestowed by official church authority, and no minister has the right to usurp authority over the church by refusing to affiliate with his brethren in a sister church until the church holding said minister or members are officially labored with and withdrawn from.’‘ We do not dissent from the statement that discipline belongs solely to the church; but the idea that a minister usurps authority over the church by refusing to affiliate with a man until the church holding him has been officially labored with is what we think is wrong at least, we do not think this is necessarily correct.
Here is a case in point: we know a man who is under a cloud we have been informed of bad reports about him. He moved his place of abode and his membership. His recommendation was signed by one under bad report. The church where his membership was moved to was informed, but no official labor bestowed by sister [pg 89] churches that we know anything about.
But we will not affiliate with that man. Neither will the churches of our association do so. If a minister knows that a man is not what he should be, or if any other brother knows it, for that matter, he should not affiliate with him. No man should knowingly affiliate with an adulterer or perjurer, whether his church has been labored with or not, especially if the church has had information furnished. C. H. C.
PASTOR SHOULD QUIT
February 1, 1923
The following questions were sent to us with a request that we answer them through The Primitive Baptist:
1. Should a preacher retain the pastoral care of a church when he knows that a number of the members object to him being the pastor?
Answer: In most every case where the pastor knows that a number of the members object to him continuing as pastor, he should resign. There may be a few instances when it would be wrong for him to resign, but such instances are rare.
2. Should a preacher persist in going to a church to preach when said church had asked for and received the resignation of said preacher as pastor, and is it becoming of such preacher to open the door of the church at such places? Answer: We do not think the preacher should go to a church where his services are not desired. If he has the cause at heart we do not think he would do so.
3. In case such preacher persists in such course, [pg 90] what course should be pursued? Answer: The church might ask him to desist. The church might make complaint to the church of his membership. C. H. C.
REPLIES TO “WHERE ARE WE AT?”
March 15, 1923
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother I notice in July 1st issue of The Primitive Baptist that you ask the question, “Where are we at,” in regard to Elder S. C. Bozarth’s case. For the information of you and your readers I will explain the matter, so far as Antioch Church is concerned in it.
1st. Elder Bozarth moved to Arkansas sometime in the year 1918. In September, 1919, the church called Antioch granted him a letter of dismission in good standing. There was no more thought about it until April, 1920, when I received a letter from him asking that we send him a copy of the church letter, or statement showing that he was in good standing when he left us. You will please remember that he did not ask us to reinstate him, but just to give him a statement showing his standing when he left us. He complained that he had got among “Absoluters” and wanted to get out— that he had been fooled in joining where he did.
2nd. We had never heard of Pine Grove Church being in line with the unlimited predestinarians. We knew that Elder J. N. Keith, of Grayson County, Ky., had lived there for sometime, and had helped to organize the church. We have always, and do now, regard Elder Keith as being a sound Baptist. Elder Bozarth having lived there for a year before, and near a year after he called for his letter and joined Pine Grove Church, we thought it a little strange that he would find out this late that they were “Absoluters. ‘’ From these considerations we thought it best to write Pine Grove Church to know more about the matter. On failing to receive an immediate answer, we thought there was nothing serious, and so I put the matter before Antioch Church on Saturday before the second Sunday in May, and after some discussion pro and con, the church did authorize me to send him (Elder Bozarth) [pg 91] a statement showing that he was in good standing when he left us. This is just what Elder Bozarth asked for, and is just what the church granted him— not a church letter, but only a statement showing that he left us in good standing. The church record shows this. I give here the fifth item of that day’s business: “fifth New business; by motion and second the church agreed to give Elder S. C. Bozarth a statement of writing showing his standing when dismissed from us.”
3rd. On Monday following the above stated action of Antioch Church I mailed Elder Bozarth the statement the church authorized me to send him. On the same day we received a letter from Pine Grove Church stating that Elder Bozarth had been excluded from them on a charge of willful and slanderous conduct, and that Elder Bozarth did on first coming to Pine Grove Church want to join them by relation, stating that Antioch Church in Kentucky was in disorder.
4th. On receiving word from Elder Bozarth that Pine Grove Church was “Absolute” in her doctrine, and receiving word from Pine Grove Church that Elder Bogarth had come there wanting to join by relation, denouncing our church as disorderly, and then later excluded from the church on a charge of willful and slanderous conduct, we were puzzled what to do. If Pine Grove Church was identified with “Absoluters” they were not with us, and if the reports on Elder Bozarth were true we would not uphold him in them; we decided that the best course was to have nothing at all to do with the matter. I had mailed the statement to Elder Bozarth when we received word of his conduct and exclusion, and then Elder Bozarth wrote me that he had had trouble with an elder,—and also stated that he had joined another church on the statement I had sent him. Now in order to show that we would have nothing at all to do in the matter, and to let all concerned know that we did not reinstate Elder Bozarth (he did not even ask to be reinstated) we decided to publish the statement which appeared in Messenger of Zion July 21st, 1920. We did not rescind the act of granting Elder Bozarth a church letter, for we did not do that. We did not rescind the act of granting a statement showing his standing when dismissed from us, but simply stated that was what we did. We stated that Elder Bozarth was not then a member of Antioch Church, which he was not. Now if Elder Bozarth presented a [pg 92] letter in church letter form to Thornton Church he presented something he did not obtain from us, for we did not give it.
Now a word about the statement. It was adopted by Antioch Church on Saturday before the second Sunday in July, instead of May, as the date in published statement indicates. It was an oversight in Elder Shain in letting it go uncorrected. The church record shows that it was acted upon on that date. And remember that that statement was not a rescinding of any act, but a statement of what it did. Now if Antioch Church did wrong, we fail to see where the wrong was. We feel like we are in the clear. If not, why not?
Now a word to you, Brother Cayce. If you are willing to receive and retain Elder Bozarth under these circumstances, we will say that Antioch Church has no complaint to make. As he was not a member of our church we feel that we had no say as to who received him. We did not intend to wrong Elder Bozarth in the statement, and feel that we did not; nor do we feel that we did anyone else any wrong. We hope that this will show you our attitude in this matter. Now we ask that you publish this in August 1st issue of The Primitive Baptist so that your readers will know the truth of this matter, so far as we are concerned in it. We are sorry that the dates in the published statement were wrong, and therefore misleading, but it was an error of Brother Shain, and not ours. Yours in hope,
D. F. Siria, Church Clerk.
Madisonville, Ky.,
July 24, 1922.
SECOND REPLY
“Blessed are the peace makers, for they shall be called the children of God.”— Matt. 5:9.
Elder C. H. Cayce: Dear Brother— The July first issue of your paper has been handed to me by one of your subscribers with a request that I answer your article published under the question, “Where Are We At?” And inasmuch as you so urgently requested someone to answer, I am complying with the request.
First. I wish to call attention to the advice put forth in the General Address to the churches by the ministers and brethren at the Fulton council meeting in 1900, which you and I both concurred on, and which I have faithfully observed to the letter from then [pg 93] until now, in which we said,”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.” Fulton Council Proceedings, page 8.
We thought then this was good advice, and I think so yet. Don’t you think so too? And it is so much like the advice given by the apostles and elders. Hear them: “But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.” Acts 15:11. Also Acts 15:28-29,”For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no other burden than those necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, ye do well. Fare ye well.” Nothing is said about keeping themselves from predestination of all things. This must not be necessary.
But if some should raise bars of fellowship against their brethren, notwithstanding our advice and the Scriptures to the contrary, then what should we do? We advise that “If the raisers thereof cannot be induced to remove them at once, the only course for those who want to remain in this holy church union is to discard their action and have no connection with them until they withdraw such bars of fellowship.” Fulton Council Proceedings, page 9. Don’t you think this was spiritually wholesome and godly advice? I am sure it was, and is. And if all who joined in giving it had strenuously observed it, our troubles and divisions would be greatly diminished.
But in your article you say, “Elder Hardy’s church is identified here with the party known as Absoluters, there having been a division about twelve years ago in the New Hope Association on that question, and Elder Hardy is with that side of the New Hope.” Also you say, “There was a division in the Highland [pg 94] Association in Kentucky a number of years ago on that question.” Brother Cayce, I am persuaded that you do not really know just what caused the division among the Baptists here or in the Highland Association in Kentucky either, else you would not have made that statement.
I came to this country eight years ago and found a division among the Baptists here which occurred about four years before, and not knowing which party was in order, I got Elder John Keith, of Kentucky, to assist me in the constitution of our church here, and discarded both parties until I could investigate. Was that commendable? Was it right? Later I thoroughly investigated their trouble as follows: First. I went to Elder Little and talked with him, and then called both parties together at our church (Pine Grove) and interrogated both parties together. They discussed every mooted question among the Baptists, and, to my surprise, not a statement made by either party was combatted or denied by the other, but both agreed upon every point discussed. And not an accusation was made by either party against any minister of the other party of ever having preached anything that tended to disturb their fellowship. And at the close of the investigation both parties agreed for me to write up a statement of their agreement and that each of them would sign it and then go together to the several churches of each party and ask them to accept it and reunite. But the following morning Elder Little declined without assigning any reason whatever for so doing, notwithstanding he preached with the other party during the meeting, both before and after the investigation.
The investigation revealed that one minister, some twenty years before their trouble, preached predestination in a way that would charge God with being the author of sin, and was excluded from the church for it. He finally returned, confessed his error and was restored, and associated and preached with Elder Little without a complaint against him until his death, which occurred some years before the division.
Elder Little stated in the investigation that he never heard any other minister of the New Hope Association preach anything on that subject that he did not endorse, but that some brethren used expressions in private conversation that he thought were not in keeping with the Scriptures. Does this look like a division in the [pg 95] New Hope Association? The investigation further revealed that Elder Little had been moderator of the New Hope Association for some years, but just prior to the division he had been deposed and another chosen, after which he and his brethren raised up and declared non-fellowship for the association, charging predestination as the cause. The brethren begged and plead with them to remain in the association, but to no avail. Therefore, there was nothing left for them to do, according to the advice given at the Fulton council meeting, if they desired to remain in the holy church union, but to discard their actions and have no connection with them, which they observed and which exists now.
But when you came to this country you disregarded that advice and accepted their actions and connected yourself with them. Therefore, my dear brother, you are not in the clear, but have erred. However, my love for you is unimpaired, and I have no desire to injure you nor cause you trouble. But my desire and prayer to God is that we may turn from our error and walk sweetly together in love, and labor for the peace and union of our beloved Zion, according to the advice given at Fulton; and our hearts and arms are extended to such and are ever open to receive them. It may be contended that these brethren declared against heresy. Well, in our general address at Fulton we gave an interpretation of heresy as follows: “We take heresy to mean a departure from the teachings of the Scriptures as explained in our acknowledged confession of faith.”— Fulton Council Proceedings, page 9. But what is our acknowledged “confession of faith?” In our general address we said,”The London Confession of Faith, adopted over two hundred years ago by thirty-seven of the ablest ministers of England and Wales, representing over one hundred churches, has served one of the most needful services among our people of any document of faith since the days of the apostles, and has stood unquestioned as an expression of the Primitive Baptists’ interpretation of the Bible from then till now.’‘— Fulton Council Proceedings, page 15. This shows that we considered nothing to be heresy that was in harmony with the London Confession of Faith. Did they declare against a departure from the London Confession of Faith? They said positively that they”declared non-fellowship for the doctrine that God predestinated all things that come to pass.’‘ What does our “acknowledged confession of faith” say? [pg 96] “God hath decreed in Himself from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things whatsoever come to pass.”— London Confession of Faith, article 3, section 1. This looks very much like they declared non-fellowship for our acknowledged confession of faith, and thereby went into heresy themselves, does it not? Aren’t we justified in standing aloof from them as long as they remain where they are? And if we should do otherwise, would we not repudiate the advice given at Fulton?
But what caused the division in the Highland Association in Kentucky? In 1898 the association convened at Margaret Hill Church. Elders Boaz, Cleveland, Darnell, Davis, Hardy, Perkins, Turner and Williams were present and the association made no difference between them, but by ballot preached all but Boaz. The next year (1899) the association convened at Flat Creek Church, and Elders Cleveland, Davis, Hardy, Jenkins, J. V and A. M. Kirkland, Perkins, Reeder, Stuckey, Turner, Todd and Wallace were there; and the association, by ballot, preached Cleveland, Davis, Jenkins, Perkins, Reeder and Turner and ignored all the others. Elders J. N. Wallace, J. B. Hardy, J. V Kirkland and others begged and plead for the association to remain together, just as the brethren did here. The association adjourned in peace and never met together again. Now can you tell what divided them? It was not “Absolutism,” for the “Absoluters” were in the majority, as you can see by them preaching the “Absolute” preachers and ignoring the others. But what was the cause of the division? Before the association convened in 1900, Elder Chandler was excluded from Salem Church upon the testimony of seven members for lying. Elders Morgan and Clark came to the church and tried to lord it over her by trying to force his restoration, which resulted in the exclusion of nine others. Then Morgan and Clark gathered the excluded parties together, and all that they could lead from the other churches of that association, and refused to meet at the place appointed for the association to convene, but assembled at another place and declared non-fellowship for all who would not go with them into their disorder. And the “Absoluters” of Kentucky, Tennessee and Illinois, who had raised bars against their brethren, joined with them. And again we had no alternative but to discard their actions and have no [pg 97] connection with them, as advised in the general address of the brethren at Fulton. Were we justified in our course in Kentucky in observing the advice of the brethren at Fulton? If so, we also are justified in our course here in Arkansas in observing their advice.
But again you say,”Thus it is seen that Elder Shain and his people in Kentucky will not, or do not, recognize the ‘Absoluters’ there but recognize them here in Arkansas. We wonder if that suits his corresponding editors?” No, Brother Cayce, this is not a matter of recognizing “Absoluters” either in Kentucky or here in Arkansas; but it is a matter of observing the advice of that large assembly of Baptists which convened at Fulton for the purpose of checkmating the raising of unlawful bars of fellowship among the Primitive Baptists and of recognizing the orderly Baptists according to their advice after such bars had been raised. No doubt this exactly suits Elder Shain’s corresponding editors and the Primitive Baptists generally, for many of them sat in this council and joined in giving this advice. Surely observing their advice suits them; if it does not, I would be at a loss to know what would. None of our people teach or believe that God is in any way responsible for sin. But we believe and teach that all sin is dictated by the devil and performed by man entirely without any influence or approval of God whatsoever. In short, we believe and adhere to the doctrine of predestination as set forth in the London Confession of Faith. And if any of our ministers should advocate it stronger than that he would be dealt with as an heretic. Now as to Elder Bozarth, he came to Arkansas as you say, from Kentucky. Soon after coming here he got into trouble with—(not on doctrine) and then flew to Pine Grove Church for an asylum, pleading that his reason for coming up here to us for membership was because he had known me and some others of the members of Pine Grove Church for eighteen or twenty years. He stated when he came that the trouble between him and—had been settled. He proposed to join by relation, stating before the church that Antioch Church in Kentucky, where his membership was, had gone into disorder and was tolerating secret orders. Pine Grove Church required him to obtain a letter from Antioch Church, nevertheless, which he did, and it is in the hands of Pine Grove Church now. Soon after Elder Bozarth joined Pine Grove Church we received intelligence from —church that the trouble had [pg 98] not been settled. Pine Grove Church appointed a committee to accompany Elder Bozarth and sent him to adjust the matter. But instead he only made it worse. Brother and Sister Poole, of the Highland Association in Kentucky, of which Antioch Church is a member, visited Pine Grove Church and informed us that Antioch Church was neither in disorder nor tolerated secret orders, upon which Pine Grove Church excluded Elder Bozarth for lying; and the correspondence you have published in your paper followed. And when Antioch Church learned the truth of the matter the publication in Elder Shain’s paper was the result. You say you have received Bozarth and hold him in your union.
Now, my brother, surely you can see “where you are at.” If it is disorder in Kentucky to receive and hold in fellowship one excluded from another church for lying, it is also disorder to do so here in Arkansas. And we will not tolerate any such procedure either here or there. Nor will Elder Shain and his people. Why should not they recognize us? We are one people. Now, my brother, justice and truth demand that you give this space in your paper. And if anything that I have written be disputed, all I ask is space and I shall delight to bring forth the proof. May God give us a spirit of love and forbearance, and may we labor for peace among the afflicted people of God. “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.” Yours for truth and order, J. B. Hardy.
Rison, Ark.
OUR REPLY TO ABOVE
In our issue of July 1, 1922, we published an article under the heading, “Where are we at?” concerning the matter of Elder S. C. Bozarth being received by the church at Cane Creek, in Thornton, Ark., and then getting a letter of dismission from that church and now holding membership in our church here in Fordyce; that he came here from the Highland Association in Kentucky— Antioch Church. He united with Pine Grove Church, with Elder J. B. Hardy. Antioch Church said in the article published in Elder Shain’s paper that she [pg 99] would respect the act of Pine Grove in excluding Elder Bozarth. That brought us to ask the question,”Where are we at?”
Brother D. F. Siria, of Madisonville, Ky., as clerk of Antioch Church sent us a reply to our article, dated July 24, 1922. Soon after we received that we had a letter from Elder J. B. Hardy also in reply to our article. We expected to publish both of them right away, but Elder Hardy came to our office and asked for his article as he wished to revise it. We gave it to him, and he revised the same and sent the revised article to us after some weeks— that is, some weeks after we received the letter from Brother Siria. Then we were so pressed attending to matters that could not be postponed, and having been away from home a great deal, the whole thing has gone until now without appearing in the paper. Now we feel that the letters both require some notice from us. They appear elsewhere in this paper.
We have but little to say with reference to what is contained in the letter from Brother Siria. Brother Bozarth presented to Cane Creek Church the certificate that he had been dismissed from Antioch by letter in good standing. Cane Creek did not expect him to present the original letter. They understood what had been done with that. Brother Siria admits that Brother Bozarth informed them that he had got in among the Absoluters. The proper information, then, was given to Antioch Church by Brother Bozarth. As to whether this be true, remember that it is stated by Elder Hardy that Elder Keith, from Kentucky, helped to organize Pine Grove Church. One of the elders in Elder Hardy’s own association made a charge against them that the [pg 100] church was not organized in order because they had a “Conditionalist” in the presbytery that organized them. Elder Keith was that “Conditionalist,” as he is not identified with those in Kentucky who advocate unlimited predestination. Now, the sum of the matter is that in the article in Elder Shain’s paper Antioch Church said that she expected to recognize the act of Elder Hardy’s church (Pine Grove) in excluding Elder Bozarth, thus recognizing a church that is in an association here in Arkansas that are recognized as unlimited predestinarians— that is, they are recognized here as “Absoluters,” and those who differ from them and reject that doctrine are called “Conditionalists” by them, just as Antioch Church in Kentucky is called that by those who are recognized as “Absoluters” there. If they do that, then they do not recognize here in Arkansas those who reject the doctrine that God decreed sin, and do recognize those who hold that God did decree sin, or that He predestinated all things that come to pass. Candidly, we think Antioch Church is under obligation to rescind her act of saying she would recognize the act of Pine Grove, or else recognize the “Absoluters” in Kentucky and Tennessee, as well as in Arkansas, and elsewhere.
We now notice Elder Hardy’s letter. He refers to what was said on pages 8 and 9 of the meeting of ministers in Fulton, Ky., in 1900, but does not begin his quotation with the beginning of the paragraph. They said: “Bars of fellowship set up by our local churches have been the most destructive influences against the growth and progress of the church. Traditions of men and human customs being regarded as authority have often given rise to bars of fellowship and resulted in the destruction [pg 101] of the peace of the churches. Such customs and traditions as have no Bible sanction should never interfere with fellowship. It is painful to note on the pages of history how frequently our people have been divided and their happiness destroyed by foolish and sinful declarations of non-fellowship.” Then follows what Elder Hardy quoted from page 8. This shows very clearly that what they protested and advised against was the passing of declarations of non-fellowship concerning matters of local custom and tradition. In our travels among the churches we have seen certain things done one way in one locality and done another way in another locality. It was the same thing done but in a different way in the two places. These two ways of doing the same thing are local customs, about which there should be no declaration of non-fellowship.
Elder Hardy quotes a part of what they say on page 9 concerning heresy. They enumerate some things which are not heresy. They say: “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 handshaking. 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.” This shows just what matters they advised liberty upon, and advised against the raising of bars to fellowship concerning.
Elder Hardy quotes from page 10,”No doctrine that violates neither the Scripture nor acknowledged confession should be construed as heresy.” He also quotes a part of Chapter III, Sec. 1, of the confession to show [pg 102] that the doctrine of the “Absolute predestination of all things” is not “a violation of the acknowledged confession.” Here is what he quotes, and he stops just where all do who try to prove by that confession that the absolute predestination of all things is Old Baptist doctrine: “God hath decreed in Himself from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things whatsoever come to pass;”— there he stopped— not at a period, or the end of a sentence, but at a semicolon. If Elder Hardy does not believe in the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things, good, bad, and indifferent, why would he thus quote a part of that sentence to prove that doctrine to be according to the confession? But let us go on with the sentence,”yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin, nor hath fellowship with” any therein, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established, in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree.’‘ The reader will please take particular notice to the word contingency, as used in this section. Contingency is a “quality or state of being contingent.” Contingent means “liable, but not certain, to occur; possible. * * * Dependent (upon a preceding event or situation); subject to something else; conditioned or conditional; as, peace contingent upon complying with the proffered terms.” So says Webster’s International Dictionary, standard authority on the definition of words in the English language. Thus it is clear that the writers of that confession of faith held that God had predestinated some things upon certain conditions. For instance, the Lord says, “If ye be [pg 103] willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land.” The Lord predestinated that they should eat the good of the land conditioned upon their being willing and obedient. “But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured by the sword.” His predestination that they should be devoured by the sword was conditioned upon them refusing and rebelling. We believe that chapter and section of the London confession of faith; but those who deny that there are any conditions in these matters do not believe it.
There is an “Appendix” in the back part of that book put out by authority of that Fulton meeting, and on pages 88 and 89 we find this language: “We do not believe that God has unconditionally, unlimitedly, and equally predestinated righteousness and unrighteousness. It is our belief that God has positively and effectually predestinated the eternal salvation of His people which were chosen in Christ before time.” On page 101 we find this language: “We believe the Scriptures teach that there is a time salvation received by the heirs of God distinct from eternal salvation, which does depend upon their obedience. The people of God receive their rewards for obedience in this life only. We believe that the ability of the Christian is the unconditional gift of God.” Elder Hardy’s name is signed to this article which is published as an appendix to what was said by those assembled at Fulton in 1900. Does Elder Hardy believe what is here stated? If so, why did he argue a few years ago that there is nothing gained by obedience and nothing lost by disobedience? On pages 102 and 103 we find this language: “We think these uses of good works Scriptural. We hold that God’s government of His people is moral. We hold, [pg 104] too, that conditionality is an essential element of moral government. We distinguish between God’s government of mind and His government of matter.” Notice that they say that conditionality is an essential element of moral government, and that God’s government of His people is moral. Do the people Elder Hardy is identified with hold to the things here quoted, and that are signed by J. B. Hardy? NO. Do they believe that there are blessings which the child of God enjoys here in time upon condition of their obedience? No.
As to whether the doctrine that God did from all eternity absolutely and unconditionally predestinate everything that comes to pass, we are willing to let just about two passages from God’s word settle the matter. But in the first place we will say, without fear of successful contradiction, that the preaching of the truth, the preaching of the gospel in its purity, has never caused trouble or division in the Old Baptist Church. Advocating the doctrine of the predestination of all things does cause trouble among them. This is enough to prove that it is not the truth. But we call attention to Jer. 7:8-10 “Behold, ye trust in lying words that cannot profit. Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not; and come and stand before me in this house, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations?” Then in Jer. 7:15-16, “And I will cast you out of my sight, as I have cast out all your brethren, even the whole seed of Ephraim. Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, neither make intercession to me: for I will not hear thee.” Those people were guilty of committing abominations [pg 105] and then claiming that they were delivered to do those things. The idea of their claim is that God determined and fixed that they should do them and that they could not do otherwise. Their claim was wrong, and God said that He would cast them out of His sight. Next we refer to Jer. 19:5 “They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind.” In Jer. 7:31 He says, “neither came it into my heart.” Now we will give any man until the next day after the Judgment to tell how God did from all eternity absolutely and unconditionally predestinate and fix a thing that never came into His heart or mind.
In The Primitive Baptist of August 29, 1916, on page 8 is a letter signed by Elder J. B. Hardy, written to Mrs. Tom Taylor. Just over that letter we said: “If he wants recognition among orderly Baptists he should get himself straight, and no orderly Baptist should want to recognize him until he does that. We feel it a duty we owe our brethren to let these things be known. We have nothing personal against Elder Hardy, and our only intention and desire is that people be consistent.” Here is a little extract from Elder Hardy’s letter. It was dated September 8, 1903: “Sister Rogers also informs me that J. S. Newman came to Blum, following me, and told you that I was agreed with him in doctrine, and offered this as a pretext to induce you to unite with his party. My sister, do not suffer yourself to be deceived.. I am not agreed with J. S. Newman, neither in doctrine nor practice. * * * My father and I are perfectly agreed with my brother who was with me at your place, and J. S. Newman is not agreed with either of [pg 106] us; and he should not seek to thus deceive you. I was at the Fulton meeting, but did not endorse all they did there; and they published my name in connection with their work, without my consent.” This is enough to show where Elder Hardy stood at that time. Most all know where his brother stands in doctrine, and he says that they stand together. He also says that he objected to some things done at the Fulton meeting. Elder Newman was not at that meeting, but we were. If Elder Hardy raised any public objection to a thing that was done there we have no recollection of it. He may have done so, but if he did we do not remember it. Anyway, as he said he did not endorse it all, he is trying to prove that we are now wrong in our course by a witness that he will not himself receive. Therefore, his whole contention falls. We have sustained all that we have done.
As to the personal difference between Elder Bozarth and one of Elder Hardy’s brethren, will say that as our people and Elder Hardy’s people have no dealings or correspondence with each other, and are not considered to be the same people, that matter was not to be considered by any of our churches. It hardly appears consistent, though, that Elder Bozarth went to Pine Grove for an “asylum,” on account of having a personal difference with one of Elder Hardy’s brethren. He could have allowed his membership to remain in Antioch Church in Kentucky as an easier way to avoid trouble on that line. Elder Bozarth moved here from Kentucky in 1918. He was granted a letter from Antioch Church in September, 1919. Elder Bozarth knew Elder Hardy, as Elder Hardy has been visiting the country in Kentucky for years where he came from. Elder Bozarth told them [pg 107] at Pine Grove when he joined there that Antioch and Tirza churches had been in the Cypress Creek Association, and had notified that association that they would meet with them no more until they rid themselves of secret orders, but that when he was last at that association, in the fall before he moved to this country in the spring, they still held Antioch on their roll, and asked them how they would want to receive him. Elder Hardy told him they would receive him by relation, which they did, but told him to write back and get a letter, anyway. This he did and turned the letter to them. Before we organized our church here in Fordyce and before Elder Bozarth joined Cane Creek, he met Elder Hardy here in town and Elder Hardy said,”I understand you have gone into an organization of a thing here with Elder Cayce,” and that “The Baptists here will not recognize Elder Cayce.” Elder Bozarth told him it was not true, but that we were talking of organizing a church, and that if it was done he would be one of them. Elder Hardy replied, “Yes, and we will exclude you, too.” Elder Bozarth replied that he did not care. Elder Bozarth had been told that there had been a division in this country some years before, but that the other side (our people) were Conditionalists and advocated conditions in salvation, etc. When we moved here and met Elder Bozarth he found out for certain that these Baptists called “Conditionalists” by those people did not hold that there were conditions to be performed by the sinner in order to eternal life, but conditions to be performed by the children of God in order to their happiness here on earth, in a great measure. Elder Hardy’s church (Pine Grove) did not receive Elder Bozarth on the letter from Antioch Church, but received him on confession of faith. Cane Creek Church received him on the letter, upon certificate from Antioch that such letter had been granted to him dismissing him from her when joined to another church of the same faith and order. Cane Creek was informed that Antioch Church was in the Highland Association, and that the Highland does not hold to the predestination of all things. Cane Creek knew the identity of Pine Grove. We never put our membership in any church in this country until we organized our church here in Fordyce on Thursday before the third Sunday in October, 1920. Elder Hardy says that we put ourselves out of the holy church communion because we aligned ourselves with the party that we did in this country. We attended a church that was in line with him on the third Sunday in November, 1919. They had some visiting brethren present, and we were requested to preach, and tried to do so, the best we could. We have heard that the visitors requested it. We were at the same church again in December, 1919, and they said we should not preach there. This was before we had put our membership with any party here. Then who did the rejecting? Where is your holy church communion?
As to what caused the division in this country we have to say that Cane Creek, Mt. Paran and Harmony Churches have all said by their act in conference that the advocating of that doctrine was what caused the division. Elder Hardy makes an attack on Elder Little in his article, and Elder Little is now dead and not here to speak for himself. We knew Elder Little personally, and we know that the division was not on account of some other brother being elected moderator.
We talked with him in regard to this trouble or division a number of times while he was living, and he told us more than once that advocating the predestination of all things was the cause of the trouble.
Now we are sure that there is a misunderstanding in regard to Elder Bozarth so far as him telling Pine Grove that Antioch was in disorder is concerned. We do not think Elder Bozarth meant to leave such an impression. It is not necessary to make any defense of Elder Bozarth in this article, for he is clear of any guilt, and that matter has nothing to do with the subject we have under discussion, anyway.
As already stated, it is simply a matter of whether Antioch Church, in the Highland Association, in Kentucky, Elder J. D. Shain’s people, will recognize the Absoluters in this country and reject them at home or not. That is the question. We think that if they do not intend to do that, they should say by their act that they recognize what our people have done in receiving Elder Bozarth from them and do not recognize Pine Grove’s act in receiving him on confession of faith and then excluding him. C. H. C.
WHAT ELDER LITTLE SAID
We think justice demands that we here insert a letter written by Elder Little which was published in The Primitive Baptist of May 1, 1923:
Elder C. H. Cayce: Dear Brother— I notice in the last issue of The Primitive Baptist an article from Elder J. B. Hardy in which he makes an attack on Elder T. B. Little as to what divided Brother Little’s association, and as Brother Little is dead and not here to speak for himself, I am sending you a letter that I received from him about three years ago. He stated in his letter what divided his [pg 110 association. Please publish Brother Little’s letter in your next issue of The Primitive Baptist if you can. Your little brother, I hope,
A. J. Breece.
Centerville, Tenn.
THE LETTER
A. J. Breece:
Dear Brother, as I humbly hope— On my return home yesterday I found your good letter of the 24th. The tone of your letter made me hope that we are spiritually related, but often fear that I am mistaken. I love the doctrine that gives God all the honor and all the glory in the salvation of sinners; but I hate the doctrine of fate. I cannot believe that God predestinated all sin and wickedness. I did not learn it that way in my experience, and if that is the truth we would have nothing to repent of. Yes, brother, the doctrine that “God absolutely predestinated all things that come to pass,” including sin and wickedness, caused the division in our association. The “absolute wing” of New Hope Association have been in war among themselves ever since we have been divided, and I often try to thank God that we are out of it, and in peace. Elder Hardy made an effort to get us together three or four years ago, but it failed. The “Absoluters” were willing to unite with us without any acknowledgments, but we could not afford to act so hypocritically. Elder Hardy was so bitterly opposed to what he called “bars” that he never would go behind “bars,” unless it was iron “bars.” He (Hardy) said in his talk that he believed in “unlimited predestination.” Since that time he joined in with those that our association withdrew from ten years ago. We teach and believe the doctrine of election, predestination, and all points of doctrine and practice, just as it is revealed in our Bible, without adding anything. It is good enough for us poor ignorant Baptists. The council you refer to, I only heard something said about it. Of course none of the Old Baptists that I am identified with were in that council. As before stated, it was a war among themselves. It doesn’t matter who says that our association did not divide on the question of predestination, it is not the truth. I was a member of the church several years before the contention over predestination arose among us. I was in the unholy war among us until love and fellowship was gone. We could not believe that a just and righteous God predestinated all of our sins and unrighteous [pg 111] acts. All the guns were turned against me, because I was the oldest man among us contending for the faith once delivered to the saints. Some would say, “He will go to the Missionaries; he is tender-footed on predestination; he is a Conditionalist.” I have been misrepresented by “Absoluters”— falsely accused— but sometimes I can rejoice in it all. Would be glad to know that I am worthy to suffer such things for Christ’s sake. Dear brother, you can tell those brethren, that are confused by Hardy or anyone else, that the unscriptural doctrine that God absolutely predestinated all things that come to pass, including sin, was the cause of the division in our association, and if any says it was not, he makes a false statement, or he doesn’t know anything about it. As to what they hold to, they do like they used to most of the time-they preach the old doctrine pretty well, but in their private talk they preach predestination of all things. We can’t fellowship a man that will hold back his real view. The Scripture locates them.
Dear brother, this letter is scattering. Hope you can understand enough to have some idea whether we belong to the same family. Love to you and yours, and saints everywhere. Remember wife and me in prayer. I am, I hope, a brother in spirit. Write again if you feel like it.
T. B. Little.
Rison, Ark.,
March 30, 1920.
CALL FOR MEETING
April 1,1923
In as much as we, the undersigned, are more thoroughly convinced that in the late controversy over the subject of regeneration there was not sufficient difference to justify confusion and division, and having a great desire for peace and union, we therefore urge all our brethren concerned for the welfare of our bleeding cause to come together at the Greenfield Church, Greenfield, Tenn., on Friday before the fifth Sunday in April (continuing the two days following) for the purpose of general confession; the object of said meeting being not to make any demands nor to bring in any charges regarding the past, but to make confessions to each other, blotting out the past, and coming together in peace, love and [pg 112] fellowship. All who desire peace and union, we urge that you come. We suggest that each church enable your pastor to attend, by bearing his expenses. Signed: Elders J. C. Ross, A. B. Ross, E. M. Beshear, W. E. Brush, J. N. Wallace, James Duncan, W. P. Russell, W. A. Bishop, J. M. Fuqua, B. P. Simmons, Commodore Brann, J. W. Lomax, S. E. Reid, Henry Ross, J. B. Halbrook, W. L. Murray, J. W. Adams, W. J. Goodrich, J. H. Phillips, J. D. Shain, T. M. Hampton, T. M. Phillips, Allen McCoy, W. R. Rushton, H. M. Sanders, Z. Stallings, J. S. Williams, Brother Billie Phillips.
We feel to believe and hope that the meeting as above called will be a great meeting, and that lasting good will be accomplished by it. We indeed believe it important that all who desire peace may lay aside all things else and come. We are sure that nothing could be of more importance than our earnest labors for peace. We beg that you come and join in one united effort to this end. We believe that God will bless us in this labor of love. J. C. and A. B. Ross.
LETTER OF APPROVAL
Elder A. B. Ross:
My Dear Brother— I wish to say to you that I, with all my heart, most sincerely endorse the effort now being put forth by you and other brethren for peace. I feel sure that God is our peace, and that He will and has worked in the hearts of many of His ministers and made them willing to say to their God and to each other, “We have done wrong.” Brethren, do let us meet in the name of Jesus, and leave self and selfish motives behind.
We have all done wrong, and as a result the children of God are divided and many of our friends, and even our children, are being driven from us. Oh, how our hearts should yearn for peace to be restored in the borders of our beloved Zion. We should be willing and anxious to do all we can that the breach be healed. For this let us meet, labor and pray.
J. S. Newman.
Elder C. H. Cayce:
The above is a copy of a letter written by Elder Newman to Elder A. B. Ross. Will you please publish the call for all of our brethren to meet at Greenfield, Tenn., as shown in the call, and [pg 113] please publish the above copy (letter) in connection with it. And, if you can, sign this call with us and come to the meeting. Yours for the peace of Zion,
J. C. Ross.
REMARKS
We truly hope that the brethren who join in the above and who may attend the meeting may have the right object in view, and that the good Lord may direct the same to the good of His dear children. Our pleading in the whole time was for peace. We want no war and no trouble, and we do not want it now. If those who have waged the war are tired of it and now want peace they have our hearty approval, although we do not feel like signing the above call. May the Lord bless us all. C. H. C.
A CALL FOR PRAYER
AND FOR PEACE
April 1, 1923
(From Gospel Messenger by request.)
“If ye bite and devour one another take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.”— Gal. 5:15.
We, the undersigned, having the warmest Christian love for each other, and who feel to be called of God to the same holy work of preaching the precious gospel, but who, by reason of bars of non-fellowship and misunderstandings, cannot preach together nor affiliate together as brethren in Christ, and having groaned under this burden, and knowing also that there are hundreds of other precious ministers and brethren who are also distressed over the disturbed condition of our beloved Zion; and after much study and fervent prayer to the Almighty Father for relief, have mutually decided to bring the matter before our brethren everywhere and to advise with them over present conditions, with the earnest hope that, under the guiding hand of God, we may have peace and fellowship to abound once more with all who truly love His name.
[pg 114] We believe with all our hearts that the Primitive Baptists are the only people now upon earth, so far as we are aware, who hold uncompromisingly to the apostolic doctrine of “salvation by grace.” And in so far as we are aware, all the many contending factions of Primitive Baptists throughout the land stand united in the doctrine of grace, but are unhappily divided on other matters.
It is our firm belief that while there may be some heresies among some few of these factions which we should not fellowship, that by far the greater part are united on the essentials of the Bible, but have allowed minor differences to sever their fellowship.
We believe that the present disturbed conditions are very largely the result of misunderstandings which might be corrected if our brethren everywhere could meet together in the Spirit of Christ and discuss their differences face to face. Otherwise, and so long as they are away from each other and not allowed to assemble themselves together, there can be no hope for the betterment of conditions.
It is for these reasons that we offer suggestions for the prayerful consideration of brethren everywhere.
That a general council, or meeting, be held during the summer or fall of the present year, in the city of Atlanta, or Nashville, or in whatever place is thought to be most convenient to all concerned, in which all various sects and divisions of Primitive Baptists in the United States and Canada shall be invited, and shall be allowed to discuss with equal rights and privileges the questions of differences now existing, with the earnest hope and prayer that God may so sanctify such meeting that all who truly love His precious truth may fall into each other’s arms of tender, gospel fellowship.
We are now calling upon our ministers especially, and to all who love the peace of Zion throughout the United States and Canada, to indicate to us their desire in this matter.
It will be understood that nothing that may be done in such meeting, should it be held, will be considered official or binding, but only for the purpose of discovering to each other, in an educational way, the true conditions as they now seem to exist, whether real or imaginary.
The foregoing are only suggestions. We do not profess to know just what is best. Certainly we do not mean to dictate the course [pg 115] to pursue. We know, however, that we as a denomination need to do something. We need not wait for the Lord to do it for us, for we are certain that we have gone away from Him— He did not send us away; and as the prodigal son, if we have “come to ourselves” — if we have suffered enough, let us return to the Father’s house and receive the blessings which are there in store for us.
It is further requested that should it be thought best that such meeting be held, that the place and time of holding it be named, so that we may be able to compile and announce the wishes of our dear people.
We respectfully ask if it would not be desirable, if after the meeting is called, that a committee be appointed representing all the different factions represented in the meeting, so far as they may be able, who may be charged with the duty of naming the various points for discussion, and outlining a program by which the meeting shall be conducted.
We request a reproduction of these suggestions in all our denominational papers throughout the United States.
Oh, dear brethren, everywhere, humble yourselves before the Lord. Get down on your knees and earnestly inquire His will, and then write us the answer He gives you.
Let all answers be addressed to Elder Zack C. Hull. Atlanta National Bank Bldg., Atlanta, Ga., or Elder A. V Simms. P. O. Box 601, Atlanta, Ga.
OUR COMMENTS
On another page of this paper is an article copied from the Gospel Messenger, by request, under the heading, “A Call For Prayer and For Peace.” This may be the proper thing to do— hold such a meeting as is suggested or called for in the article, but for the life of us we do not yet see it. We do not remember having read in the Scriptures where the church of God, or her ministers, are directed to have a meeting of that sort. Perhaps the instruction to meet often together and to pray with and for each other covers the case; but if so, [pg 116] it appears to us that our people are rather late in finding it out. Perhaps they have been too slow, anyway. We do not say that such a meeting is unauthorized by the Scriptures, but we do not know what text does authorize it. If. our people wish to take part in it, we shall raise no disturbance about it; but we are not prepared now to give it our sanction.
It is true that there is something for the Lord’s people to do. There is something for the church to do. They should keep themselves unspotted from the world. God’s people in ancient times were forbidden to join house to house and field to field with the nations around them,”so that there be no place left in all the earth for my people, saith the Lord.” When the church of God engages in the things that the world engages in, so that they can scarcely be told from the world by their practices, they cease to be the church of God— there is no place left for the Lord’s people.
The church of God existed for centuries without any society or institution but the church. The Fuller and Carey move called for the different things that have been invented by their followers. Organs were introduced into churches. Sunday schools were organized. Aid societies were organized. Mission societies were organized. Mite societies were organized. And so on and on.
Elder A. V Simms, whose name is signed to the appeal we are writing about, is one of the leading men in the progressive move that divided the Baptists in Georgia and other sections. The Progressives have Sunday schools, or Bible classes— the same thing. The Burnam people introduced that thing years ago and divided the Baptists. The meeting house in Luray, Va., [pg 117] was given to our people on account of the fact that they held to the original principles and practices when Burnam and his party brought the division there by the introduction of those things which were a departure from the original principles and practices of the Baptists. Many of the Progressives have organs in their churches. They have simply departed from the original principles of the Primitive Baptists.
This progressive move was started in Elder J. V Kirkland’s day, and while the Kirklands, Todd, Hackleman, Pinkstaff, and others of them were among us. That meeting at Fulton, Ky., in 1900, which we attended, was first called for by Kirkland and those who were aligned with him. They had another (a few of them did) about a year later in St. Louis. Many of our people remember that meeting and what it resulted in. Although we attended the meeting at Fulton, and never raised any objections to it, yet we confess that we never did fully approve of it. We really felt in our heart that something was wrong. The address printed in the proceedings of that meeting we think was mainly gotten up by some of the Kirklands. At that time our people were not, many of them, suspicious of anything wrong; but the moves made afterwards show to us that they were paving the way for the work they had in view. That address lays particular stress on what would now be called a broad fellowship. Our people then did not suspect that such a thing was really intended. But Elder Kirkland was then evidently laying his plans for a uniting of our people with a faction of the Missionaries.
Such a meeting savors to us of preacher rule. It savors of preachers being of higher authority. As long as we [pg 118] have preachers ruling, instead of churches ruling, we will have trouble. There is always some preacher who wants his way, and if he is not controlled by his church he will cause trouble.
If a church exercises her God-given right, and a preacher begins to make war on the church for that act, his church should stop him at once. She should call him down immediately, and if he will not cease his war, then deal with him. Where a man loses a thing is the place to find it. There has already been entirely too much of this interference with the churches in their work.
We want peace in the church upon the principles of truth and righteousness. We would be glad to see all of God’s people united and in peace, practicing just what the Bible commands, and leaving all other things alone. If some people have departed from those principles, is there not a right way to come back to them? So far as we are concerned, we feel that we have not departed from those principles. We have not gone anywhere, and so we feel that there is no coming back for us to do. We do not say it boastingly, but we, trust in all due humility and reverence, but we do say that if any man thinks we have departed from the principles of truth, we stand ready to defend those principles. Put us to the test. The man does not live before whose face we fear to contend for the principles upon which we have stood during all these years. If some people have gone from those principles there is a way for them to get back. The only right and the only Scriptural way is for them to confess their wrongs and turn from them. A confession is worth very little unless one turns from the wrongs.
Suppose we suggest now that we call for another meeting also. There are many of those who are identified with the Missionary Baptists who are sound on the doctrine of salvation by grace. We could name some of them who are, if it were necessary, but we presume no one would deny it. Now, suppose we call for a meeting with such persons among them to see if we cannot come to some understanding with them. Why not try to unite with them also? Where shall we draw the line? Where shall we stop?
If there are some brethren among the Progressives who want to get right, we would be glad to see them lay down their inventions and get right— come back to the place they went away from. And if there should be some of God’s people among the Missionaries, or among others, for that matter, who want to get right, let them come to the old church, which is standing today where she has always stood, and get right.
May the good Lord direct us all in the right way, and then give us the Christian courage to walk there, and preserve and keep us all by His own grace and power, is our humble prayer.
C. H. C.
REQUEST GRANTED
April 15, 1923
Dear Brother Cayce: Yours to hand, and can’t even attempt to tell you the comfort it is to me and will be for years to come, for I placed it in my “Jewel box” among other like precious “gems,” and these, with my Bible and song book, are the dearest possessions I have. Often it seems trials and temptations are pressing me down, never to rise again, and then for hours I admire my “Jewels”— for they are direct to [pg 120] poor me and from those whom I esteem highly for the truth’s sake, and I am renewed, built up, and can feast and often even praise God, who doeth all things well and can comfort the lonely, the weak and sinful, as well as the strong and the mighty. While I’d never tire of your good letters, Brother Cayce, I am not expecting you should take your valuable time keeping up a correspondence with poor me, but know you have comforted me in time of need, perhaps more than you can ever know. May God’s richest blessings rest upon you and yours. Please remember any time you have a thought for this lonely beggar here that a line is much to me— just a crumb to the hungry is more than a laden table to the full. Neither did I ever intend to be so situated as I am; that was the least of my intentions, and by the help and grace of God, it is the least of my intentions to stay so situated. If it is not asking too much, Brother Cayce, please pray that I don’t have to. We are working hard and economizing to pay off mortgages incurred by doctor bills and sickness, and then we hope to manage to get back down South among you precious “feet-washing Baptists” to live and die; for if the mercies of God ever permit me to again enjoy church privileges, you dear people will have to put me out if I am ever again deprived of that, for five hundred doctors telling me I’d die would never scare me out into the cold, cold world again, for I want to die among you, be buried by you, and the last words spoken over this lump of clay to be by you dear humble, poor, God-fearing and God-glorifying followers of the meek and lowly Jesus.
Please don’t you or anyone draw the idea from my unworthy scribbling that we have not dear humble Baptists here, for there are some of the loveliest Baptists in the world here God bless them — just, come and visit among them and see. A lack of unity in faith and church practice is what deprives many a lonely wretch of a home and makes them an outcast among their own people, which surely is one of the most miserable existences one ever was placed in. My mission in this Northwest is not to try to straighten out churches— that is none of my affair— I have no “finger” in it; that is their own business. Now this is the way I look at that, but it is some of my business, at least, as to whether I come in among them or not; and if I can’t be allowed to stay peaceably on the outside, I believe it is not only my business but my duty to show where I stand and try to defend what I firmly believe is the truth. [pg 121] “Offenses will arise, but woe unto him by whom they come.” That is one “woe,’‘ by the help and grace of God, I am determined not to be guilty of, and this determination caused me to suffer a “knockdown” instead of taking the many “hints” already given; but when I marvel at the strong hand that pushed me up, and that bright light and what it manifested to me, stunning my senses, casting a dark cloud of despair over me and killing the joy of soul that was mine— I can say with you, “Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him,” for I know now He was with me then. Dear Brother Cayce, if you found anything worthy to print in my personal letter all right, and if not a bother, that this might be an explanation to others, please print this, and if I can keep silent for awhile I’ll try to do so. Now when I get the dear Primitive Baptist paper usually the first thing I do is to turn through and look for all the C. H. C’s. and read all pieces thus signed first, and feeling many others do likewise, and as I find them only too few, am going to enclose your two first letters, and if you do not object I feel sure they would be found far more interesting and instructive than anything of my weak pen. The only request, return them to go back into my “Jewel box.” Stamps enclosed for same, and later, if desired, I’ll lend this last letter for publication also. Not through reading it yet— there is so much witnessing of the Spirit to me that I marvel and ponder and wonder— comparatively strangers in the flesh, and we have no Sunday schools. Now is there but one way we could have learned these same sweet truths? When the Spirit directed me to write (I believe I know now it was the Spirit) it was in an hour of the deepest need, it seems, I ever suffered, and had you not answered spiritually from your own bountiful storehouse of God-given knowledge, it is a mystery to me yet how I’d lived through it; but a few evenings back suddenly that gloom left me. I arose from my chair and could have shouted aloud for pure joy of soul. I have sung the sweet songs of Zion here all alone and am calm— reconciled to whatsoever God permits to befall me here in this time world, knowing all things are in His hands and He works out His will and pleasure in heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth, and no one can stay His hand or say what doest Thou? Oh, if we can only trust Him and farewell in the Lord. Any humble poor who may read this, please pray for this [pg 122] sin-tossed wretch here, whom the tempest blows and seems will capsize her frail bark to never rise again; but God can of these very stones raise up seed to Abraham. Only a little over one year ago I was given the greatest feast of my life at the association here. God was with us then; and happy I was to even sacrifice as we did in a financial way just to get here among God’s dear people, as I then thought to have a church home among them, and now these hopes lie in ashes at my feet, and for months the gloom of despair has been over me; but now it is gone. Oh, bless His holy name. You said there was room for me among you there, dear Brother Cayce, and I am looking forward to the day I can come. Bless your dear sainted mother and the sweet letter she wrote me— a gem, a ruby without price. I often read it and always feel better and can press on. In bonds of like precious faith, humbly, Mrs. S. D. Poore.
Morton, Wash.
FIRST LETTER
Mrs. S. D. Poore:
Dear Sister— Yours of Sept. 25th was received several days ago. The name of the brother has been added to our list and the paper will be sent to him. I trust that the same may be a blessing and a comfort to him. I thank you for having us send the paper to him.
Neither do I have any fight to make on the Baptists out there. In fact I know but little about them. I once thought I would be glad to visit the brethren in the far west, but do not feel such impression of mind that way as I once did. In fact, I do not have the impression to be on the go as much as I once did. I do not know why. Sometimes I feel that it may be that my race is nearly run and the warfare almost over with me. If that be so, the Lord’s will be done. I feel much discouraged a great deal of the time, and a sadness pervades my heart at all times. There is not an hour when awake that I do not feel this distressing sadness. I cannot [pg 124] understand it. I desire to be submissive to the Lord’s will and to my lot here. I am wonderfully blessed with a good companion and three sweet little children. But still that deep sadness is in my heart, in spite of the sweet association of my lovely family. The sadness is there, whether I am at home or away— no matter where I am, nor what my business may be. But I am willing to risk the principles for which I have fought and contended for a third of a century. I know that doctrine is true, whether I am embraced in it or not. I am willing to risk it that way. May the good Lord bless and sustain you. We would be glad for you to move here. There is room. Please remember me in your prayers. Yours in humble hope, C. H. Cayce.
SECOND LETTER
Mrs. S. D. Poore: Dear Sister— Your kind letter of the 16th has been received. Was glad to hear from you again. On reading the part of your letter about me being sick I was made to think of what a doctor once said in my presence. He said that several years ago he felt bad all the time, blue and despondent, and that he thought he had religion; but found out that it was only his liver out of order. Perhaps that is what is the matter with me. If it is, I confess that I do not know what I am to do about it. I cannot leave this section, as you suggest, even if I wished to do so. My business is here, and all I have is invested here. I cannot move the business— am not able to do so, financially, no matter how much I might wish to do so. But let that be as it may— the time will come some day for me to lie down in death. It may be soon, or it may be years yet. I do not know. [pg 124] But I do not think that the condition of affairs in the church or nation will have anything to do with that. My father fell in the pulpit preaching the gospel at a time that it seemed we could not possibly do without him. Why should I be spared any more than he was, when he was so badly needed? I do know that”I have endured much for the principles that I hold to, and that I have tried to defend with the ability that the good Lord has seen fit to give me. I am very well aware of that. And no one person knows how much I have endured unless it be my own family— and perhaps they do not know all. The trials have been severe. The battles have been fierce. I have endured hardness. Many hard things have been said. I have been falsely accused. Men professing to be gospel ministers have sought to injure me in different ways— and they were Old Baptist ministers, too. It all makes me heart sick. It makes me feel cast down and discouraged. It makes me sad— sad all the time. There is a feeling of gloom and sadness that stays with me— no matter how well I may feel physically. I do not feel any physical ailment that is worth mentioning. If I am poisoned with malaria I do not know it, though I may be. Whatever may be the trouble, I am willing to risk the principles I have stood for and advocated during these years. I may not be embraced in them— but they are true just the same. If I am not saved by the grace of God, then I am not saved at all. By his preserving care I have come this far. I am willing to still trust Him. His grace has been sufficient in the sore trials through which I have come, and I am willing to rely on Him for the future. I may never see you again (I think I once knew you), but this is my hope, and my only hope.
[pg 125] Yes, I would be glad for you to write me about the trial which you mention. Mother is getting along as well as could be expected. Our little girl, about five years old, is named Florida. Not Flor-i-da, but Flo-ri-da. The little boy is Claudis H., Jr.; the baby is Benjamin Fleming, for his grandfathers. We call him Fleming, for my father. They are sweet children, we think. We try to raise them right. We teach them to speak respectfully and not like many children these days. We realize the great responsibility. Please remember us in your prayers. Would be glad to hear from you any time. May the good Lord bless and keep you. Yours in humble hope, C. H. Cayce.
MATTHEW 18:8-9,15-16,17
April 15, 1923
We have been asked to give our views on Matt. 18:8-9,15-16,17. Matt. 18:8-9 reads: “Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.” It seems to us that this language clearly teaches that it is better for the church to cast an offender off, no matter how important that member may appear to us to be, rather than retain that member to the destruction of the body. And the language has direct reference to such matters as are an offense to the body. It has no reference whatever to [pg 126] matters of personal trespass, one member or person against another. Such crimes as drunkenness, lying, stealing, “bootlegging,” false swearing, fornication, adultery, and things of that sort, come under the teaching of the Saviour here, and there is no such thing found as instruction to labor with them in order to save or retain them in the church. The only gospel labor to bestow in such cases, the only dealing we can find in the Scriptures for such cases, is to simply cut them off. The church is no reformatory. Such offenders should be promptly excluded from the fellowship of the church. Matt. 18:15-16,17 reads: “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” This language has reference to personal trespasses, one member or person against another; such matters as personal differences between brethren, not public matters, such as are those things mentioned above. It seems to us that the Saviour’s instructions here are so plain and so explicit as to need no comment. We do not know how to make it plainer. But if a brother is hurt with another and he fails and refuses to follow the instruction given here, and feels that he cannot bear it, and talks to others about it, instead of going to the transgressor, he thereby becomes a transgressor himself. It seems to us that many of our churches have become careless and very slack in administering the discipline according to [pg 127] our Saviour’s teaching in this chapter. It is better to have a few with strict discipline and be diligent and careful in church matters, than to have a multitude who manifest but little or no care for the service of the Lord and the house of God.
C. H. C.
THE DEBATE AT PARRISH
April 15, 1923
The debate with Tant at Parrish, Ala., came off as announced. We affirmed for two days— the 13th and 14th of March— that “The church of which I (C. H. Cayce) am a member, known as Primitive Baptists, is Scriptural in origin, doctrine and practice.” Then on the 15th and 16th Tant affirmed that “The church of which I (J. D. Tant) am a member, known by my brethren as the Church of Christ, is Scriptural in origin, doctrine and practice.” We showed in our affirmative that Jesus established His church, and that there was a succession of them in every age who were a separate and distinct people, advocating and holding to the principles peculiar to the Baptists and differing from Rome. On Tant’s proposition we showed that Alexander Campbell was the founder of that order, and that they are Campbellites. We showed this from an abundance of testimony; then we showed from the Scriptures that their doctrine and practice are wrong— contrary to God’s word.
We introduced fifty-three proof texts against his doctrine and he pretended to notice just four of them — thus forty-nine proof texts and arguments made from them remained unnoticed by him. Our people left there rejoicing.
[pg 128] We are now at the home of Brother H. P. Hamilton. Have enjoyed some good meetings since the debate. We trust the Lord may be with us and enable us to speak such things as may be comforting and encouraging to His humble poor while we are on this tour. We ask an interest in your prayers. C. H. C.
DEBATE AT WATERTOWN, TENN.
April 15, 1923
We have agreed, the Lord willing, to meet H. B. Taylor, Missionary Baptist, of Murray, Ky., in a four days discussion at Watertown, Tenn., beginning on Tuesday, May 8. One proposition is, “The Scriptures teach that all the elect of God in all nations will be saved independently of or without the gospel as a means.” We affirm and Taylor denies. The other proposition is,”Missions as taught and practiced by the Missionary Baptists are authorized by the word of God.” Taylor affirms and we deny. Watertown is east of Nashville, Tenn., on the Tennessee Central R. R. We hope many of our brethren may be there. All will be cared for who may go.
C. H. C.
QUESTIONS ON PREDESTINATION
May 1, 1923
We are just in receipt of a few questions on the subject of the absolute predestination of all things, and we will try to answer them to the best of our ability.
Question 1. Did Paul find the word predestination in [pg 129] the Old Testament? Answer: We suppose not, but he found words that express the idea of God’s determination to save His people from their sins. Remember, too, that Paul was an inspired man.
Question 2. Do we find the word absolute in the New Testament? Answer: No; it is not found in the whole Bible, and we have no inspired men now. What about adding to? See Rev. 22:18.
Question 3. Have you or anyone preached for ten minutes without using some words that are not found in the Bible? Answer: If we ever did preach for ten minutes, or any other length of time, and preached something the Bible does not authorize, we then preached something that is not the truth. If any other man ever preached something the Bible does not authorize, he did not preach the truth.
Question 4. Is all the prophecy of the Old and New Testament absolutely true? Answer: It is all true, and to say it is absolutely true does not make it any more the truth.
Question 5. Is not prophecy of the Old Testament another way of saying predestination? Answer: No; prophecy is not predestination. Prophecy is foretelling an event or events. Predestination is to determine a thing beforehand. A coming event may be foretold without any determination that it shall come to pass on the part of the one foretelling or revealing it.
Question 6. Why turn our back on a man for believing as I do? Answer: If you believe that God did from all eternity absolutely and unconditionally predestinate everything that comes to pass, and your doctrine is the truth, we turn our back on you because God absolutely and unconditionally predestinated from all eternity that [pg 130] we should do it. If your doctrine is not the truth, we turn our back on you because you preach heresy.
C. H. C.
IS HE AN ABSOLUTER?
May 1, 1923
In our issue of March 15 we showed that Elder J. B. Hardy was advocating the absolute predestination of all things. Last July we stated that he was in line with the Absoluters in this country. Our readers will remember Elder Hardy’s article in our issue of March 15, in which he tried to make it appear that the predestination of all things was not the cause of the division in this country, and that he is not in line with that doctrine. We publish below two letters— one from Brother W. A. Womack and one from Elder V. R. Harris. Both of these brethren tell in their letter where they stand, and they also tell where Elder Hardy stands. We do not publish these letters for any other purpose only to show where Elder Hardy stands by the testimony of brethren who say, themselves, that they hold to unlimited predestination. Read the letters and judge for yourself. C. H. C.
FROM W. A. WOMACK
A. J. Breece, Centerville, Tenn.
Dear Brother— It has been in my mind for a good while to write you a few lines. I saw a letter that you wrote to Brother Blythe stating that J. B. Hardy was causing trouble among you all. Well, there is only one thing I can say, he sure has caused a lot of trouble over here. Before he came in here we were all in peace one with another. He is a man that wants to rule or ruin. He said here [pg 131] when this trouble started that before he would cause trouble he would get out of the way, but he did not get out of the way. It seems that he worked more (the harder) to carry his point. I suppose that there was a council out there to prove that he was not an “Absoluter.” Well, all I know, and that is, he had a council here to prove his standing among the Baptists, and tried to prove that he was not a “Conditionalist” but believed in absolute predestination of all things; and these men that went over there with him are some of the men that went off with him and helped to cause part of the trouble. That man Glover lives about two or three miles from us. Right here is where the trouble first started. We sure have had a hard time. It sure has caused a lot of pain and tears to be shed, and we had to give up our church. I guess we could have got it by going to law for it, but we had rather let them have it than to go to law, because I don’t believe that is Scripture. Well, I may be doing wrong in writing to you about it, but I felt like I would just like to write you a few lines. I like to see a body to be just what they are any and everywhere. He would say and do things, and then when you would get after him and then he would deny it, and that don’t look good to me among Old Baptists. If a man is a “Conditionalist,” let him be a “Conditionalist;” and if he is an “Absoluter,” let him be one, and not just try to be on both sides at once. I hope I believe in predestination of all things. Well I will close. I would like to hear from you. From a poor sinner saved by the grace of God, if saved at all.
W. A. Womack.
Star City, Ark.,
April 17, 1921.
FROM ELDER V. R. HARRIS
Mr. N. J. Hinson, Kimmins, Tenn.
Dear Brother— Your short letter of inquiry to hand regarding Elder J. B. Hardy and his religious positions. Well, I am quite well acquainted with Brother Hardy— been with and preached with him several times. We understand Elder J. B. Hardy to be what is called an unlimited Predestinarian Baptist— one who believes God was before all things and that by Him all things consist, and that Elder Hardy is no “Conditionalist” whatever. Elder Hardy preaches with what is called the unlimited Predestinarian Baptists, of the old London Confession of Faith type. If Elder J. B. Hardy [pg 132] was what is called a “Conditionalist Baptist” he would not have any fellowship with us, for we stand strictly aloof from all “Conditionalists,” styling all of them “Arminians.” If things are conditional in any way, they might all be. So we think all things were predestinated so as that none come by chance. Well, we will not write further, as you may be a “Conditionalist,” and that is strictly your business, if you are, and are honest and see that way, but I don’t. With kindest regards to you and all who love our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, I am, your poor unworthy brother, if one,
V. R. HARRIS.
Fordyce, Ark.,
Nov. 26, 1920.
DEBATE WITH BEN M. BOGARD
May 1, 1923
We have agreed to meet Ben M. Bogard in a discussion at Leedy, Miss., to begin on Tuesday after the third Sunday in July, 1923. Rev. Bogard is the champion of the anti-board faction of the Missionaries, we understand. The identity of the church is what is to be discussed. Leedy is on the I. C. Railroad, about fifteen miles from Corinth, Miss., toward Birmingham, Ala. Preparations will be made to care for all who attend the discussion, and we trust many of our brethren and friends may be there. C. H. C.
APOLOGY AND EXPLANATION
May 15, 1923
In our last issue was a letter from Elder A. B. Ross to Elder J. T. Davis with the reply from Elder Davis. This article was in the office several days before the Greenfield meeting and we hardly expected the printer [pg 133] to get to it in time for the last issue of the paper. But when we got home on Monday morning after the meeting the papers were already printed and being mailed with that article in them. We were too late to keep it out. This explains why it was published. We are sorry that it was published, since we attended that meeting and witnessed what transpired there. But we cannot undo it. All we know to do is to express the fact that we are sorry and to beg all who are concerned to forgive and not think hard of us. Brethren, will’ you do this? We wrote Elder Ross at once privately, and we hope he will not think hard of us, and that others will not. So far as we are concerned we hope that the trouble is ended, or that the war is over. May the Lord help us to live in peace.
C. H. C.
PEACE MEETING AT GREENFIELD
May 15, 1923
We left Winfield, Ala., on Thursday morning, April 26, for Jackson, Tenn., to spend the night with Elder D. Hopper. We had not then fully decided to go to the meeting at Greenfield. On the way to Jackson we met some brethren who were on their way to Greenfield, and at Jackson we met some others. Elder Hopper was at the train to meet another brother. He was not expecting us. We spent the night with him, and our mind was there made up to go on to Greenfield to attend the meeting. We arrived in Greenfield at about 9 o’clock. Several brethren met the train, and they manifested to us very clearly that they were glad to see us there. Right then we began to feel glad that we [pg 134] went. The full minute of the proceedings may be found in this paper. Every brother in the ministry who was present manifested a penitent heart for having ever been engaged in the recent unholy war that started in Texas, spoken of as the whole man doctrine and the hollow log doctrine, and all confessed freely and publicly that they had said and done things that were wrong, and begged forgiveness of every brother who was hurt with them. All personal wrongs and hurts were forgiven, and the brethren all expressed a desire to live together in peace and fellowship, and that they would do all they could to get all irregularities corrected and to get the brethren and churches together where there had been a division. They all expressed a desire to labor to that end. How much better this is than to labor to destroy, and to labor for a following. It looked to us like the dawning of a better day. Our heart was made glad to see such
manifestations and expressions of love as were clearly demonstrated during the entire meeting. Surely the Lord manifested His sweet presence.
We know that we said in The Primitive Baptist that we did not see fit to sign the call for the meeting. We felt a dread of the result of it. Perhaps it is best that we did not sign the call; but we are glad that we were there. That is the best way we know how to express the feeling we have in regard to it. We believe that much good will result from this meeting. We would be so glad to see all our good brethren united in love and fellowship and standing together in defense of the truth against our common enemies and for the order of God’s house. May the Lord help us all to contend for the things that make for peace and for the things that edify and build up the Lord’s little children, and never [pg 135] contend for such things as divide them and destroy their peace and fellowship, and that tend to confuse their minds. We need each other, and we all need to walk in the right way. May the Lord help us all to walk in that way that will honor our profession and glorify His name.
We desire an interest in the prayers of all our brethren and sisters, that the Lord may sustain and keep us. Brethren, if you see an error in us, please come to us in kindness and show us the wrong. If we err we want to be right. Show us the right way when we go wrong. That will not make us feel that you are our enemy, but that you are our friend. If we are wrong on some minor point, and cannot see the wrong, do not treat us as an enemy on that account. If we are not deceived we love the Old Baptist Church and cause. We feel that we would rather give our life for the cause than for the cause to suffer. May the Lord bless you all, dear brethren; and may we never be alienated again in our feelings as we were. Please do remember us in your prayers. We need your help and expressions of love and fellowship.
C. H. C.
GREENFIELD MEETING
May 15, 1923
In response to the following call sent out and signed by a number of brethren, the following named brethren in the ministry, besides a number of other brethren and sisters, met at the Primitive Baptist meeting house in Greenfield, Tenn., on Friday morning, April 27, 1923:
Inasmuch as we, the undersigned, are more thoroughly convinced [pg 136] that in the late controversy over the subject of regeneration there was not sufficient difference to justify confusion and division, and having a great desire for peace and union, we urge all our brethren concerned for the peace and welfare of our bleeding cause to come together at Greenfield Church, at Greenfield, Tenn., on Friday before the fifth Sunday in April, 1923, for the purpose of general confession. The object of said meeting being not to make any demands nor bring in charges regarding the past, but to make confessions to each other, blotting out the past, and come together in peace, love and fellowship. All who desire peace, we urge that you come. We suggest that each church enable their preacher to come by bearing his expenses.
The following named ministers were present: Elders J. D. Shain, W. A. Bishop, James Duncan, J. H. Phillips, Z. Stallings, S. E. Reid, C. H. Cayce, N. V Parker, J. W. Adams, W. P. Russell, J. W. Lomax, John Grist, W. E. Brush, R. L. Perry, Marshall Perry, J. C. Ross, A: B. Ross, Henry Ross, W. J. Goodrich, J. S. Williams, Commodore Brann, J. B. Halbrook, J. R. Scott, J. A. Pope; Licentiates J. C. Phipps, A. C. Ross, G. W. Hardison.
Elder S. E. Reid, of the Predestinarian Association, was appointed to preach, which he did after offering prayer.
Elder S. E. Reid was chosen as moderator to preside over the meeting.
A statement was made as to the purpose of the meeting, which was not to regulate the churches, but especially for the purpose of the brethren in the ministry coming together, and all who feel to do so to confess their faults one to another, as the Lord has commanded in James 5:16 “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that you may be healed.”
Then nearly every brother (minister) present arose, one by one, and frankly and freely stated that he had [pg 137] done and said things that were wrong, and asked forgivenesss of every brother whom he had wronged in any way.
A song was sung and the hand of fellowship extended to each other, amidst shouts of praise and tears of joy, in token of forgiveness of all personal wrongs and a desire to labor together to get all irregularities corrected and to get our good brethren together where they have become separated in this unholy war.
The moderator, upon unanimous vote of the body, appointed Elders C. H. Cayce, Jas. Duncan, Z. Stallings and J. D. Shain as a committee to draft a statement for presentation on tomorrow.
Adjourned to meet tomorrow morning at 10:30.
SATURDAY MORNING
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Called the roll. Elder John Grist was absent, having been called home on account of sickness. Elder Henry Ross was absent on account of sickness in his family. Elder J. A. Pope was absent on account of a request to visit his mother.
By oversight, no secretary or clerk was appointed on yesterday. By motion and second, which was carried, Elder C. H. Cayce was appointed clerk of this meeting.
Called for the report of the committee appointed on yesterday to draft a statement for presentation today, when they presented and read the following:
STATEMENT
Whereas, There has been recently an unholy war engaged in through this section, as well as other sections, on the question of regeneration, and we having engaged in the war, more or less; and, being fully persuaded in our own minds that there should [pg 138] never have been any war among us on that question; and feeling sure that our brethren with whom we have thus been warring are really and truly Primitive Baptists, we feel a desire in our hearts, and do confess our wrong in engaging in the war and agitating the question; and we are sorry of every wrong we have done, and every wrong and harsh word said and spoken of our brethren, and humbly beg forgiveness of each other, and gladly and freely forgive every personal wrong done us. We desire to live together in peace and fellowship and to stand together in opposition to our common enemies-the enemies to the truth. And we desire, and will use our every energy and strength to get all irregularities resulting from this war corrected and to get all our good brethren together again. We request all our periodicals who desire peace among our people to publish this statement, together with the proceedings of this meeting. Respectfully submitted,
C. H. Cayce,
Jas. Duncan,
Z. Stallings,
J. D. Shain,
Committee.
Upon the second reading the clerk suggested that the following words be added to the statement as originally presented, “together with the proceedings of this meeting.” By motion and second and unanimous vote the amendment was adopted. Upon the completion of the third reading the vote was called for upon roll call. The clerk called the roll, and the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes— J. D. Shain, W. A. Bishop, James Duncan, J. H. Phillips, Z. Stallings, S. E. Reid, C. H. Cayce, N. V Parker, J. W. Adams, W. P. Russell, J. W. Lomax, W. E. Brush, R. L. Perry, Marshall Perry, J. C. Ross, A. B. Ross, W. J. Goodrich, J. S. Williams, Commodore Brann, J. B. Halbrook, J. R. Scott; Licentiates J. C. Phipps, A. C. Ross, G. W. Hardison.
Nays— None. The statement was, therefore, unanimously adopted.
[pg 139] Then, by motion and second, the statement was unanimously approved and indorsed by rising vote of every Primitive Baptist present.
The hour for preaching service having arrived, prayer was offered by Elder J. W. Adams, and Elders J. R. Scott, J. D. Shain and W. A. Bishop, in the order of their names, addressed the people, as appointed.
Elders C. H. Cayce and W. P. Russell were appointed to preach on tomorrow.
Minutes read and approved by unanimous vote.
Elder S. E. Reid, Moderator.
Elder C. H. Cayce, Clerk.
TOUR IN ALABAMA
May 15, 1923
We returned home Monday morning, April 30, from an extended trip in Alabama. After the debate at Parrish with Mr. Tant we filled appointments as arranged by Elder S. G. Hamilton in the Lost Creek Association, and by Elder H. H. Goodman in the Hillabee Association, and by Elder J. J. Turnipseed in the Wetumpka and Choctawhatchie Associations. On the way back we stopped at Carbon Hill on Monday after the fourth Sunday, as we were rained out at that place in filling the appointments arranged by Elder Hamilton, and we were at Union Church, near Winfield, on Tuesday and Wednesday following.
We missed one of the appointments in the Hillabee on account of rain. We believe we filled all the appointments as arranged except as here mentioned. We had a very pleasant and enjoyable trip most all the way. [pg 140] At a few places the congregations were small on account of bad weather, but at most of the places the Congregations were good. We met a number of brethren in the ministry, but as we made no notes of the names of brethren whom we met we will not attempt to mention the names. We would not want to mention some without making mention of all of them, and we do not believe we can do this from memory. We enjoyed some pleasant meetings, and the brethren were good and kind to us. They were much better to us than we feel to deserve. We met some brethren — whom we had never met before and had a great desire to meet. Some we had met before and had a great desire to meet again. All the brethren whom we heard express themselves heartily endorsed our feeble efforts in proclaiming the unsearchable riches of our Lord and Master. We humbly trust that our visit among them may do none of them any harm. It was our desire to try to speak such things as might have a tendency to bind God’s children together in love and fellowship— to speak the truth in love. We shall not soon forget the kindness manifested to us at the places we visited in the good homes where we were so kindly cared for, as well as at the churches. May the good Lord shower down His rich blessings upon them all, is our humble prayer. We ask that we be kindly remembered in the prayers of those among whom we went, that the Lord may enable us to proclaim the glories of our King to the comfort of His humble poor. e would be glad to give a more extended account of the trip but our space is limited, and there are some other matters that we must give some space to. C. H. C.
[pg 141]
GOSPEL MESSENGER SOLD
May 15, 1923
Elder Z. C. Hull has sold the Gospel Messenger to Elder R.H. Pittman, of Luray, Va. Elder Pittman was already the editor and publisher of the Zion’s Advocate. The paper will now be published under the name of the Advocate and Messenger, with a Southern Department. The former Messenger staff of editors are now on the Southern Department, except Elder Hassell, who has been transferred to the regular staff. The paper will be issued in pamphlet form. We wish Elder Pittman success. C. H. C.
BACK ON THE STAFF
June 1, 1923
On this page will be found an article from Elder J. C. Ross, of Greenfield, Tenn., and one from Elder W. E. Brush, McKenzie, Tenn., consenting for their names to again be placed on our editorial staff. Before the unholy war among our people on regeneration, as it was termed, these brethren, so far as we knew, stood shoulder to shoulder with us. We are glad that all differences have been settled, and we trust that we may ever stand as we once did. We are also glad to have these dear brethren with us again on our editorial staff, and we hope they may write often and that their writings may be blessed to the comfort and benefit of the Lord’s dear children and to the unifying of them in love. “Speaking the truth in love,” does not divide or confuse the Lord’s people. Let us remember this, and let he things alone that confuse them. May the Lord direct us all and keep us in the right way, is our humble prayer.
C. H. C.
TRIP IN TENNESSEE
June 15, 1923
We left home on Tuesday night, May 6, for Watertown, Tenn., to meet Elder H. B. Taylor, of Murray, Ky., in a four days discussion, May 8 to 11. At the meeting in Greenfield, Tenn., the fifth Sunday in April a number of brethren insisted that we employ a stenographer and have the speeches taken and publish the discussion in book form. So we had one employed, Miss Grace Dawson, of Nashville, Tenn., who took our discussion with Mr. Srygley, and she was there and took the speeches as delivered, and the discussion will be published as soon as possible. She told us on the first Sunday night that it will be about six weeks before she can get the speeches transcribed. We have gone into the publication of this work solely for the benefit of our people. We are not really financially able to undertake the work; but a number of the brethren suggested that our people would gladly give enough orders in advance to meet the expense of the stenographer. At present the orders have not amounted to half enough to pay her for the work. We hope our brethren will write us at once and order what books they will take for themselves and dispose of for us. We need the money to enable us to meet the expense of the stenographer. We cannot make an estimate of the cost so low but what we will have to sell them at $1.50 each. We hope our good [pg 143] brethren will help us out in this. The debate passed off very pleasantly, and as to whether a victory was gained for the truth, the book will speak for itself. After the debate we filled appointments at Testament, Walnut Grove, Friendship, Hickman and Brush Creek, in the Round Lick Association. We failed to get to Testament the first day on account of rain, but had two days there, Sunday and Monday, May 13, 14. Then on Tuesday we failed to get to Walnut Grove on account of rain; but as Thursday was given for a rest day in the arrangements, we were there two days anyway. Elder W. L. Murray, of Nashville, Tenn., is the pastor at Testament. A good interest is manifested there. They have had no pastor at Walnut Grove for some time, but we think arrangements are made now for Elder Murray to go to both churches on the same trip. They are both some distance from the railroad, and we believe this is a good arrangement for them, and we trust the Lord may bless Brother Murray’s labors among them.
We were at Friendship three days, and enjoyed a good meeting there, as well as at the other places. Elder H. L. Golston is the pastor of this church. Then we were at Hickman and Brush Creek, one day at each place. Elder E. S. Frye is the pastor of both these churches. We were at the home of Elders Golston and Frye. They are both good brethren, and we love them both.
We intended to get the names of all the brethren in the ministry who were at the debate, but we failed to get them. We will try to give their names from memory: Elder E. S. Frye, Brush Creek, Tenn., who served us as moderator; Elders J. R. Scott, Murray, Ky.; [pg 144] W. E. Brush, McKenzie, Tenn.; D. Wauford, McMinnville, Tenn.; W. C. McMillon, Newport, Tenn.; J. H. Phillips, Huron, Tenn.; and W. P. Russell, of Arrington, Tenn. There may have been others, but we cannot call them to mind now. If we have overlooked any, it is not intentional. There were also some licentiates present.
From Brush Creek we went to Leiper’s Fork, Big Harpeth, Enon, Eagleville, and South College Street, Nashville, in the Cumberland Association. Elder M. C. Johnson, of Thompson Sta., Tenn., is the pastor at Leiper’s Fork and Eagleville. He was with us at all the churches in this association and at College Street, Nashville. Elder W. P. Russell is the pastor at Big Harpeth and Elder A. L. Graves is pastor at Enon. Elder Russell was with us at Big Harpeth and Enon, and Elder Graves was at Enon. The brethren there were expecting Elder Russell to be there, so they had it understood that they would have service in the morning and afternoon. We had the pleasure of hearing Elder Russell preach in the afternoon.
From Enon we went to Eagleville, Elder Johnson with us, where we had meeting Saturday and fourth Sunday in May. This was the regular communion meeting, which service was engaged in on Sunday. A very good congregation was present both days, though there was rain on Sunday. A good interest was manifested, and the meeting was enjoyed. We agreed to visit them again soon, if the Lord will.
On Sunday night we went to Nashville. As first announced the appointment was made for Bethel church; but Elder Murray, the pastor at College Street, was informed that if that church desired it the appointment would be changed and given them instead of Bethel. He [pg 145] said that it was desired, so we went to College Street that night. It was a stormy and rainy night, but a good congregation assembled. Elders Murray and Johnson were present, and it was a very pleasant meeting. We were glad to be with them there again, and to meet some of them whom we had not seen for so long a time. Several of the Bethel members were present. From Nashville we went to Decherd, where there was an appointment for Monday. Our father-in-law, B. B. Lawler, of Brownsboro, Ala., met us there and remained with us at two more places. We were glad to see him, and enjoyed being with him for three days. The congregation at Decherd was small, but the few there seem to be a devoted little band.
On Tuesday we were at Crow Creek, near Anderson, Tenn. The congregation was small there, but we had a very pleasant meeting; were cared for in the home of Sister Hackworth, the widow of Brother Ike Hackworth. Her son is living with her, or she is living with him— we do not know which way that is, but they live at the old home place, and we suppose we may just say that they live together. The young man is not a member of the church, but he takes an interest, and we think he should come on in.
On Wednesday we were at Walnut Grove, near Stevenson, Ala. There was a very good congregation at this place. Elder M. A. Hackworth lives in Stephenson, and was with us at the church. We spent Tuesday night in his home. We enjoyed a very pleasant meeting there.
Brother J. M. Barker, of South Pittsburg, met us at Walnut Grove and conveyed us to his home and on to Sweeten’s Cove on Thursday, where we enjoyed a very [pg 146] pleasant meeting. It had been a long time since we were with them at that place, and we were glad to see them once more.
On Friday and Saturday nights we were with the church in North Chattanooga. Elder R. O. Raulston lives in Chattanooga, and was with us there. We enjoyed being in his home and being in his company once more. Elder Z. C. Hull, of Atlanta, Ga., came to Chattanooga to see us and spent a part of the day on Friday with us. Brother Hull, we think, is a good man, and he has no intention of going with the Progressives. He says that Elder Simms has renounced some of the things which the Progressives have gone into. We think now as we did when we wrote our comments some time ago, that when any of them get tired of all those new measures, and will be satisfied with the goodness of the Lord’s house, we would be glad to see them come back; but the old church does not need to go anywhere or to make any concessions. She should stand firmly on the plain principles upon which she has stood through the ages past. We were glad to see Brother Hull, and would be glad to be associated with him more. We enjoyed good meetings with the church in Chattanooga. Decherd, Crow Creek, Sweeten’s Cove and North Chattanooga are in the Sequachee Valley Association.
On Saturday night after the meeting we went to the station and got a berth in a sleeper for Nashville— something we seldom do on account of the high cost— and we went to bed so as to get a night’s sleep and rest, as we expected to be up all the next night on the way home, and so we would feel like being awake for the meeting on Sunday and Sunday night at Bethel Church in Nashville. Next morning when we awoke the train [pg 147] was in Wartrace, fifty-five miles from Nashville. There was a freight train wreck between us and Nashville, and we had to wait for the wreck to be cleared so we could go on. We tried to get a call through from there over the telephone to Nashville, so as to get some of the brethren to meet us in Murfreesboro, and we would get a taxi to go that far from Wartrace, and by this means get to Nashville in time for meeting. But we failed to get the call through. It appeared to us that it was the fault of some operator, as calls were put through for others that were made later. So we did not get to Nashville until about one o’clock, and got to the place of meeting just after services were dismissed and before they were all gone. A large crowd was there, and we were sorry that we failed to get there in time for meeting that day; but we were with them that night and enjoyed a good meeting, and a good crowd was present. Elder Murray had a stenographer present who took the discourse down and he will publish the sermon in his paper, The Gospel Trumpet. Elder Murray began the publication of the little magazine in February, 1923. It is published monthly, and each issue contains one or two sermons delivered by some brother of our faith. It is a good little magazine, and we know of no other that is just like it. The subscription price is $1.50 a year. If any of our readers wish to subscribe for it, send your subscription to us or to Murray & Campbell, 129 Third Ave. S., Nashville, Tenn. If you wish to see a sample copy, we suppose they would be glad to send you one. During the month of June they are offering to take subscriptions at $1 a year.
Sunday night at eleven o’clock we started from Nashville for home, and arrived home on Monday afternoon [pg 148] at 5:40 and found all well, for which we trust we are thankful. The brethren were good to us, and we enjoyed being with them. Many of them we have often been with in years gone by. We love them, and we love their company and sweet fellowship. Though our home is not now in that country, yet we feel like they are our home folks, and it is like going home to visit them. May the good Lord bless them for all their kindness shown us, is our humble prayer. We ask and trust that we may have an interest in their prayers, as well as an interest in the prayers of all our readers. C. H. C.
REMARKS TO W. R. BLASINGAME
June 15, 1923
We have no inclination to go into a meeting with the Progressives in a church capacity, or any other capacity, with such an object in view as was expressed in that call which was made. They have departed from the Primitive Baptist practice, and they know the way back without having any kind of meeting with them. If any of them are tired of their departures and new measures and desire to come back to the old church, we would not throw a straw in their way. C. H. C.
REMARKS TO A LETTER
June 15, 1923
We trust that we fully appreciate the above kind words and expressions of endorsement. A great many of the dear brethren whom we have met on our trip in Alabama have expressed themselves face to face with [pg 149] us as heartily endorsing all we said in regard to the matter. It seems to us that for some time there has been a spirit of compromise manifested. If we do not wish to be found “departing from the living God” in our doctrine or practice, it will be well for us to be careful how we compromise with those who have departed. May the Lord preserve and keep some to maintain the principles of truth and righteousness, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
JOHN 9:31
July 1, 1923
Brother Cayce: I wish to ask you a question. John 9:31 says: “Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth His will, him He heareth.” Who said this? I understand it was the blind man who said it. My Arminian friends say it was the Jews. Please answer through the paper. W. T. Pettus.
Lexington, Ala.
REMARKS
Your question is plainly answered in the Book. John 9:30 says,”The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence He is, and yet He hath opened mine eyes.” The man continues his statement, and what he said is recorded in John 9:30-3 inclusive; then in John 9:34 “they” — the Jews— “answered and said unto him.” Any man who knows the meaning of the simplest words can know by reading these verses that it was the man born blind who used the language in John 9:31.
C. H. C.
[pg 150]
ON OUR STAFF AGAIN
July 1, 1923
We are glad to say to our readers that we have again obtained the consent of Elder Lee Hanks to place his name on our editorial staff as one of our corresponding editors. In this paper will be found an article from him under the heading, “A Lovely Greeting.” Brother Hanks is a good writer, as our readers know, and we are sure they will be glad that Elder Hanks is again with us and will write for our columns.
Elder Hanks calls attention to some things in his article which have caused trouble among the Old Baptists, and which are now causing trouble among them, and which always will do so. There are some who say much about peace and wanting peace, and yet have such things among them, or some of the things, which Elder Hanks names. If they want peace, as they say they do, they should prove it by getting rid of such things. We cannot have peace as long as fornicators, perjurers, liars, and other such like characters are tolerated among us. Ungodly practice tolerated in the church will destroy the church as effectually and as quickly as false doctrine.
The grace of God in the heart teaches us “that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly.” If one does not live that way he has no business in the church. We need all God’s people in the church who believe the doctrine of God and who walk uprightly; but we do not need those who lead ungodly lives. They are a shame and a reproach upon the cause, and there cannot be true and lasting peace with such retained in the church.
We humbly trust that the labors of our dear brother, [pg 151] Elder Lee Hanks, with us in the publication of The Primitive Baptist may be blessed of the Lord to the advancement and good of His cause and people. C. H. C.
Elder Hanks’ article and the above were written last December, but there was a hitch in the arrangement. Now there has been an understanding and Elder Hanks has written us to put his name on the staff, and we do so with this issue and insert the articles that were written in December. We trust the Lord may bless our efforts and labors for the benefit of His humble poor. C. H. C.
DEBATE AT LEEDY, MISS.
July 1, 1923
If not providentially prevented we will be on hand to meet Ben M. Bogard, D. D., in debate at, or near, Leedy, Miss., on Tuesday after the third Sunday in July. Leedy is on the I. C. R. R., about thirteen miles from Corinth, Miss., toward Birmingham, Ala. Write Elder Geo. N. Gober, Leedy, Miss., at once, if you intend going on the train. But do not stay away if you fail to write him. We think arrangements will be made to care for all who attend. Dr. Bogard is a Missionary Baptist, with the anti-board faction, or the “Land-markers.” The question of church identity is to be discussed. C. H. C.
[pg 153]
REMARKS TO J. T. JACKSON
July 15, 1923
We are of the opinion that some called the expressions harsh because they were arguments which could not be answered. If you make an argument that cannot be refuted some men will then say your words are harsh and ungodly. We do not need the ungodly doctrine that God predestinated the sin and wickedness that is done in the world, and we have no apology to make for saying so. Now let some man or set of men make complaint to our church about this if they want to— but come with the proof of the complaint when you bring it. We will be there, the Lord willing, to defend the eternal truth of God. C. H. C.
LESSON LEARNED BY EXPERIENCE
September 1, 1923
“Experience is a great teacher,” so we have always heard, and we are sure it is true. When one learns a lesson in his experience, he knows it is true. In the experience of grace the Lord’s children are taught a lesson that they never entirely forget. They may be blinded by the gods of this world, and taught false doctrines by false teachers, but they do not entirely forget what they have learned in their experiences, though they may be so blinded by false teachers as to deny what they have been taught in their experiences.
When one has been brought to experience the exceeding sinfulness of sin, and made to feel himself to be a [pg 154] sinner, he realizes that his eternal condemnation is just. He is made to feel just as the poet expressed:
If my soul were sent to hell,
Thy righteous law approves it well.
In this sad feeling, he is made to realize that there is a place of eternal punishment, called hell; and that if justice should be meted out to him that would be his doom. When that burden of sin and condemnation is removed, he feels that he is “snatched as it were a brand from the eternal burning”— he feels to praise the name of the Lord that he is saved from eternal punishment. If there is no such thing as an eternal hell, or an eternal punishment, then the experience of grace is a farce— it is a lie. What poor child of God can afford to say the experience of grace is a lie? The man posing as an Old Baptist preacher who preaches such a doctrine as that simply denies the experience of grace, and has no business in the Old Baptist Church. He should be excluded so quick that he could hardly know how it was done. To deny an experience of grace, and what is learned by experience, is to deny the work of the Lord — or to charge God with teaching His little children a lie, in His leading and teaching them in their experience. The Old Baptists, in our humble judgment, do not need any such teachers among them. The Lord does not teach His children a lesson in their experience that is contrary to what He teaches in His Book. Jesus says,”These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.” The same word translated everlasting with reference to the punishment of the wicked is the word translated eternal with reference to the life of the righteous. One is just [pg 155] as long as the other. If the punishment of the wicked ceases, the life of the righteous will cease at the same time. When one ends the other ends. If one never ends, then the other never ends.
If there is no such thing as an eternal hell, or endless punishment, then Jesus did not save anyone from an endless hell by His suffering and death. Then Jesus did not accomplish anything for poor sinners by His death on the cross. Hence, Universalism denies the atonement of Christ. It is anti-Christ. As for us, we are not ready yet to deny the atonement made by our Lord, nor are we ready to deny the experience of grace. To deny these is to deny the only hope for a poor sinner.
C. H. C.
GOD’S WORK NOT MAN’S WORK
REMARKS TO C. D. WILLIS
September 15, 1923
On another page in this paper is an article from Brother C. D. Willis, of Witt, Va., over which we placed the heading,”God’s Work Not Man’s Work.” We feel that some remarks should be made by us concerning some things contained in the article. He seems to think that some brethren do not give God the praise and the honor for the good things done.
Brother Willis says, “I understand the Scriptures to teach just one doctrine, and that is by grace and grace alone— not by works of righteousness that anyone has done.” So far as regeneration is concerned, or so far as the receiving of eternal life is concerned, or so far as being made a child of God is concerned, or being saved [pg 156] with an everlasting salvation, this is true. “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.”— Tit. 3:5. This is all of grace, from first to last, and the works of men are all excluded.
While this is true, there is another saving spoken of in the Bible which is accomplished by doing what is commanded. “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.”— 1 Tim. 4:16. Here is a saving that is accomplished by doing something, and doing something is working. The saving is accomplished by doing, what is here commanded. But this saving is not an eternal saving, or becoming a child of God, for Timothy was already a child of God. But by doing what is here commanded he would save himself and those that hear him from false ways, false doctrines, and many wrong things they may fall into by not taking heed. The word “hear” in this text means to heed. In the saving mentioned in Tit. 3:5 there are no conditions and no works of the creature; but in the saving mentioned in 1 Tim. 4:16, there are works commanded and required.
“For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.”— Rom. 8:13. There is no disputing the fact that there are conditions in this text. No man on earth who knows anything at all about the meaning of words would dare deny this. But there is no condition required or commanded of one in order that he become a child of God. The church of God at Rome was not composed of alien sinners. They were children of God, [pg 157] and it was necessary for them to not live after the flesh, but to mortify the deeds of the body through the Spirit, in order to live in the fellowship and enjoyment of the church state. It was not the Spirit that was to mortify the deeds of the body, but they themselves were to do that through the Spirit. To say that the Spirit does it is a perversion of the text. And to say that there is no condition in the text is a flagrant denial of plain language. Or to say the text requires a work to be performed by alien sinners, is a misrepresentation of the facts.
Brother Willis says, “The Scriptures teach that there is no power but of God.” That expression is found in Rom. 13:1. There we find this language: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”— Rom. 13:1-4. This shows very clearly that the powers mentioned are magistrates, or rulers, which are for the punishment of evildoers. God has ordained government for the punishment of evildoers, and for the protection of His people, and His moral creatures in right doing. The apostle here teaches that we should be law abiding. Laws and rulers to execute them are ordained of God for the [pg 158] punishment of evildoers and for the protection of those who do right. To resist these powers, and to not be law abiding, is to resist what God has ordained for the protection of those who do right. To say that wicked power comes from, or emanates from, God is a perversion of this text. “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, to speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.”— Tit. 3:1-2. Here the apostle plainly commands to be subject to powers and obey magistrates. God’s children should be a law-abiding people. Especially should Old Baptists be obedient to the laws of the land, so far as conscience in matters of worship are not interfered with. If there were no probability or possibility for them to do otherwise than obey, then there was no necessity for the apostle to say what he did, and the language would be meaningless.
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”— Eph. 6:12. Here the apostle tells us he wrestled against powers, or fought against them. Were they the same kind of powers he admonished obedience to? Certainly not. These powers which he fought against were wicked powers— spiritual wickedness in high places— or heavenly places— the church. Things that are ungodly and that are wrong are sometimes brought into the church, and it is right to fight against them. The man who will not do so is not a good soldier.
We do not know of any Old Baptists who are advocating a doctrine that gives man any more power than [pg 159] belongs to him. No man in an unregenerate state can render gospel service unto the Lord that would be acceptable unto Him. God gives His children the power and the ability to obey Him, but they do not always obey. “But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.” — 1 Cor. 10:5. This is a plain and positive statement that God was not well pleased with those people, and they were overthrown in the wilderness for their disobedience. The apostle tells us in 1 Cor. 10:11,”Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” The punishments mentioned came upon them for their wrong doings, and those things are written as warnings to us. If they had no power to do any better than they did, then upon what principle of justice were they punished for their disobedience? And if God’s children now cannot render obedience to Him, and have to disobey, what could be the necessity of warning them, or what good could the warning do? Those people who fell in the wilderness did not please God. The apostle plainly says so. Was it because God did not give them the ability? Would a loving and merciful parent require more of his child than a child could do, and then punish the child because he did not do it? To say that God has done such a thing is to charge Him with injustice. Those people disobeyed and they were justly punished for their wrong doings; and, therefore, their sins are not to be charged to the reason that God did not “work in them.”
God’s children are not in the flesh. They can please God. If they cannot please God, they are in no better condition than the unregenerate are. “So then they [pg 160] that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.”— Rom. 8:8-9. God’s children have the Spirit of God dwelling in them, and they are not in the flesh.’ To be in the flesh is to be in an unregenerate state. Those who are in an unregenerate state are in the flesh, and cannot please God. Those who have been regenerated are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, and they can please God. This is clearly taught by the apostle, and to deny it is to deny inspiration. It is wicked for a child of God to argue that God’s people are in the flesh and cannot please God. It is a denial of what the apostle has here plainly taught. To argue that they cannot please God is to deny the power that God has given them, and is to fail to give Him the honor that belongs to Him. God is the teacher of His people in an experimental sense, but His ministers are teachers. There are some things He is pleased to call and qualify His ministers to teach. To preach is to teach.
“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.”— Matt. 28:19-20. There is some teaching which these men were commanded to do. To deny this is as bad as to deny that the Lord teaches His people in their regeneration and experience. One of the qualifications of a man in order that he be ordained to the ministry is that he be apt to teach. Why such a qualification if God has no teaching to be done by man? [pg 161] “Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgressions, and the house of Jacob their sins.”— Isa. 58:1. If God’s people never need any one to tell them of their wrongs, why did the Lord tell Isaiah to show them their sins?
We do not now remember the article Brother Willis refers to which was written by a sister, nor do we now remember what sister it was, but we do know that Brother Willis does not quote the language correctly. The apostle does not say the Lord works in them the will and the do. What the apostle says is this: “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure.”— Phil. 2:13. The apostle says God works in them TO WILL and TO DO— but does not say He works in them the will and the do. We should be careful not to garble what the Bible says. If our theory is such as to require a garbling of the Scriptures to sustain it, our theory is wrong.
The Philippians were commanded to work out. They were not commanded to work in. The Lord has never commanded any people to do what He does Himself, or what He has said He would do. Neither has He ever said He would do what He has commanded others to do.
The day of God’s power in the sense the prophet meant was when God manifests His power in regeneration, and in that manifestation of God’s power He makes His people willing to submit to His will. He makes them willing to be saved by grace, and makes them beg for mercy.
The preaching and teaching of these things has never caused any trouble in a true Old Baptist Church; but denying them, and teaching contrary to them, does cause trouble. May the Lord enable us all to rightly [pg 162] consider the teaching of His blessed Book and to mould our lives accordingly.
C. H. C.
BIBLE CONFERENCE
October 1, 1923
We have just received a notice of a meeting to be held at Palmersville, Tenn., October 16 to 18, 1923, and a program of said meeting. The program is headed, “Program Primitive Baptist Bible Conference at Primitive Baptist Church, Palmersville, Tenn., Oct. 16, 17, 18, 1923.” The notice received with the program follows:
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— Below is the program of Primitive Baptist Bible Conference to be held here with the Primitive Baptist Church on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, Oct. 16, 17, 18, 1923.
We as the committee appointed by the above church are glad of the opportunity of inviting all peace-loving Baptists everywhere to come together at this time and discuss some of the vital things that confront us as the church of the living God.
As can be discerned by the above program this is no legislative body, but a meeting where the program will be carried out in toto. Of course questions and discussions will be entertained after each question is discussed.
All ministers will note that this meeting takes place just before the convening of the Greenfield Association at Sandy Branch Church, this county, and arrangements will be made for conveyance from the conference to the association.
Trains will be met at Dresden, Tenn., and conveyance furnished to the church. Any one desiring to come will communicate with [pg 163] Brother D. A. McWherter, Dresden, Tenn., or any member of the committee. This the 22nd day of Sept., 1923. Signed,
J. S. Tyson, Palmersville.
Cayce Pentecost.
D. A. McWherter.
J. M. Rawls.
Dear Brother Cayce: Enclosed is program for our P. B. Bible Conference. Please publish same in the P. B., in the Oct. 1st issue, together with the notice of same. Come if you can.
Respt.,
Committee.
We haven’t the space to publish the entire program, but the names on the program who have special subjects assigned to them are W. A. Pinkstaff, M. G. Mitchell, J. E. Stewart, C. G. Byrom, A. N. Towry, and J. J. Kirkland. The whole outfit is of the Georgia Progressive element. Some of these men whose names are on the program we know. J. E. Stewart was regularly excluded by a gospel church in regular conference. Ask B. B. Lawler, Brownsboro, Ala., Elder J. N. Bobo, R. 5, Boaz, Ala., or Elder M. Sparks, R. 1, Union Grove, Ala. We think some of these, or all of these, brethren can tell you whether this be true or not. C. G. Byrom was excluded from the church at Decherd, Tenn. Ask Elder R. O. Raulston, 306 Dodds Ave., Chattanooga, Tenn. We think he can give you the facts in this matter. A. N. Towry was excluded from the church at Pleasant Grove in the Flint River Association in North Alabama. Pleasant Grove Church is on the Tennessee side of the line. Ask B. B. Lawler, Brownsboro, Ala., clerk of the association, or Elder B. G. Stephens, Hazel Green, Ala., the moderator, or Goodloe Monks, Fayetteville, Tenn., clerk of the church. The idea of these folks claiming to be Primitive [pg 164] Baptists and following after and engaging in such things as they are engaging in that are so foreign to Primitive Baptist practice is absurd.
The idea of a “Primitive Baptist Bible Conference at the Primitive Baptist Church” is a new thing under the sun, and is purely an invention of the so-called Progressives. Where do you find in the Bible any command, precept, or example for a so-called Bible Conference, where they are to discuss such a question as “Church welfare and gospel extension work?” Did the church of God at Rome, or at Corinth, or at Galatia, or at Ephesus, or at Philippi, or at Colosse, or at Thessalonica have any such conference? Did Paul instruct them to do so in his letters to them? Did he instruct Timothy to have the brethren meet in any such conference? Did he so instruct Titus? Did he so instruct Philemon? Did he give any such instruction to the Hebrews? Did James give any such instruction to the twelve tribes scattered abroad? Did Peter give such instruction to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia? Did John give any such instruction in his First, Second or Third General Epistle? Did Jude give any instruction of the kind in his epistle? Was any such instruction given in Revelation to any of the seven churches of Asia? Where, then, is the Bible part of it? There is no Bible authority for any such procedure, and it is foreign to the Primitive Baptist practice and usage. Those who are engaging in such things who were once united with the Primitive Baptists have departed, and are no more Primitive Baptists.
Our reason for making mention of this in our columns is that they mention the Greenfield Association in their [pg 165] notice, and we do not know to whom the notices are sent; and therefore did not know but some brethren might think this was being done by orderly Baptists who are in correspondence with different associations in that section of country. We felt that the cause demanded that we tell these facts, so the brethren may not be led to think the Greenfield Association is engaging in this new thing.
We thank them for their invitation to “come.” But we cannot “come,” and would not if we could. C. H. C.
DO NOT CARE TO PUBLISH
October 1, 1923
We received two copies of a circular requesting us to publish them, in which a call is made for a meeting of some of the churches in that section. It seems that some of those making the call were once in the Bear Creek Association. We are also in receipt of a letter from Brother J. W. Jones, Peachland, N. C, the clerk of the association, which he requests us to publish, in which it is stated that those parties are out of order and not in line with the association, and warns brethren not to have anything to do with the meeting. We do not deem it necessary to publish either the circular or the letter from Brother Jones. We deem this notice to be sufficient. If they have had trouble it is a matter that belongs to them, and they may settle their own troubles. This thing of getting other folks to take part in our troubles is a matter that tends to spread the trouble. If churches or parties have departed from the fellowship of the [pg 166] brethren and churches in their own community, let them be reconciled to their brethren at home. Keep your troubles at home. These things should not be sent to our papers. C. H. C.
BOTH SIDES
November 1, 1923
About the fifteenth of September we received the following notice for publication in The Primitive Baptist:
Schoolfield, Va., September 10, 1923.
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— Please publish in The Primitive Baptist that our regular church conference held at the Primitive Baptist Church at Danville, Va., on Saturday night, Sept. 9, 1923, that because of abusive language used in church conference against the church, the moderator and the Staunton River Association, it became necessary to enter a charge of contempt against him, and he was excluded from the church. This notice is intended to notify the brethren at large that Elder Wilson is no longer associated with the Primitive Baptists. Done by order of the church at Danville, Va.
J. F. Spangler, Moderator.
W. L. Parker, Church Clerk.
When we received the above we wrote to Elder Wilson and asked him about the matter, asking him to tell us how the matter was. We also wrote to another brother we thought to be in position to know about the matter.
We did not wish to do an injustice to Elder Wilson. Neither did we wish to publish him as being excluded if it had not been done by a legal conference in proper proceeding. We wished to know what the cause of the trouble was. We are aware of the fact that the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things was [pg 167] being agitated in that country, for it has been advocated by a few there for several years. Before Elder Wilson had time to receive our letter we received the following from him:
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother I am sending you this little notice for publication— Our association (the Staunton River) met with the church here in Danville this year. I was sick and could not be at the association. I will state, in short, the kind of spirit that was manifested in the association. Most of the delegates that were sent to represent their churches in the association were influenced by “Absoluters” of this association and other associations to change an article of faith and raise bars of fellowship against Elders M. E. Petty and R. H. Pittman and me and others on the doctrine we preach. All the orderly Baptists of this country, together with the churches of my care, with myself, would not endorse the work of the association. That disorder led into our churches and in Danville, where I held my membership. The majority, together with the pastor, lined up in the disorder with the “Absoluters;” and they being in the majority dropped the rest of us out because we did not endorse the disorder of the association. If any one wishes to know my standing in this country as a man, as a preacher, as a citizen, I am in order and fellowship with orderly Baptists. For further information I will refer you to W. A. Chaney, Sutherlin, Va., a deacon of the church where I hold my membership; Tom Ward, Ruffin, N. C; John Cheshire, Martinsville, Va.; Elder W. F. Pruitt, Ruffin, N. C.; J. W. Jones, Peachland, N. C, and H. M. Baucom, Peachland, N. C. If this is not enough, write to Elder R. H. Pittman, Luray, Va., and others. The “Absoluters” are making war on us and we are trying to defend ourselves. The Staunton River Association has divided and about half of them have lined up with the “Absoluters.” Affectionately, J. R. Wilson.
In a few days we received the following letter from [pg 168] Elder Wilson in reply to our letter asking about the matter:
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother in Christ— Your letter is with me. I was expecting you to get a notice from the “Absoluters” concerning their great work here in this country. I suppose they did not tell you anything else they did. At your request I will try to tell you a few things they did and leave you to judge the matter. Our association (the Staunton River) met here with the church in Danville the second Sunday in August. I was sick and could not attend. Elders Petty and Pittman were with us, and quite a large bunch of the “Absoluters.” The moderator of the association and the moderator of the church and the clerk of the association (that is, one of the clerks), with a few other “Absoluters,” put their heads together, went into a private room and examined Elders Petty and Pittman on their doctrine, raised the bars of fellowship against their doctrine and refused to preach them in the association. That is not all, but they changed an article of the faith over the protest of a few churches, one of them being the Mill Church, under my care, and being 153 years old and having 128 members. They found out I was not going to endorse that work because it was all out of order. Then the moderator of this church in Danville, together with others, set out to canvass among the members of this church of my membership to secretly get votes to put me and all that stood with me out of Danville Church. I did not know that until it was all over. The church met in Danville after the association and the moderator of Danville Church got his “Absolute” friends together. You can see what they had in view. They never invited any one to seats; never organized the church for business; but took up a case of a good orderly brother and excluded him without a charge. Then they proceeded with business and started to close the meeting without a report from the association. I asked permission to speak, and the moderator granted it. I called for the report from the association, and they all flew into a mad feeling. The delegates arose and made incorrect statements; said the association was good and all the preaching good. At this time the feeling was getting up in the crowd, especially among the “Absoluters.” I was calm in my feeling; never got [pg 169] mad, never used any abusive language. All that report to you is absolutely false, and can be proven by two hundred witnesses. Then I asked those delegates if they voted to change the article of faith of the association; they said they did. I asked them by what authority they did it. The reply from one of them was that he got his authority from an Elder Robert Dodd, who was not even a member of this church, but a strong “Absoluter.” The other delegate replied that the doctrine in the article of faith was against the doctrine he believed. He believed in the absolute predestination of all things, and of course the article Was in his way. Then the clerk of Danville Church arose and asked me if I could endorse the work or action of the association. I told him I could not. It made him mad. He said,”By that you declare non-fellowship for the action of the association.” I told him I did not, from the fact that the declarations of non-fellowship were already made by them at the association, when they changed the articles of faith without authority from the churches or from the Bible, and set in judgment on the doctrine of Elders M. E. Petty and R. H. Pittman and myself, with others who hold with us, and raised bars of fellowship against them and refused to preach them. I said, “I am on the defensive and they are on the offensive side and brought the disorder and confusion and divided our people in this country.” Without any charge whatever against us, they being in the majority, moved and seconded to exclude us, and did. Witnesses from my churches were there and saw the action and would not endorse it, but all stood by me because I acted faithful and orderly. All of my churches, together with many other churches and associations, are with me and standing for the doctrine I preach. Now, my dear brother, I have not gone into all details in this matter; but upon my word I have told you the truth as far as I have gone. I am standing on and by the same glorious principles I started with twenty years ago. I have nowhere else to stand. I have nowhere else to go. We are no better than the faithful ones who suffered persecution in the past, for it is said, “He that will live godly in this present world will suffer persecution.” Please pray for me, a poor sinner saved by grace, if saved at all. Extend love to all. Yours in love, J. R. Wilson.
P. S.-The Mill Church, being in order, and a church of my care, a few miles from Danville, received me, my wife, and a few others [pg 170] into their fellowship by relation. We are identified with orderly, sound Baptists in this country. J. R. W.
In another part of this paper will be found an article by Elder R. H. Pittman, copied from the Advocate and Messenger for September, 1923, in. which he tells something about the meeting of the Staunton River Association and how they refused to preach him and Elder Petty on account of their doctrine.
In another part of this same paper will be found some resolutions with several names to the same and some resolutions adopted by the Bear Creek Association. All these things go to show that the trouble was caused by the advocating of the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things and making it a hobby. Hobby riding has always caused trouble among Old Baptists and always will do so. We were in North Carolina several years ago, and we felt satisfied they would some day have trouble over this very thing. There were a few then who advocated it, and they were allowed to continue to pursue that course. They should have been stopped right then— or sooner; then much of the trouble that will now result from such a hobby would have been avoided. When any man begins to ride a hobby, on any point, he should be stopped right there. If he will not desist, then exclude him and let him stay out until he can leave off his hobby. This will save much trouble and confusion in the church. Our readers know where we stand— that we do not be— live the doctrine that God predestinated our sins and wickedness. May the Lord pity our poor suffering people. C. H. C.
[pg 171]
ASSOCIATION RULE
November 1, 1923
Our readers will remember an article which appeared in our columns some time ago from Elder J. T. Jackson, of Martinsville, Va., on the question of the absolute predestination of all things and there being only one salvation set forth in the Scriptures. Well, some of the Absoluters over there in the East did not seem to digest that article very well, and they proceeded to get after Elder Jackson, under the plea that his language was not becoming, too rough and unbrotherly. Elder Jackson asked forgiveness for any expression that was wrong or for any unbrotherly language. Then it developed that it was not the rough expressions used, if any were used, that brought out the objections, but the doctrine advocated, and the principles contended for in the article. That was what we thought when we heard that objections were raised. We understand that Elder Jackson’s church is in the Pig River Association. At the session of that association in the fall they passed this act:
The association at its spring session having denounced the subject matter in a certain article or instrument by Elder J. T. Jackson, and the church of his membership, to-wit, the church at Leatherwood, having failed to fully respect the judgment of the association, further denounces Elder J. T. Jackson as a heretic and in disorder as respects the contents of the said communication and its promulgation, advise Leatherwood Church to deal with him as such.
If that is not lording it over God’s heritage we confess that we never saw it, and would not know it if we were to see it. The very idea of an association sitting in judgment over a church as to such matters! Where [pg 172] is the poor little church to come in and have any say about her own affairs, please tell us! Why should not a church submit to a government of presbyters, or bishops, or a pope, as to an association? Such as this is simply assuming authority that is unknown to God’s word. It is unscriptural and unbaptistic. It is assuming authority that belongs to no body of people on earth. The church is the highest ecclesiastical authority on earth. There is no higher court to which an appeal may be taken. There is no higher court in which a case may be tried.
Elder Jackson’s church passed the following act:
Martinsville, Va., Aug. 25, 1923.
We, the church of Christ at Leatherwood, having received a letter from the Pig River Association denouncing Elder J. T. Jackson as an heretic because of the doctrine as set forth in his article as appeared in the Gospel Messenger (it was also in The Primitive Baptist. Ed.) of Feb. 1st, 1923, and as we accepted Elder Jackson’s acknowledgment in regard to said article, and failing to see any heresy in said article, and knowing that the association has no authority over any church; but loving peace and wanting an understanding, we have set Saturday before the fourth Sunday in October, 1923, as the day if any church has a grievance against Elder Jackson to bring their grievance to Leatherwood Church on above date and we will be glad to answer any question as touching our act of conference of May 26, 1923, and Elder Jackson will answer as touching the doctrine as set forth in aforementioned article. Done by the church in conference this the 25th day of August, 1923.
Eld. J. P. Via, Mod.,
W. H. Minter, Clerk.
This statement from Leatherwood was sent us some time ago, and should have appeared sooner, but was overlooked. The church is the place for the matter to be tried, and that is the place to present the grievance. [pg 173] But they will have a hard time proving the doctrine to be heresy which was set forth in the article of which they are complaining. We would be glad to hear them try to disprove what was set forth therein. The doctrine contained in that article will stand when this world is on fire.
C. H. C.
NAMES REMOVED FROM STAFF
December 1, 1923
Some few weeks ago we received a letter from Elder Samuel McMillon requesting us to remove his name from our editorial staff or to remove the name of Elder J. R. Wilson. We were hoping that none of the brethren would make a request of that kind until there had been ample time for developments and we had ample time to consider the matter from all standpoints. We felt then that there was nothing else for us to do but to remove Brother McMillon’s name from the staff, which we did without comment. It was our desire then to investigate the matter further. In all the investigating we have been able to do we confess that we feel now that we know very little about the whole affair, or we mean that taking the affair as a whole we do not know very much about it.
Danville Church sent us a notice that Elder Wilson was excluded for using abusive language. Brother Wilson claims that he did not use abusive language, and several have written us that he did not, and some have written us that he did. Now, how can we afford to say that the brethren on either side of this controversy are not truthful? It puts us in a dilemma. [pg 174] We do not know what to do or what to say. We do not wish to do the Danville Church an injustice; neither do we wish to do Brother Wilson an injustice. We do not wish to take any part in the controversy. We have had enough of wars and divisions.
We have, we hope, prayerfully and carefully considered the matter as to what we should do under the existing circumstances. The brethren write us conflicting reports, and we have no reason that we can discover to doubt them being sincere in what they say to us. They may be sincere and yet be mistaken. We do not feel like calling their honesty in question. We love the good brethren whom we know on both sides of the matter.
A number of letters from brethren on both sides have been sent to us giving their version of the matter with the request that it be published. Now here is one thing we think we know, and that is that we do not wish a controversy on the matter to be carried on through the columns of The Primitive Baptist. It cannot do any good. It cannot help matters any to be publishing those things in our papers. We also feel sure of the fact that if there is a division in that country now the time will come when many good brethren on both sides will feel that it should never have been. It will be regretted in years to come. It makes our heart bleed to contemplate what it means and what the result will be. In the later years, when the brethren have all had time to cool off, and calmly look back and see the waste and devastation caused by war and division, their hearts will then ache over the sad affair, when it will be too late to mend it. Brethren, it is better to be patient and to bear much, rather [pg 175] than for good brethren to be divided and fellowship be destroyed. Families and communities will be divided. Hatred and variance will take the place of love and sweet communion. For God’s sake, brethren, and for your own sake, and for the sake of your children, soften your hearts and be charitable toward each other, and let your eyes shed tears of penitence and grief; go down on your knees in humble prayer to God to keep you and to help you stay in that humble and patient attitude that should characterize His children. Our eyes are filled with tears as we write these lines. Our heart is heavy and sad, and we are grieved over the condition of affairs in that country where we have met with the dear brethren and have joined with them in the delightful service of the Master.
Now, brethren, please do not ask us to publish anything about the troubles and divisions in that country, or in any other country. We do not wish to take any part in the division. So we feel like now that the very best thing for us to do, as we have dropped the name of Elder McMillon for no other cause than that stated above, that we should also drop the name of Brother Wilson for the present. This is not done because we are taking sides, but because we are now determined not to take sides if there is anyway to avoid it; and the only way we can see to avoid it is to remove Brother Wilson’s name from the staff for the present, at least until further developments. We are not doing this to hurt or to injure Brother Wilson. We love him as a dear servant of the Master and we endorse every sentiment we have ever heard him preach. Neither do we now remember to have ever seen a sentiment from his pen that we did not endorse. Some have written us that Elder Wilson [pg 176] was excluded on account of his doctrine, but the church said it was for abusive language, and some have written us that was the reason. If it was for his doctrine then we are with Elder Wilson in sentiment, unless he has advocated something there that we have not read in his writings or which we have never heard him preach. If it was not for, or on account of, his doctrine, then some good brethren think that the doctrine was at the bottom of the matter. If the doctrine had nothing to do with it, then it seems to us that the matter should be settled and there should be no division.
We are in receipt of a letter from Elder W. M. Monsees, in which he says: “According to my best understanding, Elder J. R. Wilson has been excluded from the fellowship of the church at Danville; and this being true, I do not recognize him as a member of the church. Hence if you wish to yet recognize him and keep his name on the editorial staff of The Primitive Baptist, please drop my name. I hope that God will bless Zion, and may all of His believing ones be blessed and feel His love in their hearts. Yours in hope, W. M. Monsees.” Brother Monsees may not want this published, but we feel that we should be candid and tell our readers just why we take any step we do concerning the matter in that country. Having received this letter, and having already decided to drop the name of Brother Wilson for the present, at least, and not wanting any controversy over the matter in the paper, we have decided it would not be wrong to grant the request of Brother Monsees, and remove his name from the staff for the present also.
During the past few weeks we have received so many letters concerning the affair that we could not possibly [pg 177] answer all of them and attend to other matters that had to be looked after. Those who wrote the letters may know from this why we have not answered them. We just did not have the time.
All our readers know where we stand on doctrine. It is not necessary for us to state our position here on any point of the doctrine. We have always been plain and outspoken. We stand now just where we have stood all along the line, and we see no reason why we should change.
May the good Lord have mercy upon His poor bleeding Zion. “When ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed, one of another.”
We humbly ask our readers to pray the Lord in our behalf, that we may be enabled to conduct The Primitive Baptist in such a way as to comfort and unify His humble poor and not to divide them and destroy their peace and fellowship. C. H. C.
THE MOUNT OLIVE ASSOCIATION
December 1, 1923
It seems that there has been trouble and possibly division in the Mount Olive Association in Georgia. We published a notice of that association sometime ago, and then we had a request sent to us to publish that those people were in disorder. Now we do not know a thing in the world about the matter. It seems that both sides claim that the other side is in disorder. As we say, we do not know a thing in the world about the matter, and for that reason we do not wish to publish anything more about it. It will do no good to publish any more [pg 178] about it. These things should be kept at home and settled and attended to there, anyhow, and not publish them in the papers. What a pity that brethren will bite and devour each other, and thus be consumed one of another. C. H. C.
ELDER HULL RESTORED
December 15, 1923
We are just in receipt of word from Elder J. J. Turnipseed that Elder W. J. Hull and wife have been restored to the fellowship of the church at Piney Grove, and that the church has authorized an official statement to be sent to us for publication. We are not waiting to receive this official statement to tell our readers about it. We are glad to get the news, and we are sure many of our readers will be glad to hear it. Elder Turnipseed said a number of visiting brethren were present at the meeting, and that they had a good meeting. May the Lord be praised for His goodness. May the Lord bless dear Brother Hull in his declining years, and bless him with sweet peace, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
THE CAYCE-BOGARD DEBATE
December 15, 1923
In Ben M. Bogard’s paper, the Baptist and Commoner, of Aug. 8, 1923, the “eminent Dr. Bogard” gives what he calls an account of the Cayce-Bogard debate held at Leedy, Miss., last July. In reality the Dr. says about as much concerning other debates he has had in [pg 179] that section of country as he does about this debate. It is very evident that he is trying to smooth things over and call the attention of his people to the wonderful successes he had in the previous debates he had, so as to quiet them and his own disappointed feelings in the matter of such a defeat this time. It just amounts to about this: True, I did not do much this time; but look at the wonderful victories I gained in the debates before this! “Blowhard” says:
Cayce is a disappointment. He can’t debate but is very egotistic and high tempered and stays mad most of the time he is trying to debate. He called Bogard about all the mean names he could think of during the debate and in doing so hurt no one but himself. Bogard did not say even one hard thing about Cayce nor his people. * * * * But it is a fact that the biggest bundle of ignorance we ever saw was wrapped up in the majority of those Hardshells.
Does this statement about a big bundle of ignorance look like Bogard did not say one hard thing about Cayce and his people? He said in the debate that all would agree with him who were not so ignorant, and things along that line. He began it, and we fed him out of his own spoon; and that is what we would do next time, we think. We knew his tactics. He “ran over” Elder N. V Parker in the debate with him, and he said he would “clean us up’‘ on the third day, or something of like import, so we were informed. He tried the “run over game” on us, but it failed to work. He did not work his “bluff’‘ this time. Hence, he is hurting.
But Bogard says “Cayce is a disappointment.” Guess so! Blowhard said right at the beginning of the debate, in his second speech, that he had “measured his man,” and that he was not going to let Cayce make a single point, and would not let him take a single point from [pg 180] him. But Cayce is a “disappointment!” Evidently so! for “Blowhard” failed to answer, or to even notice, a great number of arguments Cayce introduced. But Cayce answered every argument Bogard tried to make. In Bogard’s Commoner of August 29 he gives the rules that usually govern in debates, and proceeds to give an explanation of the sixth rule. That rule says: “The consequences of any doctrine are not to be charged on him who maintains it, unless he expressly avows them.”In that paper Bogard says, “That rule forbids charging the consequences of a doctrine to an opponent unless he expressly avows them. * * * * For instance, in a debate with a Hardshell Baptist he will make the argument that since God foreknows all things— knowing the end from the beginning it follows that He foreknew exactly who would be saved and who would be lost. He will argue that therefore the salvation and the damnation of each individual is fixed unconditional. You have a perfect right to show what the consequences of this argument are. If God’s foreknowledge makes salvation and reprobation unconditional, then the foreknowledge of God on everything else makes everything that shall come to pass unconditional. If God’s foreknowledge of a thing fixes unconditionally that thing, then since God foreknew every act of man, foreknew all murders and rapes, and foreknew all the work of the devil, it would make God responsible for every wicked thing, and even the devil would be a good boy since he did just exactly what he was foreordained to do.”
In our debate we made this argument concerning the foreknowledge of God: That God does all his pleasure, because He knew from the beginning everything that [pg 181] would transpire that would have a tendency to militate against or prevent Him doing His pleasure, and yet He declared that “I will do all my pleasure.” We made the argument from this text: “Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.”— Isa. 46:9-10. In Bogard’s reply he said that we argued that everything that comes to pass including such sins and wickedness as he mentions in the above extract from his writings, had to be that way and that God fixed it, and so on. We spoke out and kindly corrected him and told him that we did not say it. He answered, “You did say it.” Again we kindly corrected him, and again he affirmed that we did say it. Then the third time we kindly corrected him and told him that was not what we said. The third time he disputed our word and said that we did say it. Then we said, “You are a liar; I never said it.” Then Bogard went on with his speech, affirming that we had said that. In our speech, we took the matter up and stated again the argument which we made and called attention to what Bogard stated that we said, and which statement we had kindly corrected, and Bogard would not accept the correction. Then we said, “Bogard, the best thing we can say is that you are a willful, malicious, pusillanimous liar; you are not even a forty-third cousin to a gentleman.” That is just what we said, when he had tried to misrepresent us as to what we had said and argued.
In Bogard’s same paper of August 8 he charges us with believing and holding that a man has to do [pg 182] everything he does. In a little article concerning the lady from Little Rock who put the crown of ribbon on us, he says, “We suppose she can’t help doing the way she does since it was foreordained before the foundation of the world.” Now, Bogard knows very well that we never argued any such. He knows that it is false.
Bogard also says: “The Missionary Baptists were so well pleased that the brethren from Belmont, Miss., and from Winfield, Ala., challenged Cayce to repeat the debate with us at these places and Cayce and his Hard-shells have not yet accepted the challenge. There is not much prospect that they will. But the Missionary Baptists are keen for it since they heard the recent debate. But here is wishing the Hard-shells would secure a gentleman to do their debating hereafter. It is very unpleasant to meet a man who is not a gentleman.”
Right there on the ground publicly we called for the name of the man who said they wanted the debate repeated at Belmont. No one spoke out that we heard saying they wanted it at Winfield, Ala. One man spoke out and said they wanted it at Belmont. Right there and then we told him to present his proposition to our people at Belmont, and if they wanted us to represent them in a debate there with Bogard we would do so for any number of days they wanted it. The last we heard from that country, which was just a few days ago, they had not presented their proposition to our people at Belmont. If they are so anxious for a debate there, why do they not do that? There is not much prospect that they will.
As to the “Hardshells,” as Bogard calls us, getting a gentleman to represent them in debate, we do not suppose Bogard has very much on us in that line, seeing [pg 183] we were not fined three dollars and cost for drunkenness in the police court at Hopkinsville, Ky., in January, 1918.
In Bogard’s paper of Nov. 21, 1923, is a little article signed by one Sidney Gallagher, in which he says:
“Well, the debate at Little Flock was a wonderful thing for that part of the country. It opened the eyes of lots of people, I think. Some of the Hardshells got to where they could see, for one member just quit them entirely, and many that said they would have joined, now say they are done with them.” We wrote to Elder G. N. Gober, Leedy, Miss., where the debate was held, and asked him who these parties were that this Hon. Mr. Gallagher wrote about. Elder Gober replied under date of Nov. 29:
There has not been a member quit the Primitive Baptist Church and joined the Missionaries since the debate in this part of the country. Mrs. —, who was a member at Little Flock Church joined the Campbellites since the debate, but the debate had nothing to do with her quitting the “Hardshells” (so-called). She married into a Campbellite family, and her excuse was that she wanted to live in the church with her husband. This is no boost to the Bogard Baptists. The Primitive Baptists. are perfectly satisfied over the results not one member jostled; and the “highlanders” are satisfied.
There is one man (Jesse Bullard) who was a cross between the Campbellites and Missionaries— sometimes on one side and then on the other, but seemed to hold prejudice against the Old Baptists— who claims this debate convinced him to the Missionaries. I am sure he is the one Mr. Gallagher is quoting as lots of people. I believe we are strengthened here by the debate. I am writing Mr. Gallagher to specify those parties whom he had referred to. I will let you have the information I receive from him; but I am satisfied the parties above mentioned are the ones he has referred to. No, the Missionaries have not presented [pg 184] their proposition to the church at or near Belmont, and I don’t think they will.
Under date of Dec. 4, Elder Gober wrote us again and said:
I have a letter from Mr. Sidney Gallagher who wrote the article in the Baptist and Commoner who referred to one member quitting the “Hardshells” entirely, and lots of others who believed in them said they would not have anything to do with them now. He referred to the parties I wrote you, Mrs.—and Jessie Bullard. Mrs.—went to the Campbellites, not as a result of the debate, and Jessie Bullard was not an Old Baptist believer before the debate. * * * * As ever, your brother, Geo. N. Gober.
So there you are. Will you tell us what some of these Fullerites will not tell? There is one thing it seems that some of them will not tell, when they are in a “tight,” and that is the truth.
C. H. C.
CLOSE OF VOLUME THIRTY-EIGHT
December 15, 1923
For several years we have not written an article at the close of the volume. For some reason we have not had much of a desire or impression to do so. We have passed through some fiery trials and have been much cast down. We have scarcely had the courage or the feeling to try to do anything. From a religious standpoint, as well as in some other matters, everything has been looking so dark and gloomy to us, and all our labors seemed to have been in vain. It has been by the very hardest effort that we have not fully given up in despair. A few friends have stood by us and have spoken and written words of encouragement, and have [pg 185] stood by us in other ways. Had it not been for these dear friends we feel that we should have given up and surrendered entirely. May the good Lord bless them. We cannot find words to express our appreciation and the gratitude we feel for what they have done.
We have traveled many miles, and have never refused to answer a call from our brethren to defend the cause, when it was possible for us to go. We have struggled hard during the war time prices to keep The Primitive Baptist going. We have seen the time we could buy all the white news print paper we wanted at two cents a pound. Although the price is not near so high as it was for some time, yet we now have to pay six cents a pound for the paper this issue is printed on. It costs that delivered to us— perhaps a little more. Labor is high, and all things we use in the office are much higher than before the war. This all being true, brethren, we must have support in order that the paper pay expenses. We must have subscribers if the paper pays the cost of getting it out. It is the cheapest Old Baptist paper published, for it has more reading matter in a year than any other two. We do not say this to the disparagement of any other Old Baptist paper, for they all give as much reading matter as they can afford for the price. Brethren, can’t every one of you “put your shoulders to the wheel’‘ and see how many subscribers you can send us during the month of January, 1924? Ask the brethren and friends who are not taking the paper to subscribe for it. Show them that the price is not high, considering the amount of reading matter they get in a year. Nearly all the advertising has been taken out, because some said they did not like for advertising [pg 186] to be in the paper. We should have more subscribers to make up that loss to us. How many will help?
We are now behind in sending our paper out. We are expecting to soon catch up and have the paper going out on time. We have a good loyal force of employees, and we believe they will do all they can to get the paper to the subscribers on time.
The year 1923 will soon be gone. We are another year nearer to our eternal home. How will it be when we reach the end of the way? Will the prospect be dark and gloomy, or will it be bright? Will we have a clear conscience then of duty done to the best of our ability?
We close this year’s labors asking the prayers of all our readers. Pray the Lord to lift our head above the dark waves which have surrounded us, and to help us press on in His service the few remaining days we have yet allotted to us on earth. We need your prayers. C. H. C.
INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME THIRTY-NINE
January 1, 1924
With this issue we begin the publication of the thirty-ninth volume of The Primitive Baptist. The first issue of the paper was printed thirty-eight years ago at Fulton, Ky., which was January 1, 1886. In August of that year our father, Elder S. F. Cayce, who was then the owner and publisher of the paper, and who was the founder of it, moved to Martin, Tenn., where this paper was published until the first of November, 1919, when [pg 187] we moved to Fordyce, Ark. All these years the paper has continued under the one management. We have had many trials and difficulties, and sometimes the way has been rough. There have been persecutions and sorrows along the way. As we said in our last issue, we have often felt like we would have to give up; but somehow we have continued on until the present. Many of the brethren and friends have stood by us through all the trials and conflicts of the past. We feel that had it not been for them we would have sunk in despair. We trust we appreciate their kindness to us, and humbly pray the Lord’s richest blessings may rest upon them.
That we have made mistakes in the past, we are free to admit. If we continue to live, no doubt we will make more mistakes. We realize it is “human to err.’‘ We know that we have not reached a state of perfection, and do not expect to reach such a state here in this world. But we are hoping for perfection hereafter. When all the battles and trials of life are over, we are hoping for perfection beyond this vale of tears. That hope has been sweet to us through all these years of trials and conflicts, and is as sweet to us today as it has ever been. We humbly beg all our readers and subscribers to pardon the mistakes we have made, and now help us not to make them again. We need your help and your prayers. We desire to make The Primitive Baptist better, and a medium of good cheer and a help to the Lord’s dear children. We desire to conduct the paper in such a way as that it may be a benefit to the cause. We need your help to accomplish this desired end. Any time you see a mistake we make you need not refrain from telling us about it, and trying to show us what would be the right thing for us to do. To [pg 188] watch over one for good is to try to show him what is the right way when he is pursuing a wrong course.
Will you, dear reader, put forth a little effort during the year to help us extend the circulation of our paper? Ask the brethren and friends who are not taking the paper to subscribe for it. It would not be much trouble to do that. If every subscriber we have now would renew and send us even one new subscriber during the year the list would be doubled. We would be glad to send the paper out weekly again, but we cannot do so unless the subscription list is considerably increased. Our present subscribers can help us to increase the list by asking others to take the paper. Will you help? Let us all try to do better during the year 1924. Many of us have been asleep concerning our religious duties and affairs. “Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.” May the Lord help us all to awake to our every duty, and help us to live as we should— to His honor and glory, and to the benefit of one another.
C. H. C.
A SERVANT IS WORTHY OF HIS HIRE
January 1, 1924
We have just received at this writing the Messenger of Zion for Dec. 1, 1923, and in reading the pages we found the following from our brother, Elder A. B. Ross, which appeared under the above heading:
As I came from one of my churches a few days ago, having had an excellent meeting— good congregation, with words of appreciation spoken by a number of the brethren at a certain place a Methodist preacher and a Missionary Baptist preacher, who had been to their appointments, and who also live at Martin and are personal [pg 189] friends of mine, boarded the train. In our conversation, having sat down together, the Missionary preacher said, “Yes, we had a fine meeting and my church gave $17 above my expenses.” The Methodist preacher replied, “Well, I beat you; my church gave $20 above my expenses.” They did not question me. So I was saved of the embarrassment of telling them that my church, though stronger than either of theirs, gave me only $4.65 above my expenses. But maybe that is what they are out for. Anyway, their churches showed their appreciation for them, not in word only, and when they got home they had something for their families. This way is according to God’s plan, and it does appear to me that if a church cares no more for her pastor, and has no more interest in the welfare of his family, — they should make a change and get a man who is worthy of being seen after according to God’s ordained way. Perhaps this neglect is in a great measure responsible for so many churches being without pastors and whole associations being destitute of a preacher. A church or association trampling God’s ministerial office under foot cannot prosper. God will turn His ministry from them.— A. B. R.
When we read the above we thought of more than one thing. We thought of some of the trips we have made at our own expense. We thought of the many hardships. We thought of the many necessities and comforts of life many of God’s ministers and their families have gone without. We thought of some of the luxuries enjoyed by some of those whom some of the ministers have labored for in the Master’s vineyard. While we were in reverie, and wondering why the Lord’s ministers are thus having to spend a life of toil and privations and hardships, we also thought of the following which we recently clipped out of a paper we saw in the office of our family physician here in Fordyce. It was under the heading, “A Cheerful Giver.” It reads this way: “Bobby’s father had given him a ten-cent piece and a quarter of a dollar, telling him he might put one or the other on the contribution plate. ‘Which [pg 190] did you give, Bobby?’ his father asked when the boy came home from church. ‘Well, father, I thought at first I ought to put in the quarter,’ said Bobby. ‘But then I remembered ‘The Lord loves a cheerful giver,’ and I knew I could give the ten-cent piece a great deal more cheerfully, so I put that in.’” Brother Ross, perhaps the members of your congregation are better Scriptorians than the members of the other two congregations mentioned, and they remembered the text that the boy remembered, and then governed themselves accordingly. C. H. C.
REMARKS TO ELDER J. H. FISHER
January 1, 1924
So far as we are able to see and understand we see no reason why any Primitive Baptist could not endorse the sentiment of this article from Elder Fisher. It is the use of expressions not found in the Bible, and contending for them, that has caused trouble among the Old Baptists. They have never divided over what the Bible says— it is always over what the Bible does not say. Let us quit saying things that the Bible does not say on the mooted questions, and we will have less trouble over them. May the Lord help us to lay down our prejudices and come together and live in peace, and stand shoulder to shoulder against the common enemies of truth. “When ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed, one of another.” C. H. C.
[pg 191]
PRAY FOR ZION
February 1, 1924
We want to join in with those that want to pray for the welfare of Zion. We tried to encourage a day of fasting and prayer a few years ago, but got little encouragement. Some seemed to almost make a criticism of it. But still I think it a good thing. God forbid that I should discourage His children in prayer. I know we are to do other things besides pray, and we might be down praying for things when we know what ought to be done, and I feel in that we should act, yet we should go in prayer.— J. C. M. in Baptist Trumpet, Jan. 24, 1924.
REMARKS
The above is by Elder J. C. Morgan, the editor of the Trumpet, and we honestly think the suggestion a good thing. We have all, more or less, given ourselves to feasting and noise making instead of giving ourselves to fasting and prayer. If we had all been engaged more in prayer instead of quarreling and fault-finding, we would have been in much better condition today. At least, that is the humble opinion of the poor writer. Why not devote a whole day to fasting and prayer and confessing our faults one to another? How many of us can say that we have no faults to confess? If one of us were to say that, would not that be a fault we would do well to confess? “Confess your faults one to another, and pray with and for one another, that ye may be healed.” May we not have the assurance from the Lord’s promise that if we should meet according as He has directed, that much of our trouble and disturbed condition might be healed? If we pray for the welfare of Zion, should we not work that way, too? Of course, we could have no assurance that our prayer would be answered if our [pg 192] doing is contrary to the way we pray. Let us pray for the welfare of Zion, and let us labor that way as well. We should strive for the things that make for peace, and for the things wherewith one may edify another. We should do that while praying. If we would, do we not have the assurance that our prayer would be answered? “If you ask anything in my name I will do it,” said the Master. He has never failed to do what He has promised.
We have read some along the line of the history of the church. We have found in such reading that the church in former years often set aside a day for fasting and prayer. How often do we hear of a thing like that in these days? We can hear of feasting all right; but when do you hear of a day of fasting? What is the matter with us? Are we not forgetful of the rich blessings the Lord has bestowed upon us, and forgetful of where those blessings come from? It seems that for several years there has been a spirit of unrest, dissatisfaction, war and bloodshed; and now there seems to be a mad rush for the almighty dollar; every fellow for himself— all in a mad rush. We scarcely have time to stop to give a brother a friendly greeting. We have all tried to “keep up with the procession,” for fear we would be left entirely behind— have we not? We confess that we have been guilty. But we are tired of it. Our heart aches and longs for freedom from such worldly care, and for the more frequent company and association of the Lord’s humble poor. We want them to pray with and for us. We need their company and association. We need their prayers. We need their sweet fellowship and love. We need their kind forbearance. If we have ever wounded one of them, our poor [pg 193] heart bleeds on account of it, and we humbly beg them to forgive every wrong they have ever seen in us. Brother Morgan, we would gladly join you in a day of fasting and prayer; and if you could condescend to let us be with you in a meeting for that purpose, we would be glad to be there, and confess all our faults and to ask you, if you could condescend to stoop so low, to pray for us, a poor sinner in hope of a better home beyond this world of trouble— all by the free and sovereign and discriminating grace of God. May the Lord’s richest blessings be upon us all. C. H. C.
ELDER O’NEAL’S PROPOSITION
February 1, 1924
In another place in this paper is a letter from our dear brother, Elder J. H. O’Neal, of Rupert, Ark. Brother O’Neal sends four names as subscribers for The Primitive Baptist, three of whom are new ones, and he sends $5 from each for one year— four names to get the paper one year at $5 each. Now, this is quite different from the offer we are making in the paper, and that offer was in the very issue that Brother O’Neal refers to which contained our article on the close of the volume.
Really the offer we are making is one on which we lose money in the year. We are in need of immediate funds; and some of the new names that are added to the list on this offer will continue to take the paper, so that after a long time we may make back what we lose in getting them started to taking the paper; but it will take a long time. But by making this offer we get a [pg 194] number to renew right away and send in another name, and thus raise the funds that are needed right now, or immediately. This is why we make the offer, and to get the list increased with the hope of many, or some, of them continuing to take the paper.
We appreciate, more than we know how to tell, the interest Brother O’Neal has taken in the matter. Such action as this— upon his proposition— is a sure enough real help. That gives us something over the bare small profit we make on a year’s subscription. The profit we make on a subscription at $2 a year is very little. If a thousand names were sent us on Brother O’Neal’s proposition it would help indeed. It would enable us to stop paying a whole lot of interest.
Brother O’Neal speaks of the burdens we have to bear. We have many of them that he and others do not know. What would you think of an Old Baptist preacher refusing to pay for a year’s subscription that he owed, unless you would publish a letter from him in reply to a letter that had been published in the paper? Here is what a preacher wrote us— we leave out the names, but we have the letter on file: “I have a proposition to offer you, and that is this: I see in July first a reply to—by—in which he made a charge against—. If you will publish a reply from me to—I will send all that I am behind and to renew.” Now, what do you think of that? An Old Baptist preacher proposing to pay what he already owes if we will publish a reply from him to another article!
This will give just a little idea of some things we meet up with. Yet, as we said in the article referred to by Brother O’Neal, there are a few who have stood [pg 195] by us and have given us kind words and encouraged us along the way, and have helped us otherwise.
We hope that we appreciate it, though we feel unworthy of such kindness. We feel, that if we are a servant of the Lord truly, that we are “but a poor unprofitable servant.” We often feel that our little service has been in vain and has been no help to the Lord’s dear children. Still, we do not feel that we could afford to give up and forsake the field, and thus be a deserter. We humbly pray the Lord to bless those who have so kindly helped us along the way in so many ways. We cannot thank them enough.
We beg an interest in the prayers of the Lord’s dear children. We feel to need your prayers.
C. H. C.
ANOTHER FALSE REPORT
February 1,1924
We are just in receipt of a letter from a brother in Alabama in which he says that “I hear that you and Elder Lee Hanks are Progressive and Absolute Baptists.” Now, what do you know about that? It seems to us that for a man to say that, if he has been reading this paper, is no less than a willful and malicious falsehood. We do not know who told the brother this, but we would like to know his name. If he is a member of an orderly Primitive Baptist Church he should be dealt with. We do not think a man could very easily get those who are really “Absoluters” to agree that we are one. Neither would the Progressives agree that we are with them in their practices. Our recent publication about a meeting some of the Progressives had at [pg 196] Palmersville does not look much like we are with them. May the Lord pity such folks. C. H. C.
SPECIAL HERESY ISSUE
February 1, 1924
The Dr. Ben M. Blowhard has been advertising for sometime that he is going to issue a “Special Heresy Issue” of his paper, the Baptist and Commoner. We see no reason why he should make a specialty of any certain issue along that line, for every issue is a bundle of heresy. C. H. C.
REMARKS TO JAMES M. MAYER
February 1, 1924
Yes, all the communications, experiences, obituaries and appointments are published in The Primitive Baptist free of charge. That is not all— the books that are published by our people and put out for the good of the cause that are advertised in our columns are advertised free of charge. We have never charged our brethren for advertising their books that are published for the good of our cause— the cause we all profess to love. And this is still not all. There are now, and have been all along, advertisements run in the paper free of charge for some of our people who are poor and are yet trying to sell something that would be a benefit to suffering humanity in order to make a support for themselves. We have given away several hundred dollars worth of space this way in the paper. This has all cost us money.
[pg 197] But a few years ago we cancelled a contract which we had with a company who sent us advertising, and decided to cut out all advertising that we were getting pay for, and we took no new orders, but filled out the time for the orders we already had. We did this because some said the reason why they did not want to take the paper was because it had advertisements in it. So when we had all those pay advertisements out we expected that they would take the paper; but they did not do so.
Our conclusion could be nothing else only that they did not want to take the paper and only used that for an excuse. Whether the reason for not wanting the paper was that they did not believe the doctrine the paper stands for, or loved the money more, we are not proposing to say or to judge. That matter is between them and their God.
What we do know is that leaving the advertisements out did not make the list increase. We also know that there have been a few who have loved the principles dearly for which the paper has stood, and have stood by us all along the way. May the good Lord bless every one of them, is our humble prayer. We do not feel worthy of the love and esteem and sweet fellowship of the Lord’s dear people; but our desire is to make The Primitive Baptist such a publication as that it may be a great benefit to the Lord’s dear people and a blessing to His cause. We ask your prayers and help to that end. C. H. C.
[pg 198]
EXTRACTS PUBLISHED
February 15, 1924
At the request of Brother Hollingsworth we give space for the above extracts from letters he has received from brethren over the country. We trust that we appreciate the interest brethren are taking in us and in The Primitive Baptist. May the richest blessings of our heavenly Father rest upon every one of them, is our humble prayer. The Old Baptists are the best people in the world— with all their faults. Although they do have troubles among them, they love the principles that have been cherished by our fathers all along the ages, and they love one another. We love them, and our life and our all belongs to them. We love to serve them. It is a service of love. We know they are a good people because they have borne with our imperfections, shortcomings and misgivings all these years. We have been trying to proclaim the principles of the glorious doctrine they stand for now for thirty-four years, and we hope by the grace of God to continue while He spares us to live. We often feel discouraged and cast down and forsaken, but we are not yet ready to surrender the field. Will you, dear brethren, pray the Lord to sustain us and enable us to fight the good fight of faith, and that we may die in the service? We would be glad to publish The Primitive Baptist weekly, as we used to do. That is our desire. But we must have a larger list of subscribers to enable us to do that now. The cost of material and labor are all much higher now than they used to be, and it costs a whole lot more to get the paper out than it used to. If all our brethren will put their shoulder to the wheel and do all [pg 199] they possibly can this year to get new subscribers for the paper, and all will be prompt in renewing, perhaps we can soon be getting the paper out every week. Will you help? C. H. C.
MATTHEW XXIV
February 15, 1924
Elder C. H. Cayce: Dear Brother— It seems to me that our people are asleep. Their minds are wrapped up in worldly things too much. I am sorry that this is true— that our people are asleep on their spiritual duties. It seems that there are some who would rather spend their money in many other ways than to help a good cause. I am thirty-four years old and have been a reader of The Primitive Baptist fifteen or twenty years, or more— I don’t know just how long. My mother was taking the paper before I was married, and we have been taking it since.
I do not know whether I am a Baptist or not. If so, I have been one ever since I can remember, for I have always felt myself to be a sinner in the sight of a just and holy God. I love the doctrine of salvation by grace. If I am not saved on this plan I am forever condemned. Brother Cayce, if not asking too much please give me your views on Matt. 24 where the disciples asked our blessed Saviour concerning the end of the world and the coming of our blessed Saviour again. I see this different to what some do. I would like to get your views. From your unworthy brother,
H. B. Golden.
R. 2, East Tallassee, Ala.
REMARKS
We have given our views before in regard to this chapter. We will here only call attention to the fact that in Matt. 24:34, the Saviour said,”This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” As this is [pg 200] true, the end of the world He was talking about was the end of the Jewish world or Jewish age. The desolations and tribulations were to occur at the destruction of Jerusalem, and it has been literally fulfilled. It was fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem, and that before that generation had passed away. In the destruction of Jerusalem, during the siege of the city by the Roman army, mothers ate the flesh of their own children. Dead bodies were found in the holy place in the temple. There never was such desolation before, and never has been since, and never will be. This all came upon the Jews as a result of their disobedience. We bring troubles and distresses upon ourselves now as a result of our disobedience— God’s people do. Our distresses in the church today are the result of our own wrong doings. May the Lord help us to improve our ways. C. H. C.
DEBATE NEAR McEWEN, TENN.
March 15,1924
Some time ago we agreed to meet O. C. Lambert, a Campbellite, in debate at or near McEwen, Tenn. The date was set for Monday, April 7, for the discussion to begin. It will continue four days. We have just received word that it will be held at Shiloh, six miles south of McEwen, on the Bold Spring road, and that all parties coming by R. R. will get off at McEwen, on the N. C. & St. L. R. R., and that conveyance will be furnished to take care of all who go by rail. We do not deem it necessary to take space to give the propositions. We trust the brethren who can will attend, and make their [pg 201] arrangements when they go to stay until the close, unless called away on account of sickness. C. H. C.
REMARKS TO
ELDER R. O. RAULSTON
March 15,1924
We trust that we appreciate what the dear brethren are doing in our behalf. We have been very much discouraged and cast down, and have felt very much like giving up. For some time during 1919, 1920 and 1921 it looked like every issue of the paper we printed was like pouring money into a sinkhole. The cost was enormous. We have considered very seriously doing what Elder Raulston says Elder Newman did. We have thought much of filling the agreements we have already made to engage in debates, but to make no more engagements for debating. We have engaged in a great many, but never have done so only at the request of an Old Baptist Church. It costs time and money to prepare for them, besides the time and expense to go and engage in the discussions. Often have we gone without our time being made good. Perhaps our expense to get there and back home was met all right; but the time to prepare and the expense of getting things a man would need to use amount to as much, or more, than the time and expense of getting to the place and back home. If a man prepares to meet the enemy he has to spend some money for things he will need. And he will have to devote some time to study the Bible as well as other books. He must study the other fellow’s side as well as his own. So, we will only add again that we have been [pg 202] seriously considering the matter of engaging in no more debates after filling the promises we have already made.
Now, we do so much appreciate what these dear brethren are doing. May the Lord’s blessings rest upon them.
Just one more word we want to add right here, and that is that we do not owe a penny in the world (except a few dollars for current expenses) for personal comforts or benefits. Nearly every dollar we owe is for the benefit of the cause— the publication of The Primitive Baptist and Old Baptist literature. We say this in connection with what our dear Brother Hollingsworth said regarding that matter.
C. H. C.
WE FEEL SO THANKFUL
April 1,1924
In this issue of the paper we are publishing extracts from a number of letters written us concerning the proposition being worked out by our dear brother, W. W. Hollingsworth, of Bessemer, Ala., and the proposition made by our dear brother, Elder J. H. O’Neal, Rupert, Ark., which was published a few issues back. These letters are from brethren and sisters who have sent contributions to us to relieve the indebtedness, a great part of which was incurred as war loss— when prices were so inflated and labor conditions were so bad. Our heart is simply filled with gratitude and thankfulness to these dear children of God who are thus coming to our relief. Somehow we felt all the while that if the good Lord was in the matter we would come out some way, sometime. We felt to trust the matter to Him, [pg 203] though sometimes things have looked so dark and gloomy, and we felt that we surely would have to give up in despair. Yet we tried not to complain, and never asked any of the brethren to contribute anything to our relief. We felt like if the Lord was with us, and it was His will for us to have relief in that way, He would put it into the heart of some brother to take the matter in hand without our request or suggestion. So we said nothing. Imagine our surprise when our dear brother, W. W. Hollingsworth, asked us about our condition and told us he wanted to put on a plan to relieve us, and asked if we would allow him to do so. We feel to thank the Lord and take courage.
We also feel so thankful to these good brethren and sisters who have sent contributions to us. We have written personal letters to a number of them trying to express our thanks. But we cannot find the words to tell how thankful we feel. Our heart is simply full of gratitude. Every day the tears of gratitude come into our eyes, and sometimes they flow freely. Such expressions of love and fellowship and such manifestations and such kindness make us feel that surely the Lord is so wonderfully good to us. He surely has put it into your hearts to do what you have done and are doing. May the Lord’s richest blessings rest upon every one of you. We say, we wrote personal letters to several acknowledging receipt of the letters and trying to express our thankfulness. We are so far behind with our work, and it takes time to write letters, so we felt like the brethren and sisters would accept this as our feeble effort to express our thanks and gratitude without us taking the time to write each one personally. Will you, dear brethren and sisters, not conclude that we do not [pg 204 appreciate your kindness and what you have done? And will you accept the gratitude of our poor heart? And will you please remember us in your prayers?
C. H. C.
ENOCH TRANSLATED
April 1, 1924
Brother E. E. Huddleston, Rienzi, Miss., asks us to give our views of Gen. 5:24 and Heb. 11:5. The first reference says, “And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.” The latter reference says, “By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.” Enoch was a servant and a true prophet of God, who walked humbly before the Lord and obeyed His commands. His obedience did not make him a child of God nor a prophet. God made him that. Then he was an obedient, and not a disobedient, child of God. “He walked with God.” Then the Lord translated him. He was taken up to heaven without going through the ordeal of death— simply changed and carried home to glory. That is the same thing as will occur with all the Lord’s children who are alive and remain on the earth when He comes again to gather His jewels home. “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed.” This is our understanding of the references, expressed in as few words as we know how. We haven’t the time to write at length, but felt to say just a few words on the matter. We are very much behind with our work and are trying to catch up. C. H. C.
[pg 205]
CAREY THE FATHER
April 15, 1924
We have before us a little leaflet with the title, “Some Baptist Whys and Wherefores,” by John Jeter Hurt, D. D., published by the Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Nashville, Tenn. On page 11, under the heading (page 10),”What My Membership Means,” we find these words: “It means Plodding. William Carey, my Baptist forefather and the father of modern missions, said, I can plod; to this I owe everything.’” Who was the father of modern missions, as engaged in and practiced by the Missionary Baptists? The Rev. John Hurt says that William Carey was the father of modern missions. If Carey was the father, then Jesus Christ was not; the eternal God was not; the Holy Spirit was not. God was not the author of the modern mission business. It was an invention of man. Carey was its father. Then the mission business is not of God, but it is of man. God’s children do not need the inventions of men in the affairs of religion. “Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (touch not; taste not; handle not; which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things indeed have a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.”— Col. 2:20-23. C. H. C.
[pg 206]
REMARKS TO ELDER J. W. HOPPES
May 1, 1924
We can never find words to express our thankfulness and gratitude for such expressions and manifestations of Christian love and fellowship as is contained in the above letter. We feel so unworthy of such gifts and expressions of love and fellowship. We just cannot find words to tell how thankful we are and how much we appreciate the same.
Dear brother, we remember being at your church and in your home. We have not forgotten the kindness shown to us, and how kindly we were cared for. We shall never forget you, and so much wish that we could see you again and join with you once more in the sweet service of our heavenly King. We do trust that you are enjoying the Lord’s rich blessings, and may His blessings be yours to enjoy all along the journey, is our humble prayer. We feel to need your prayers, too. We feel to be so poor and needy. Please do pray for us. Our wife and the little babe are getting along well, for which we trust we feel so thankful to the good Lord. C. H. C.
REMARKS TO ELDER T. W. LINDSEY
May 1, 1924
We are ready to meet with the dear brethren for the purpose of trying to bring peace in our beloved Zion at any time or place that may be agreed upon or suggested, and should be glad to do so. We confess our wrongs, and we are willing to confess them face to face [pg 208] with the brethren. We have said things that should not have been said. We ask no one to make any confession to us. If any brother has wronged us, we feel that we are willing to bear it as a part of the hardness one is required to bear as a good soldier. If any brother feels that he owes us any acknowledgment we are willing to hear it, but do not ask it. We believe that such a meeting should be held. The brethren in Texas might name the place and time. We hope they will set a time for which we are not already engaged. May the Lord help us all to confess our faults. C. H. C.
PROGRESSIVES LOSE SUIT
May 1, 1924
It seems from reports we have had that some of the members of the church at Delaware, Ohio, have been on the “progressive line” for a while, and that the same caused a division in the church there. The “progressive” party brought suit for the property, but the suit was dismissed and they were taxed with the cost. We have a letter from there which says:
The Progressive faction of the Marlboro Primitive Baptist Church failed, in their suit in court here, to prove themselves the church. The court held that the sister churches of the several associations are the proper judge as to who the church is, and what they decided was the church would be the proper owners of the property, and so dismissed the suit, leaving both parties the use of the house pending the decision of the sister churches as to which is the church; and whichever that is are the rightful owners of the property. The court assessed the costs on the complainants. The sister churches had already decided that we (the defendants) are the church in order, and all were present to give their evidence, [pg 208] but of course it was not needed, owing to the reason of their first star witness gave them away by admitting that it is within the power or jurisdiction of the sister churches to decide all questions of doctrine, etc. Our attorney then asked the court to dismiss the case on the grounds that the court could not decide who is the church, and that it all laid in the jurisdiction of the sister churches, and if they found us the church in order we would also own the property. The court at once dismissed the suit, dissolving their injunction, charging all the costs to them. My prayer has been all along that the Lord bless the truth and bless the court with righteousness in judgment. Bless His holy name! How thankful we hope we are to Him-not that we feel exalted, but how merciful the Lord is to us poor weak creatures, sinners, unworthy as we know we are. May the Lord bless you and family, and all the family of the Lord in all the earth, is my prayer, for Christ’s sake.
It has always seemed strange to us that men would depart from the old principles that our people have always held to and claim to be the original church, and then so often try to obtain the church property. It is bad enough to depart from the original principles, and still worse to do that and then try to get the property. May the Lord’s blessings rest upon His humble poor, and lead us all in the right way. C. H. C.
TROUBLE AMONG THEM
May 1, 1924
It seems that the Progressive Baptists are having some trouble among them on the question of instrumentalities in regeneration. Some of the preachers are advocating the idea that God sometimes uses the gospel, or the preached word, as an instrument in the work of regeneration. It is the same old Arminian theory that has been advocated in years past by Fuller, Burnam, and [pg 209] others. Some among the Progressives are advocating this doctrine and some are opposing it. It seems to us that they are only going on a little farther in the way they started when they left the old landmarks and started out with their new measures. When they started out after the new measures which they have they only started away from the old way and from the true service, and the farther they go the farther they get from the truth. C. H. C.
IS IT LAWFUL?
May 1, 1924
Is it lawful for any member of the Old Baptist Church to moderate a conference where they have no preacher? We have a deacon, but he stays at home to keep from moderating. Then I want to know if some other member could act and hold a lawful conference to attend to church business? Will some dear brother respond through the paper, for some of us at our church want to hold our conference. We want to know, and would love to hear from you, Brother Cayce. I have never seen any act except preachers and deacons, and I was reared by Old Baptists, and I do hope and trust that I am one. I have a name with them, but don’t know that I am one— do hope I am. I would love for several of our good brethren to write on this. Answer through the paper as early as you can.
D. E. Williams.
Delta, Ala.
REMARKS
The church has the right to select whom she pleases to serve as moderator during the sitting of the church in conference, just so they select an Old Baptist who is in order. The church has the right to select any of her own members to serve that she sees proper to select to [pg 210] serve as moderator during conference meeting. We never have heard this called in question. Suppose the church had no minister or deacon— would that deprive her of the right to hold conference? Most certainly not. If the deacon is staying at home to keep from serving the church in any capacity the church may see fit to ask of him, to the best of his ability, he is doing very wrong, in our humble judgment, and is laying himself liable to the censure of the church. But that does not deprive the church of her right to choose another brother and to go ahead with her conference. This is our humble opinion, and we do not believe any brother will dispute it. C. H. C.
THE DEBATE NEAR McEWEN
May 1, 1924
The debate with Mr. O. C. Lambert was held according to appointment near McEwen, Tenn., beginning on Monday, April 7, and closing on Thursday, April 10. The weather was good most all the time and a large crowd was in attendance, considering the fact that it was at a busy time. Ten of our brethren in the ministry were in attendance, though a few of them were there only a part of the time. They were, Elders J. M. Fuqua, J. W. Lomax, W. R. Rushton, N. J. Hinson, Rob Hinson, W. C. Davis, J. H. Phillips, J. B. Halbrook, W. H. Meredith and J. R. Scott. Elder Phillips served as moderator for us. Brethren W. A. Shutt, S. E. Hurt and Van Hurt, who had been liberated to exercise in public, were also present. Mr. Lambert seems [pg 211] to be a nice gentleman, though he is young and inexperienced as a debater. Mr. F. B. Srygley, with whom we had a discussion in 1912, which was published in book form, served as moderator for Mr. Lambert. They had a stenographer present to take the speeches as delivered, and announced that the debate would be published. The stenographer, however, told us during recess the first day, in the presence of Brother Shutt, that she did not get all we said; but she may have a fairly good report of the speeches— we are not prepared to say about that. The discussion passed off very pleasantly, and we trust that it may put some folks to reading and studying for themselves. We stayed at the home of Mr. Cayce Fuqua and wife, near by, during the time. Mr. Fuqua is a son of Brother P. J. Fuqua, and is an Old Baptist in belief. His wife is a member of the Methodists. They were kind and good to us; we shall not soon forget them. Good order was maintained throughout and the brethren and friends showed us much kindness. May the Lord’s blessings rest upon them all, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
ONE SUFFERS
ON ACCOUNT OF OTHERS
Remarks To Mrs. S. D. Poore
May 15, 1924
We wish to kindly call attention to one thing you say, dear sister, concerning the Lord punishing one of His children for the sins of another. Turn and read Num. 16 and you will see that some were punished with Dathan and Abiram for the sins of those two men. Their children were destroyed with them. And again, [pg 212] Israel suffered on account of the golden wedge, when only one man knew the wedge was in the camp. God’s ministers may sometimes suffer for things they need on account of the neglect of the Lord’s people to minister unto them as they should. True, they may sometimes fail to minister as the Lord requires because the minister has failed to teach this duty as he should; but the failure is not always, perhaps, because the minister has failed to teach. There might be such a thing as one being covetous and failing to do his duty on that account. It is also true that the minister might be covetous, and on that account not do his duty, and he might, on that account, think more should be done by the brethren than the Lord really requires. When the minister is not engaged in preaching he should have some labor to perform to help earn a support for himself and family; then when he is spending his time preaching where his services are in demand, the brethren should see that his temporal needs are supplied. This is the Lord’s plan, as we understand it; and in following the Lord’s plan no one is overburdened, and His blessings are enjoyed. C. H. C.
GOING TO CALIFORNIA
May 15, 1924
We expect, the Lord willing, to leave our home on Saturday afternoon, May 31, starting on a trip to California. We will stop at Little Rock and have meeting there Sunday, June 1.
We leave Little Rock at 6:40 Sunday afternoon for Oklahoma City, and will go to Edmond, Okla., and [pg 213] will have meeting as may be arranged by Brother W. T. Morrisett on Monday and Tuesday, June 2 and 3.
On Wednesday morning we will leave Oklahoma City to fill appointments as may be arranged by Elders J. I Colwell and Ira Hollis until June 12.
On the latter date we will leave that section for Tucson, Arizona, and expect to arrive there at 5 p. m., Friday, June 13, and be there until Sunday afternoon, June 15.
On Sunday afternoon, June 15, we leave Tucson for Los Angeles, and will stay in California until July 6 or 7, and will fill appointments as may be arranged by Brother J. I Caneer and Sister Geo. E. Darsey.
We humbly trust the Lord may be in the matter. We hesitate and dread to start on these journeys, fearing the Lord may not be in the matter. We ask that you pray the Lord to be with us and enable us to present and to speak of such things as will have a tendency to bind His little children together in love and fellowship, and that He will care for our loved ones at home and protect them from all harm in this evil world. C. H. C.
PRESENT FOR BABY
May 15, 1924
To the Editor of The Primitive Baptist and His Companion:
I see in my last paper, April 1st, of a new arrival of a baby girl, and I want to offer my congratulations to the happy parents, and hope her stay may be long and bring pleasure every day and be a blessing to them in their old age. One baby can bring more real joy and happiness in a true home than all the wealth of the universe. I want to make my bow to the little queen, seated on her [pg 214] throne, surrounded by her subjects, her maids of honor in waiting to come and go at her beck and call while she reigns supreme; and may she always hold maidenhood and womanhood as the most sacred of all her earthly possessions. I am sending her a tiny gift. It will help to get her something that baby needs. From One Who Loves Babies. April 14, 1924.
The above letter did not have the writer’s name in it nor on it. We do appreciate the same. May the Lord bless the writer, is our humble prayer. The little girl (Ilene by name) is doing fine. She is a pretty and sweet little one, and is a good baby. We have two girls and two boys. We are trying to train them up in the right way. We realize that this is a problem and a task in these days. We feel that we need the Lord’s help that we may be able to train them as they should be. Please remember us in your prayers. C. H. C. and Wife.
FULLERITE LOST HIS PANTS
June 1, 1924
A little clipping was sent us some time ago from the Flag, published at Fulton, Ky., which says:
There is rumor of debates on every side; one Claud Cayce, of somewhere, was in this part of the country sometime ago, and said he would take my pants off if he could get hold of me, and I always keep my belt unbuckled and suspenders loose, and am still getting my mail as follows: C. B. Massey, Pleasant Shade, Tenn., and all he would have to do to get a chance at the Captain is to address him in like manner as above.
In the first place, we never used any such expression. We would be ashamed to expose such a thing as Massey before an audience of decent people in any such way.
[pg 215] In the next place, he wears his “belt unbuckled and his suspenders so loose” that he seems to have lost his pants already in the writing of such a statement as the above. If we wanted to take his pants off we would be without a job. His nakedness is already exposed. Selah. C. H. C.
J. B. HARDY CAUSING TROUBLE
July 1, 1924
I get where I feel like sometimes I will give up, as you know we have had so much trouble in our (the Buffalo River) association over the Hardy business, and now Hardy is among us most all the time, and our precious brethren have (I think) gone to the extreme on both sides, and I am trying to get the brethren to work for love and fellowship. I don’t want to write any more about troubles, but wish I could be with you and talk to you, but I can’t do this now. Your brother in hope, W. C. Pope.
Pope, Tenn.
It is strange to us that the brethren in that country will let J. B. Hardy divide them and destroy their peace and fellowship, as has been done. He had absolutely no connection with our sort of Baptists in this country, and they are the sort the Baptists of the Buffalo River were in our young days, when we visited them more frequently. In following Hardy they have gone from where they were in those days.
C. H. C.
[pg 216]
TRIP IN CALIFORNIA
July 15, 1924
We left home Sunday evening, June 8, accompanied by Elder John R. Harris, of Thornton, Ark., for our trip in California. We arrived in Oklahoma City Monday morning and were met at the train by Brother W. T. Morrisett, of Edmond, and conveyed to his home. Had meeting in Edmond that night and Tuesday. Elders J. C. Clark, of Crescent, A. D. West, of Wayne, Okla., and Elder Allen, of Oklahoma City, were all with us there. We also had meeting at the home of Elder Allen on Tuesday night, and these brethren were with us there. It was sure an enjoyable and pleasant meeting. Monday night Elder J. I. Colwell, of Mt. View, came in and was with us Tuesday and Tuesday night. We were glad to meet ail these good brethren, and they are anxious for peace among our people.
Wednesday morning we left Oklahoma City, and arrived at San Simon, Ariz., on Thursday about 1 o’clock and had meeting in and near there that night and Friday night. There are very few Old Baptists there, but we had a very pleasant stay with them.
Saturday we left San Simon and arrived at Los Angeles Sunday morning about 7:50. Sister L. A. Cloud, who lives at Casa Grande, Ariz., and who used to live at Kingsland, Ark., and is a member of Mt. Paran Church in our association, met us at San Simon and went with us to California and was at every service in that state.
We are in such a rush to get this article in the paper, and the printer is waiting on us, so we cannot give a detailed account of the trip. Suffice to say that we had [pg 217] service in Los Angeles vicinity Sunday and Sunday night. We left there Monday morning for San Jose, and had service there that night and Tuesday and at night. We organized a little band there with the help of Elder Harris, and we had the pleasure of baptizing three.
From San Jose we went to Fresno and had meeting one night at the home of an afflicted sister named Miller who had not heard a sermon for a number of years. She has not walked a step for a number of years.
From Fresno we went to Lindsay and had meeting near there for two or three days and nights. We organized a little band there and had the pleasure of baptizing five into their fellowship. One night we had meeting in Exeter, a few miles from Lindsay. Then we returned to Los Angeles vicinity and had meeting until and including Sunday night— the fifth Sunday in June. We organized a little band there, with the help of Elder Harris. Brother B. S. Minor, a deacon, also officiated with us in the organization of these churches.
A message was sent to us at South Gate, in care of Geo. E. Darsey, for us to come home as mother was sick. We got the message about 2 o’clock that night. We were spending the night with Brother J. I. Caneer in Montebello. We got up and went to the station and found that there was no train for us to get home earlier than to leave Los Angeles at 5 p. m. Monday. At that time we left that place and arrived home Thursday evening, July 3, at 6:45, and found mother better than when the message was sent. We are doing this writing on July 11, and feel so thankful that we are able to say mother is still improving, and we hope that she will soon be up again.
[pg 218] We had a pleasant trip among the Lord’s children in California. They were kind and good to us— much better than we feel to deserve. We desire, if the Lord will, to visit them again some day. We cannot mention the different ones we met, but we want to assure you that you all have a warm place in our heart. May the richest blessings of heaven rest upon every one of you, is our humble prayer. Please do not forget to remember us in your petitions at the throne of grace. C. H. C.
TIME CHANGED
July 15, 1924
The time for the debate between us and I. B. Bradley, at Woodville, Ala., has been changed so as to begin on Monday, August 4, instead of Tuesday, August 5. This has been done in order not to conflict with the meeting of the Sequachee Valley Association, which is to be held with the church in North Chattanooga, Tenn., beginning on Friday, August 8. We trust a goodly number of brethren will attend the debate, for we are sure it will be a clean discussion. We have met Mr. Bradley in two debates and he conducted himself in a clean manner in both of them. We have just received a letter from Brother Bradley telling us of the death of his companion, which occurred on the 12th of June. He has our sincere and deepest sympathy. C. H. C.
[pg 219]
HE GOT PINCHED
August 15, 1924
In our debate with A. U. Nunnery at Laster school-house, as announced, A. Nunnery, the little editor of the Missionary Worker, at Chickasha, Okla., was moderator for A. U. At the opening of the service the “Rev.” A. made a little talk cautioning all to keep quiet and to say nothing, and stated that if one should try to put in that it was a sign he was pinched. Before the day was gone the “Rev.” A. rose and began to show his madness by ugly words and manifesting a blustery spirit. He was the first man to show that he was pinched. He reported in his paper that the “Hardshells’‘ tried to carry the thing by storm, but he is the fellow who tried that game, as all know who were present. Elder A. U. said in our presence that he was ashamed of the matter— which could refer to nothing else than the way his brother had acted. The wife of the “Rev.” A. was there, and after dismission, when things were in a rather disturbed condition, the “Rev.” A. manifesting his madness, she went into the stand where he was and put her arm around him and asked him to hush and be quiet and not act as he was doing. She turned to us and said, “Brother Cayce, you have not been mad, have you?” We answered that we had not been mad and that we had seen nothing to be mad about. She said, “You have too much religion to get mad, haven’t you?” We told her that we did not know about that, but that we had seen nothing for us to be mad about.
The “Rev.” A. is giving, in his paper, some statements that the witnesses present know are not just [pg 220] as the facts were. A. U. Nunnery, the man we debated with, conducted himself in a very nice and gentlemanly way, and manifested that he is really a much better man than his brother. Those who were present know how the matters were, and do not need the testimony of others. What we say will not reach the readers of the Worker. May the Lord pity them. C. H. C.
PAMPHLET BY ELDER A. V SIMMS
September 1, 1924
Elder A. V Simms, Box 601, Atlanta, Ga., has published a pamphlet on the question of secret orders in the church, the title of which is, “Let There be Light.” The price of the pamphlet is 25 cents. What is said on the subject of secret orders we think is good and timely, and all our people should take warning. It is a pamphlet well worth reading. But in the pamphlet Elder Simms has something to say about the trouble and division between his people, the Progressives, and the “Old Liners,” and we think that he is somewhat inconsistent. He wrote us a letter concerning the pamphlet, and asked if we would offer them for sale. We wrote to him under date of August 18. After writing and mailing the letter we decided that our readers should have the benefit of seeing what we wrote to the brother, and for that reason decided to publish the letter which follows. C. H. C.
THE LETTER
Elder A. V Simms:
Dear Brother— Yours of July 17 came while I was [pg 221] away from home. The pamphlet has been received and read. What you say concerning the Masonic fraternity 1 can most heartily endorse; but there is a little in the work which it seems to me is rather inconsistent.
Page 43: “For this reason they set up bars of non-fellowship against us because some of our churches wanted instrumental music. * * * This was all wrong. God’s law was not violated in either case. Where in the Bible will we find it? And if these things were wrong, would not God have said so in His word?” etc. “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, throughly furnished unto all good works.”— 2 Tim. 3:16-17. If Paul was right in this text then everything which the church should have or practice is expressly commanded. If everything we should engage in as a church and in the church is expressly commanded, then it is a violation to engage in or practice a thing that is not expressly commanded. The instrumental music in the church is an invention of Rome, and is not commanded. Therefore, it is a flagrant violation, and is no more to be fellowshipped in the church of God than Masonry. My brother, you cannot escape this difficulty.
It is true that instrumental music was used under the law; but it was used in the temple worship where the blood was sprinkled and where the beasts were slain and the blood shed and offerings made. Those offerings typified the offering that Christ should make. When Jesus shed His blood and the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, the temple worship and service was all fulfilled and was no more. [pg 222] Everything connected with it went out. To use now what they used then is to go back to temple worship, and one could as well offer up bullocks, etc., as to use the instrumental music.
God gave the instrument which we are required to use in praising Him, and that instrument consists of the vocal organs. To use something else, as instrumental music, is as bad as to do something else for baptism other than what He has commanded.
Page 44 you say: “No church has the sovereign right to violate the law of God. And if she does, she cannot expect her sister churches to also violate God’s law in order to be in fellowship with her.” This being true, then the Progressives had no right to introduce instrumental music in the churches. And if they did, they had no right to expect the sister churches to retain them in fellowship.
Page 45: “Let the reader remember what I have said above-that the secret order question has been revived since the division with the Old Liners; and let them remember that those who have revived it and have quietly encouraged it are the ones who are wholly responsible for present conditions.” If those who have brought in the secret order question are responsible for present conditions among your people, and are responsible for the division it causes, is it not also a fact that those who brought instrumental music into the churches are responsible for the trouble it caused and are responsible for that division? If not, why not? It was a new thing among Primitive Baptists. “ It seems to me that if those who introduce one new thing are responsible for the division that that causes, then those who introduced [pg 223] another new thing are responsible for the division caused by that. If not, why not?
Page 46: “If, therefore, the fellowship of secret orders is more precious to them than the fellowship and peace of the church of God, this is a matter entirely their own, but they can not expect the rank and file of the Primitive Baptist Churches to follow them into such heresy.” It seems to me reasonable that the same thing is just as true regarding instrumental music in the churches. Those who introduced the musical instruments and fellowshipped those who used them preferred them to the fellowship and peace of the whole body. If not, why would they not lay them down? Then why should they expect the rank and file of the Primitive Baptists to follow them?
Page 47: “But if it extends to the entire brotherhood (and assuredly it does) does it not follow that when a church commits an act unauthorized by the word of God, knowing at the same time that her sister churches cannot fellowship it, is she not violating this text?” If a church in committing an act unauthorized by the word of God, knowing that her sister churches cannot fellowship it, is violating this text, (Heb. 13:1) then the churches which introduced instrumental music violated that text.
I have not written this to hurt or to wound your feelings; but to try to show you where you stand. I would be glad for you to see the truth and to renounce that which has caused so much trouble in our beloved Zion. I never met you; but I remember hearing my sainted father speak highly of you. He met you long years ago -before that trouble was ever among the churches. I learned long ago to love you, though I never met you. I [pg 224] would be glad for you to see the error and come back to the old church-the original Primitive ground. May the good Lord bless you in what good you may undertake to do, and enable you to see the right, is my humble prayer. Yours in humble hope, C. H. Cayce.
TRIP IN TENNESSEE AND ALABAMA
September 1, 1924
We left home Sunday night, July 20, for our trip in Tennessee and Alabama, to meet the appointments and engagements as announced, or which had been published. We were met at Huron, Tenn., by Chester Seaton, a son of Brother John Seaton, and conveyed, with others, to the home of Brother Seaton, who lived near where the debate was held with A. U. Nunnery on July 22, 23, 24, 25. The debate was well attended, a large crowd being present every day. The names of the Old Baptist ministers who attended are: Elders J. H. Phillips, J. W. Hardwick, J. B. Halbrook, John Grist, S. E. Reid, A. B. Ross, N. J. Hinson, W. H. Merideth, M. D. Brann, W. C. Davis, W. L. Murray, L. D. Hamilton, C. F. Parker, T. M. Phillips, J. L. Fuller and D. Neisler— sixteen in all. Licensed ministers in attendance were: S. E. Hurt, W. A. Shutt and J. B. Chenault. Primitive Baptists were present from seven different states— Ohio, Kentucky, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi and Missouri, besides the Tennesseeans present. The brethren all expressed themselves as being well satisfied with the result of the debate, which went along very pleasantly except a time or two that Elder Nunnery’s [pg 225] moderator acted in an ugly manner, and it seemed that he wanted to “raise a rough house.”
On Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday we were with the church at Johnson’s Cross Roads, near where the discussion was held, and had a very pleasant meeting there. On Saturday a daughter of Brother Seaton came to the church and asked for a home with them. She was baptized on Monday by Elder J. H. Phillips, the pastor of the church. On Tuesday Brother and Sister Maness were received on confession of faith, the church of their former membership having ceased to have any meetings. On Sunday brethren and sisters were present from thirteen sister churches.
Tuesday afternoon we went to Lexington and boarded a train for McEwen, Tenn., and tried to preach in that town that night in the Presbyterian meeting house. A large crowd was present, and we enjoyed a very pleasant meeting.
Wednesday we went to Harmony, about twelve miles from McEwen, and had a pleasant meeting there. The congregation was good and a good interest was manifested. This is the old home church of Elder J. J. Fuqua, who went to his reward a number of years ago, and we had not been to this church since we were called there on the occasion of his funeral. We were glad to be with them once more.
On Thursday we filled the appointment at Bethel. Quite a crowd was present, although it rained in the early part of the morning. Elder J. M. Fuqua is the efficient pastor, and was present. We spent the night with him in his pleasant home. He was not well at all, and could not go with us to any other appointment. We trust he is much improved before this.
[pg 226] Friday we went to Dickson and filled the appointment there. We had a very pleasant meeting at this place, and met several whom we had not seen for quite awhile. Elder W. R. Rushton now lives in Dickson, close to the church. Elder J. A. Pope, who lives at Dickson, was away filling appointments. We were sorry not to meet him again. We spent the night with Brother Rushton and enjoyed his kind hospitality in his pleasant home.
Saturday we filled the appointment at Burns. Elder Rushton went with us, and several others from Dickson also went. This was the regular meeting day at Dickson, but they dismissed the meeting on that day to be at Burns. We enjoyed a pleasant meeting there, and felt glad to be with those good people once more.
Saturday night we went to Nashville and were met at the train by Brother and Sister Shutt, and spent the night with them in their home. Sunday we filled the appointment made for us with the Bethel Church in Nashville. A large crowd was present, and a good interest was manifested. They have a new meeting house just about completed. It is a real nice and substantial and plain building, and will comfortably seat 500 people, we suppose. This is truly a lovely band of Old Baptists. They know how to make a brother feel at home among them.
After service Sunday we started in a car with Brother Shutt and Brother Reid for the home of Brother B. B. Lawler, near Brownsboro, Ala., and arrived there that night at 8:45— just six hours and fifteen minutes on the road. Brother Lawler is the father of our wife. He is deacon of old Flint River Church, the oldest Baptist Church in Alabama. His father before him was also a [pg 227] deacon in that old church for years. Our little girl (Florida) was there on a visit. We were glad to see her, and also glad to see all the family.
Monday we went on to Woodville, Ala., in the car, where we met Mr. I. B. Bradley in a four days discussion. Mr. Thompson was moderator for Mr. Bradley, and Elder Turnipseed was our moderator. The moderators really had little to do but to keep time. It was a pleasant discussion all the way through, from first to last. Mr. Bradley is a nice, clean man, and does not misrepresent an opponent. The discussion was held in the auditorium of their new school building, and the room was full every day, and all could not get in the house. The weather was hot, and the people proved that they were interested by getting there early and staying in that hot room and maintaining such remarkably good order during the whole of each session every day. The Old Baptist ministers present were: Elders J. J. Turnipseed, J. W. Lomax, R. O. Raulston, W. D. Rousseau, John Page, A. J. Houk, H. P. Houk, M. Sparks, W. J. Harwood, G. A. Stephens, N. V Parker, J. N. Dunaway, H. L. Golston, W. T. Flanagan, J. W. Bragg, M. A. Hackworth, H. M. Smith, F. B. Moon and Fred Stewart— nineteen in all. The licensed ministers present were: J. M. Warren, J. M. Walker and W. A. Shutt.
The Old Baptists expressed themselves as being well satisfied with the discussion, and well pleased with the way it was conducted. It was a pleasant time. On the last day a message was received for us from home that mother was not doing any good, and that it might be well for us to come home. We went home with Brother Lawler, and Ben and Claud (his sons) conveyed us to [pg 228] Huntsville that night and we left there at 2 o’clock for home. We arrived home Friday evening and found mother a little improved. Since then she has improved slowly. Our family were all well, for all of which we trust we feel thankful to the good Lord.
The brethren, sisters and friends were all good to us on this trip. During the debate with Elder Nunnery we stayed at the good home of Brother John Seaton, and during the debate in Woodville we stayed in the good home of Brother Ernest Thomas. We were well cared for and kindly treated in both of the homes— much better than we feel to deserve. May the good Lord bless all the good brethren and sisters who so kindly cared for us, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
REPLY FROM ELDER SIMMS
October 1, 1924
Elder C. H. Cayce:
My Dear Brother— Your letter containing two lines of endorsement of my little book and two pages of single-spaced criticism pointing out my inconsistency, has been received.
I thank you, both for the endorsement and the criticism; for the good Lord knows if I am not right I WANT to be, and any criticism is always welcomed by me, and I try to always weigh it for what it is worth.
But, strangely enough, the very Scripture you use (and the only text you quoted in your entire letter) is the one I have always considered a regular knock-out for the unscriptural bars of non-fellowship you have set up; for if to set up bars in this matter was the right thing to do, then there must be some authority in God’s word for doing so, or else it follows that the Scriptures do not “thoroughly furnish us to every good work.” Has not God’s Holy Word condemned every wrong thing? If instrumental music in the churches had been as objectionable to the Lord as it is to some [pg 229] Old Baptists would He not have said so? Would He not have furnished you with the weapon to destroy your brethren with?
But you did not quote all my letter bearing on the point. I said “and continued meetings.” Wonder why you did not reply to that, and justify your brethren for setting up bars against such meetings? You know very well that they did it. Would you undertake to say that the Scriptures justify you brethren in setting up bars against us on this account? Wonder why you left that off? Was it because you have always held such meetings yourself?
Also when these bars were first introduced they included both life and fire insurance. Do the Scriptures “thoroughly furnish” such a law? If you will get a copy of the first resolutions passed by the Phenix City Church, of Alabama, you will see that all these things were included. But when those brethren found out that nearly everybody was carrying some kind of insurance they have never enforced that part of it, so far as it related to insurance.
Now, Brother Cayce, listen: If you brethren had put this whole matter as one of expediency, and not one of law, we would never have had any division over the matter. One or two churches in Georgia had had organs in use for twenty-five years before these bars were set up, and your sainted father visited and preached in them without one word of condemnation. It went on so until there was war between Elders Bullard and Bussey at Columbus. It was all of the flesh, and to obtain the mastery. That was all.
You express a desire that I might see my inconsistency, “and come back to the old church.” I can’t come back. I haven’t gone anywhere. I can never consent that you had a Scriptural right to set up bars against the things mentioned, for to do so would be to admit that the church may set bars at any time not justified by the Bible, and lay a precedent that work havoc later upon other things.
But listen again: If you will acknowledge that you had no right in the Bible, and that it was a mistake made at that time, and take down your unscriptural bars, then as a matter of good faith, I solemnly promise that I will do all in my power to have our churches everywhere to take out their organs for the sake of peace, and if you and your brethren demand it, we will not have [pg 229] another meeting lasting longer than three days if it can be possibly avoided. Is this not fair?
I have never advocated the organ in my churches. I have consistently contended all the while that the fellowship of the brotherhood everywhere was worth infinitely more than an organ. I have always felt, and still feel, that as it was neither commanded nor forbidden in the New Testament Scriptures it was unimportant, so far as gospel law was concerned. But when you brethren make it a law, when I know that God has not done so, you go too far, and for which you will have to give account. Try me. Take down your bars. Acknowledge to the world that you acted without divine authority when you set up bars against music in the churches, continued meetings and insurance, and throw the whole over as a matter of expediency, and so soon as you do this I will bend every energy within me to get my people to conform to the law of expediency and have peace with the brethren everywhere, insofar as it is possible.
I can make no promise as to how they will take such a proposition. I feel sure that my church here in Atlanta will only be glad to do so, and I am quite sure that many others will do the same thing, but I would not promise to tear up a church over these things, for this would be doing the same things that you have done — making a law when there is none.
Elder Hull told me this morning that you are to be in Atlanta soon. I hope it will be so that I can meet you face to face and discuss the matter with you, and if possible to entertain you in my home.
Will you inform me just when you are to be here? The latter part of the present month I am to be away at some associations. Yours in Jesus, A. V Simms.,
Atlanta, Ga.
REPLY TO ELDER SIMMS
On another page in this paper will be found a letter from Elder Simms in reply to our letter to him, which was published in our issue of September 1. We feel that we are perfectly willing to let our readers have the benefit of what Elder Simms has had to say in reply to [pg 231] our letter. So we are giving space for that and for our reply to the letter. We believe Elder Simms will have no objection to these letters being in our paper. Of course his people will not see them— at least, not many of them will.
We do not care for a lengthy discussion of the matter through the paper. We do feel, however, that it is right for our people to know how the matter stands, in view of the fact that a proposal was once made for a meeting with these brethren to discuss matters of difference, etc. C. H. C.
OUR REPLY
Elder A. V Simms:
Dear Brother— Yours of the 1st to hand. Yes, it is strange that you should use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that our people had no right to put up bars against the use of a thing in the church, and as a church, that is not authorized in the word of God! That tells us that the word of God furnishes us with EVERYTHING we should use or practice in the church. If not, then we are not thoroughly furnished by the word of God. If we are thoroughly furnished by it with everything we should practice, then that text itself requires us to put up, or keep up, the bars against everything not expressly commanded in the word of God. No other text was needed, and never will be needed, as authority to exclude from the church of God such inventions of Rome as instrumental music in the church.
As to continued meetings, the circumstances of the case, and what may be engaged in the meetings, have much to do with it. None of our brethren have ever objected to a meeting being continued longer than [pg 232] three days, that I know of, when it was manifestly the Lord’s doing that the meeting was continued. Yes, I have preached in meetings that lasted longer than three days; but at the same time I do not believe that the tactics that were sometimes engaged in by the Kirklands, when this matter was being agitated among our people, were right or Scriptural. Such things as were sometimes practiced then will get people in the church under excitement and fleshly sympathy, and result in injury to the cause. But when a meeting is continued from day to day, because it is necessary to appoint a meeting to administer baptism to another one of the Lord’s little children, it is a different matter.
But we have not destroyed our brethren. You destroyed yourselves by introducing in the church things that were foreign to the word of God, and that were new things among Primitive Baptists.
If you had not had the things declared against, then the declarations against the same would have never touched you.
If, as you insinuate, I have always engaged in holding “protracted meetings,” can you explain how it is that I am not out of line with the church in Phenix City? Can you explain why it is that their declaration did not reach me as well as you, if I had been doing the same things you had been doing?
The first mission society that was ever organized among the Baptists was a matter of expediency. All their boards and societies have been matters of expediency. The Bible does not say, that I remember of, that you shall not have a missionary board, or a Southern Convention, or a Sunday school, or a Woman’s Missionary Union, or a Ladies’ Aid Society, or State Convention, [pg 233] or a Mite Society— these and hundreds of other things are engaged in and practiced by the world (including the Missionary Baptists), and they are not mentioned in the Bible that I remember of. If a thing may be practiced just because it is not mentioned in the Bible, then we may as well practice all these things as to have your organ. There is only one place to draw the line against the things not mentioned in the Bible— and that is against the very first thing.
You say one or two churches had organs in use for twenty-five years before these bars were set up. Yes, and the Baptists had the Fuller and Carey mission business among them, too, from 1792 until 1832 to 1845. Did that make it right? No, and you know it did not. The mistake the Baptists made in that day was in bearing with their departures so long. And the mistake the Baptists in South Georgia and Alabama made was in bearing with the organ departure so long. I freely confess for them that they made this mistake. The very first church that introduced the organ should have been withdrawn from, instanter, unless they put it out at once. Does this confession help you any?
If the organ business was all of the flesh and to obtain the mastery, then it is against God’s Book. I agree with you, that it was a fleshly desire that prompted its use. I also agree with you that it was to obtain the mastery— “we will use it, no matter if it is objected to, and offensive to, the great body of Primitive Baptists!” Evidently that is the spirit it was of. We heard some such expressions as that, a similar expression, when we were in that country (south Ga.) in the winter of 1905-06.
Yes, you have gone from the practice of the Old [pg 234] Baptists in the use of organs in the church. They were introduced in your own day— it was not before you came into the world— was it? If you do not come back, or labor for a union with our people, until we confess that we should take down bars against what the Bible does not authorize, we are of the opinion that you will never be with us. If we would take down the bars against the practices engaged in by the New School Baptists that are not mentioned in the Bible, we suppose they would willingly unite with us, too. We suppose the Burnamites would do the same thing.
When the church of God gives up her right to put up and keep up bars against things that are not authorized by the Bible, she gives up the only thing that will keep her a separate people from all others. This she will never do— at least, she cannot afford to do it, unless she is ready to surrender everything and cease to be the church of God.
If your letter expresses your real sentiment, and I do not mean by this to insinuate that you are not sincere, then I may as well say, candidly, that we will, doubtless, remain apart. If you give up the organ business the bar against that practice would not be against you. If you hold to it, then it is against you. If you want the bar down that is against you, you are the man to get the bar out of the way by laying aside the things that the bar is against. Otherwise, let it alone.
You have admitted (in your pamphlet) that our people are having more additions to their churches than yours are. As they are, I think the safe thing for them to do is to continue on in the same old way and leave the result with the good Lord. He has not forsaken [pg 235] them yet, according to your own argument. It seems that He
is forsaking your people. Why? Because you have forsaken His way.
Is Ephraim still joined to his idols? Yours in hope, C. H. Cayce.
OUR MOTHER GONE
October 15, 1924
In our last issue we stated that mother was gradually growing worse, and that unless there should be a change soon she would not last long, and that just as that paper was going to press she seemed to be just a little better. The seeming turn for the better did not last long. By the time the paper reached the readers she was again sinking. On Monday, October 13, at 12:30 in the day, our dear and precious mother peacefully and quietly fell asleep in Jesus. We carried her to Martin, Tenn., where she was laid to rest by the side of our dear father, on Wednesday, October 15, where she will peacefully sleep until the Lord comes to gather His jewels home.
We returned home Thursday morning at 3:24, October 16, in time to put a little notice of mother’s passing away in this issue of the paper. Part of the paper has already been printed, and is a little late. A more extended account will be in the next issue.
Our hearts are sad. We feel so cast down. It is so hard to give up our dear mother. We miss her, and feel so sad that we can never see her again in our home or in her home. We shall miss her words of caution and advice. We feel so much to need the Lord’s care and sustaining grace, and humbly ask the Lord’s dear [pg 236] children to pray the Lord in our behalf, that He would sustain us in this sad hour of distress. All our hope is in Him. He was mother’s stay and she rejoiced in Him in her last days, and told us she was just going to that blessed home where there is no more suffering or pain, to be with Jesus forever. We are sure she is at rest. We desire to be reconciled to the Lord’s will and dealing with us. Brethren, please pray for us.
C. H. C.
CALL FOR A PEACE MEETING
October 15, 1924
Dear Brother Cayce:
Enclosed you will find a call for a peace meeting. Please publish in the paper, and be sure and come to it. I believe the time is ripe for such a meeting. May the Lord enable us to do the right thing. Yours in hope, O. Strickland.
Munday, Texas.
THE CALL
To the Lord’s poor divided and sub-divided children scattered over Texas and elsewhere in all the different factions, who are tired of strife and division and long to see a coming together of all the peace loving, right living, people of God, to confess their faults one to another and to pray one for another, and to try to forgive and be forgiven and pull together, in place of pulling apart— Greetings:
We, the members of Little Flock Church, at Munday, Texas, and also members of the church at Knox City, Texas, desiring a condition whereby we can live together in peace with each other; and not only us, but that God’s people elsewhere could see the folly of strife and division and confess their faults one to another and forgive each other and pull together like Pharaoh’s horses, hereby invite all the Baptists having like feelings and faults to confess to meet with us at Munday, Texas, on Friday before the fifth Sunday in November, 1924, to sing and pray and hear the different [pg 237] brethren preach, and to confess faults one to another and forgive one another, and see if we can’t get closer to each other. J. W. M. Pharr.
O. Strickland.
This was endorsed by the church at Knox City and the church at Munday. O. Strickland.
REMARKS
If not providentially prevented we expect to be at that meeting, and we now earnestly request every Old Baptist, and more especially every Old Baptist in the ministry, and especially those in Texas, to be at the meeting. We feel just now that we have a few words we would be glad to say to every one of you face to face. Brethren, will you please try to be there? It makes no difference to us which side you are on, or which side you have been on, we want to see you, and we humbly beg you to try to go. May the good Lord lead us all in the right way, and help us by His grace to live and walk as becometh His children, and bless this effort to the good of His dear cause and poor and afflicted people. And, dear brethren, please do pray for us. We feel to be so poor and needy and dependent. C. H. C.
OUR MOTHER GONE
November 1, 1924
In our last issue we had a short notice of the death of our precious mother, which event occurred on Monday, October 13, at 12:30. This is a hard trial and a sad stroke for us. We just simply cannot write as we would like concerning our dear mother and this sad trial.
[pg 238] Mother was confined to her bed four months. When we started on our trip to California in the summer— in June — mother was confined to her bed part of the time. We were called home from that trip a week before the time was up for our return. After we returned home mother seemed to improve, and we went on another trip in Tennessee and Alabama. We expected to go from our debate with Mr. Bradley at Woodville, Ala., to Chattanooga to attend the Sequachee Valley Association. On the last day of the debate, which was August 7, we received a message to come home to mother. Again, after our return she seemed to improve some. A promise had long been made to visit some of the brethren in Alabama and Georgia, the trip to begin on the first Sunday in September at Birmingham. We went to mother and asked her if she thought we should go and try to fill the appointments. She told us she thought we should go, and said, “Go on, son, and be careful what you say, and preach the truth. Lollie and Rachel will look after me all right.” The physicians told us they thought it was all right for us to go, and promised that if they should see any turn for the worse they would let us know it at once. So we started on the trip and filled the appointments as far as to Atlanta, Ga., where we were on Tuesday, September 16. Late in the afternoon we received a message to come home. We were not surprised but had been expecting it all day on account of a dream we had during the night. We started for home on the first train and arrived home on Thursday morning, Sept. 18, at 3:24. When we reached mother’s bedside and she was told that “Claud is here,” she began talking to us, and told us that she was just going home— to that blessed home where there is [pg 239] no more suffering or pain; to that blessed home where Jesus is, and would be with blessed Jesus forever. She talked so beautifully and sweetly of that blessed home and how she was ready to go. The family and the physician told us of how beautifully she talked the day before. The physician told us that he never heard the like before, and that it was a pity every person in the county could not hear what she said. She talked and praised the Saviour for at least an hour.
Mother gradually grew weaker. Occasionally she would seem to rally a little and gain a little strength, but each time it was only temporary, until finally the end came. She quietly and peacefully and calmly fell asleep in the arms of the blessed Redeemer at 12:30 on Monday, October 13. We never saw one pass away more quietly and calmly than she did— without a struggle. It was so hard to see our dear mother breathe her last; but we know that she is at rest.
She was born December 3, 1851; the daughter of Elisha and Almeda Beasley. She was of a family of eight girls. Only one of them is now living— Mrs. Allie Spicer, of Clinton, Ky. Mother was married to Elder S. F. Cayce January 11, 1870. Ten children were born to them, six of whom died in infancy. One daughter (Mrs. Turner) died in 1911. Three of the children are yet living— O. F. Cayce, Mrs. Rachel Miller and the writer.
Father engaged in the practice of medicine for a number of years, but on the first of the year 1886 he gave up a lucrative practice and began the publication of The Primitive Baptist and devoted his whole time to this paper and to the ministry. Mother was a preacher’s wife. She shared all the toils and burdens and conflicts [pg 240] of an Old Baptist minister and the privations of the wife without a murmur or a complaint. Then she shared the burdens with her boy, and encouraged us all that a mother could to go on in the service of the Master. She has stood by us and encouraged us in ways we do not feel like reciting here in years gone by. She continued to encourage us all that a dear mother could to her last days. We bless God’s name for the memory now of a dear and precious mother. We did love to say, “Mother, I love you,” and then we loved to try to show it by our act. We do not regret a single thing we have ever done for mother’s comfort and peace. We only regret that we did not do more.
Mother united with the Primitive Baptist Church at Rock Spring, near Crutchfield, Ky., about the year 1872 or 1873— we do not have the exact year— and was baptized by Elder W. A. Bowden. She was a faithful and true and devoted Primitive Baptist. She loved the glorious doctrine of salvation by the free and sovereign and reigning grace of God. Many times we have heard her shout aloud the praises of her glorious Redeemer while sitting under the sound of the glad tidings of salvation by the grace of God.
Mother wrote her Christian experience, which was published in The Primitive Baptist of July 15, 1886. It was written to dear old Brother S. Murphree, of Only, Tenn., at his request, and published in the paper. Near the close of the article she said that she might write later and tell why she was an Old Baptist. She never did write that article. We wish she had written it. We publish the experience elsewhere in this paper, and trust it may be a comfort to our readers. [pg 241] Not many of our present readers were taking the paper then.
We carried mother’s mortal remains to Martin, Tenn., leaving here on Tuesday, October 14, and arriving at Martin on Wednesday morning at 6:55. A short service was held here at the residence of our sister, where mother made her home, by Elder John R. Harris, of Thornton, Ark. Elder Harris and Brother Loyd Bozarth, of near Fordyce, accompanied us to Martin. There another service was held in the Primitive Baptist Church by Elders Harris, J. H. Phillips, J. C. Ross, R. L. Perry, A. B. Ross, Brother J. O. Vincent, and perhaps others. Then she was gently laid to rest in the East Side Cemetery by the side of our dear father, where she will quietly rest until Jesus comes again to gather His jewels home.
We miss our dear mother, and realize that we shall continue to miss her. We shall miss her loving counsel and advice, and her tender words of encouragement. We shall miss her fervent prayers. Many times in our younger days we have known mother to come to our bedside in the dark hours of night, and we could feel the tender touch of mother’s loving hands, when she had come to see if all was well with her boy, when she thought we were asleep; and then she would often go down on her knees by our bedside and send up a fervent prayer to the throne of grace in behalf of her boy. We remember it now with tender emotion. The true mother is the child’s best friend. No one knows how to sympathize with us, only those who have had the same experience. — We feel so poor and helpless and dependent. Yet we trust that we feel reconciled to the Lord’s providential dealings with us. We feel to trust [pg 242] our all with Him. He is our only hope. Our hope in Him has been sweet throughout all the years of trouble and distress which we have passed and endured, and is sweeter as the years swiftly pass. We have the abiding and blessed hope that we shall meet mother and father again, before many more years, where we shall join them in anthems of eternal praise to heaven’s King— our blessed and adorable Redeemer. We feel that we need the prayers of the Lord’s dear people. We need the Lord’s preserving care and sustaining grace. Please pray for us.
C. H. C.
AWAY FROM HOME
December 1, 1924
At this writing, Nov. 8, we are on the train on our way from Shreveport, La., to Houston, Texas, to fill appointments arranged by Elder J. A. Moore and others. Since Friday, Oct. 31, we have been filling appointments arranged by Elder J. H. Veach, of Logansport. On yesterday, Nov. 7, at Bethel, near Shreveport, Elder C. H. Herriage came to the church confessing wrong steps taken by him and asking for a home with them, which was granted. Elder Herriage was in Mt. Paran Church when it was dissolved some time ago, and his confession more especially concerned steps he had taken since that time. We trust the Lord may guide and direct him in the right way.
We received a message this morning from our dear wife dated Nov. 6 stating that her brother, Tom Lawler, had been killed by an auto, and that she was leaving home that night. Tom has been living in New York for [pg 243] a few years, and we judge from the message that he was to be taken to the family home, near Brownsboro, Ala. He is a son of B. B. Lawler, a deacon of Flint River Church. This is a sad and heavy stroke for the family, as it is the first child the parents have lost and the first experience the brothers and sisters have had of that kind, though one of the boys (Ben) has experienced the loss of a companion. Our heart bleeds for our dear companion, and we wish we could be with her to try to comfort her in her deep sorrow. May the Lord sustain all the family by His grace, is our humble prayer. Tom gave evidence in his letters to the family of having a sweet hope in the Lord, and this should be a comfort and consolation to us in this sad hour. Please pray for us and our loved ones. C. H. C.
A GOOD MEETING
December 1, 1924
Our regular meeting time for the little church in North Little Rock is the third Sunday in each month. As our association met on the third Sunday in October we did not go to Little Rock at that time, but went on the fourth Sunday. There were two additions to the church by baptism on that day— Sister Rewis and a brother whose name we cannot just now recall. If we remember correctly there was also an addition by relation— or confession of faith. Sister Meek also united with them by letter from the church at Burns, Tenn. It was a sweet meeting and the hearts of the little band were filled with joy and thankfulness. They are few in number, but it is a little band that is full of life. They [pg 244] have recently lost a brother (M. R. Hopper, a deacon) by death, which was a sad stroke to them. They have their new house completed and a few seats made and are trying to pay it out. If any of our readers feel like helping them, send your contribution to Mrs. R. D. Rewis, 406 W. Fifth St., Argenta, Ark., or to Mrs. Byrd Warren, 814 E. Fifteenth St., Little Rock, Ark. It will be appreciated and rightly applied. C. H. C.
PEACE IS DESIRED
December 15, 1924
“Unto thee, O Lord, do I lift up my soul.” “Show me thy way, O Lord; teach me thy paths.”— Psa. 25:1,4.
These expressions of David are a source of comfort to me when I feel that I can adopt them as my own. I have been so much lifted up and encouraged since my last until I am lifting up my soul unto the Lord in praise and thankfulness. His name is so sweet to me. He has so greatly blessed me in my little effort to speak in His name.
Oh, how I do crave to be taught the way of the Lord. In tracing the way of the Lord I find mercy, love and forgiveness. Then if I follow in His paths, I show mercy, as He had mercy. Oh, let me show mercy on my erring brethren. Inasmuch as He has loved us so greatly and
manifested it by laying down His life for us, and has shed abroad His love in our hearts, should we not want to love our brethren and be willing to show our love for them? When we are taught that the paths of the Lord are paths of peace, ought we not to strive for peace? Yes, my dear brethren, my soul goes out to the Lord in prayer for peace.
Some of you may say that I want, or would be willing, to sacrifice principle for peace. But that is a mistake, for I realize peace could not come that way. I know that peace must come according to the right principles, as the Saviour has taught us in His word, and that is by confessing our faults one to another and in forgiving [pg 245] one another and laboring, as the Lord has directed, to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace. I am fearful that some of us are inclined to want to take our brother by the throat and say, “Pay me that thou owest,” instead of forgiving them. God, teach me the way of forgiveness, that I may have mercy, as our heavenly Father. And, Oh, give me grace to humbly confess my faults to my dear brethren. But, O Lord, teach us thy way to do all things decently and in order, that we may keep a clean house, one fit for thee to recognize as thy holy temple. O Lord, keep us all from self-conceit, that we may be truly submissive one to another in the fear of thee, our Lord. “Show me thy way, and teach me thy paths.” B. M. G.
REMARKS
The above article by Elder B. M. Green, Sulphur, Okla., is copied from the Baptist Trumpet of Dec. 11, 1924. We heartily commend it to our readers for a careful and prayerful reading. We feel that it is timely and full of matter worthy of our consideration. What a blessing it would be to our cause if we would all heed what is expressed therein.
The torn and divided and bleeding condition of Zion today has not been brought about by our devotion and service to the cause of the Master, but by wrong doing. We have been biting and devouring one another. We have been fighting one another. We have not been engaged in fighting “the good fight;” but we have been engaged in fighting a bad fight. When we look over our beloved Zion today and see the sad condition of affairs, our poor heart is broken. It is sad; it is deplorable. Brethren, can we not all confess our wrongs in such a course as we have followed, and come together in peace with each other, and all pull together, “as the horses of Pharaoh’s chariot,” in fighting against the enemies of [pg 246] Israel, and with an eye single to the glory of God and the advancement of His kingdom?
“But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.”— Gal. 4:15. Dear brethren, is it any wonder that we have been consumed? Is it not rather a wonder that we have not been worse consumed than we have? Were it not for the longsuffering, forbearance and mercy of our God, we would have all been consumed; there would not have been a place of true worship left. Is it any wonder that many of our churches have become extinct, and the houses torn down or left for the habitation of the owls and bats? Many places where once the saints met together and engaged together in the sweet service of the Master are now desolate. Why is this so? Is it because the Lord is not faithful? No; that is not the reason. The reason is because we have been wicked and rebellious.
May we not all awake to our duty and return to our first love? Surely we should repent and do our first work. We have been engaged too much in some of the works of the flesh. There has been too much hatred, variance, emulations, wrath and strife. Such things as these have destroyed our peace and have brought trouble and sorrow among us. Unless we lay such things aside and follow after better things, what will the end be? Can any tell?
In our younger days we would never hear such a question asked of or about a brother as we often hear now— such as, “Who is he in line with?” “To what faction does he belong?” Is it any wonder that many of the Lord’s little ones have become confused? Is it [pg 247] any wonder that many of our children have been driven from us?
For our part, we are sorry of every thing we have done to bring about or to promote such a state of affairs among our people. Our poor heart bleeds now over the scattered and desolated condition of our beloved Zion, and we write these lines in tears and sadness. “Oh that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people.”— Jer. 9:1.
We long to see the day that orderly walking and peace loving Old Baptists may come together in humble confession of all wrongs, and forgive each other for every wrong word spoken and deed committed against each other, and humbly beg the Lord’s mercy upon us, and be once more a happy and united people, walking together in love and fellowship. We feel sure that the good Lord would pour out His rich blessings upon us. Brethren, let us still labor for peace and for the unity of the Lord’s dear children. Be not weary in well doing. “In due season we shall reap, if we faint not.” Let us be careful what we sow; the reaping time will come. We may think it is too long until the reaping time comes and become impatient. Let us be patient and continue the sowing and cultivating and the reaping time will come in due season. May the Lord help us and direct us and sustain us all by His grace. Brethren, please pray for us. We need your prayers. We need your love and sweet fellowship. We feel to be so poor and needy and dependent. C. H. C.
[pg 248]
CLOSE OF VOLUME
THIRTY-NINE
December 15, 1924
This issue closes volume thirty-nine of The Primitive Baptist. The past few years have been strenuous times in many respects. Many have been the sorrows, trials and conflicts; but the Lord’s mercy has been extended all along. His mercy never fails. His mercy is from generation to generation. He has continued to shield, protect and care for His little ones in the midst of all the storms of life, and forsakes them not in death. His mercy has preserved and kept us to the present hour.
We have tried to conduct the paper in such a way as to be a benefit to the cause. We are well aware that we have made mistakes; and if we still live, no doubt we will make more. All people make mistakes, if they make anything. But we desire to profit by the mistakes we make, and try not to make the same mistakes again. We ask all our readers to kindly look over and pass by the mistakes we have made. Be as charitable toward us as you can. If you can, please help us to correct our mistakes, as far as it is possible to correct them.
We cannot find words to express our appreciation and thankfulness to the dear brethren, sisters and friends who have so kindly come to our relief in a financial way during the year in response to the effort put forth by dear Brother Hollingsworth and the proposition made through the paper by Elder O’Neal. What those brethren did was done without any request from us, or even a hint from us that we desired such a thing to be done. In fact, when Brother Hollingsworth first talked to us about the matter and asked us about our financial [pg 249] condition we objected to any appeal being made for contributions to pay the indebtedness, and finally consented only from the standpoint of being submissive to the wishes of the brethren. Nearly all the indebtedness was incurred as a result of war time prices and to keep the paper going during such time. We appreciate what has been done. May the good Lord bless everyone that has so kindly helped.
We would be glad to publish the paper weekly again, but we cannot do so yet. The present size of the subscription list will not justify us in putting the paper out every week. If we were to publish only eight pages every week, just half the present size, the cost would be more. It would take more expense for mailing the papers out, and some other expenses would be more. But we desire to put it out every week as soon as we possibly can. How many of our readers will put their shoulders to the wheel and help us increase the list so we can get the paper out every week? If every subscriber already on the list would just send us one new name that would double the list, and it would not take that many to enable us to make the change. If one-half the subscribers on the list would send two new ones, that would double the list. Perhaps there are not many who could not get one or two new subscribers if they would try just a little. Many could get more than that. How many of you will try, by asking the brethren, sisters and friends to subscribe who are not already taking the paper? Will you see how many you can get during the next thirty days? We believe you will try. Yes, this is personal to you— you that are now reading these lines. We will appreciate the effort you may put forth.
Wishing every reader a “Merry Christmas and a [pg 250] happy New Year,” we now bid you farewell for the year 1924, and pray God’s richest blessings to rest upon everyone of you, and ask that you remember us in your prayers.
C. H. C.
[pg 250]
INTRODUCTION
TO VOLUME FORTY
January 1, 1925
With this issue we begin the fortieth volume of The Primitive Baptist. Thirty-nine years ago the first copy of the paper was sent out by our sainted father, Elder S. F. Cayce, from Fulton, Ky. In the same year (the latter part of August) he moved to Martin, Tenn., where the paper was published until we moved here in October, 1919. During all these years the effort has been to publish a paper in defense of the principles that have always been dear to the Primitive or Old School Baptists. The desire has been to send out a good clean paper, and to give all the reading matter possible for the money.
As to how well we have succeeded in publishing a true Old Baptist paper is for the readers to judge. It is true we have made mistakes, and have sometimes let things get in the paper that should have been kept out. It is our desire to keep the paper as clear of controversy as possible. If our papers are rightly conducted they are a great blessing to our people; but when used to air out troubles they spread confusion and distress. But the same thing is true with the ministry. The minister who preaches peace by Jesus Christ, who preaches the gospel in its purity, advocating nothing but what the Bible plainly teaches, never causes trouble or confusion [pg 251] among the Lord’s humble poor; but his preaching will comfort, instruct, edify and build them up, and have a tendency to bind them together in love and fellowship. The same thing is true concerning what is published through the press. The preaching of the gospel is the publishing of the truth orally, and writing the truth and sending it forth in print is publishing the same truth through the press. Publishing the truth through the press will have the same effect, in a great measure, as publishing the truth from the pulpit. Many of the Lord’s dear children tell us that they are comforted and edified by reading The Primitive Baptist. Many of them are deprived of the privilege of hearing preaching. If they were deprived of the privilege of reading Old Baptist papers they would be deprived of the great comfort they have received thereby. Think, if you can, how lonely their condition would be without the papers.
It is our desire to make The Primitive Baptist better, if possible, than it has been before. We desire to be watchful and try to avoid mistakes that have been made in the past. We feel that we need the Lord’s grace and help. We need the prayers of the Lord’s dear children. We need your help and co-operation to make the paper better. In order to help us make the paper better, and more calculated to comfort and edify the Lord’s little children, write us about the good things of the kingdom. Tell us about your good meetings. Tell us the things that are pleasant to you. Tell of your hopes, your doubts and fears— not to encourage others in doubting; but when one has those gloomy doubts and fears, it is a comfort to him for another to tell of having the same experience along life’s way.
[pg 252] If you have church troubles, strife, confusion and divisions, keep that at home. Do not try to publish your brother’s wrongs and faults. If you have some trouble in your family— domestic trouble— you do not try to tell it to the world. You do not want that published broadcast. Neither should we try to publish our church troubles broadcast. We are brethren, and if we are in the right spirit we do not desire to publish our brother’s wrongs. We should have a spirit of forbearance. Remember that we might do wrong too. If we desire others to bear with us in our imperfections, we should be trying to do that way toward them. Remember the golden rule. That is a rule which works both ways. Let us try more to observe it. The revised “golden rule” is not good. The revised way is, “Try to do the other fellow before he does you.” We all know that is wrong, yet some of us have sometimes worked according to it, and then we were doing wrong. We confess that we have been guilty sometimes, but we are sorry of it, and humbly beg everyone whom we have wronged in any way, by word or deed, to forgive us. Let us all confess our faults and pray for each other, instead of abusing each other.
We now greet you in the beginning of another volume of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. True, the paper is late, but we do hope to soon have the paper going out on time. It is our earnest desire, too, that we may some day have matters and affairs so arranged that we may be able to devote our whole time and attention to the publication of this paper and to our little efforts in a ministerial way. We would also be glad if we could send the paper out every week, but the number of subscribers will not justify us in doing so at the present cost of material [pg 253] production. If we could add a few thousand names to the list we could make it weekly. If every subscriber would send one new one that would double the list. If one-half the subscribers would send two new ones, that would double the list. If one thousand of them would send five each, that would add five thousand new names to the list, and we could then make the paper a weekly. How many will try and see what they can do? Will you try? Especially would we ask that the brethren in the ministry make public announcement at your meetings that you would be glad to take subscriptions for the paper. That would not be very much trouble to you, and it would encourage your members to read the paper; and our observation is that those who read the paper are usually more zealous and prompt in their church duties, and they also read the Bible more. We will appreciate all the help our brethren, sisters and friends may lend.
May the good Lord shower down His richest blessings upon you, and may this year be one of prosperity, joy and true happiness for you. Please do remember us in your prayers.
C. H. C.
ARTICLES CROWDED OUT
January 1, 1925
We have a number of good articles written for The Primitive Baptist which we cannot publish for want of space. We have just simply got so far behind in publishing letters sent for the paper that we have to go through and select what we think are the best and most appropriate and publish them and let the others wait [pg 254] until some other time, and publish them later if we have the space to do so. If your article does not come out in the paper do not conclude that it was because we found fault with the sentiment, for we have many that contain sentiment that is good; but we do not have space for all of them. We just have so much space to fill every issue, and when that space is filled, that is all we can do.
We do not want you to quit writing because we make this statement. Just keep on writing, and that will give us a better and larger assortment to select from. We may make mistakes in our selections, but we have no one to do the work for us, and we have to take the responsibility and do the best we can in the matter.
We are aware that sometimes brethren become offended because we do not publish their letters, or because we do not publish them as soon as they think we should, but we are trying to do the best we can in the matter. If any brother thinks he can do better, we would be glad to let him try it for a little while. We do not mean by this that we are offended at any brother who feels to offer a suggestion. We are always glad for any brother to offer a suggestion. But when it is offered, we have to decide as to whether we think best to follow the suggestion. The readers of the paper would hold us responsible, and not the brother who might make the suggestion— and therefore we have to decide the matter.
We ask all the dear brethren and sisters to bear with us, and look over all our shortcomings and mistakes, which we confess are many. Write for the paper and tell of the goodness and mercy of God, but keep your church troubles to yourself. We simply will not put [pg 255] them in the paper, but will throw them in the waste-basket as soon as we see what it is. If you send a long article (or a short one) for the paper airing your church troubles, you need not write to us later and tell us to return it to you, for if we have seen what it is it will be destroyed before your letter can get to us. This we know is plain and blunt, but we simply want it understood that THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST is not published to scatter strife and confusion. We mean no offense, but we have been very much worried on account of such things having been sent to us.
Help us to extend the circulation of the paper, so we can make it a weekly. Will you help? How many new subscribers will you send? And will you remember us in your prayers?
C. H. C.
JOHN 6:44-45
January 1, 1925
We have a question from one Mr. J. I Jones, of Huntsville, Ala., sent us by Brother W. M. Towry, of that place, regarding the teaching of John 6:44-45. We do not know the object of the brother in asking the question— whether it be for controversy, or if he really is seeking information. However, we will try to offer a few thoughts on the language. The two verses read as follows: “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”
[pg 256] Mr. Jones wishes to know if it is the outsider that is drawn to the Father, or is it the backslider. It simply means that no man in an unregenerate state can come to the Father. It is not his own work to do the coming. The primary meaning of the word here translated “draw” is to drag. That is in the passive voice. The one, then, who comes to the Saviour is not active, but is passive, in the work. Hence, he is brought to the Saviour; and this is the only way that they can come. It is not the work of men to bring them, but it is the work of the Father. Men have nothing in the wide world to do with that work.
The backslider is one who has life, and he can repent — turn from his wrongs, come to a throne of grace, return unto the Lord in service, and is commanded so to do. God’s regenerated children can render service unto Him, and they are commanded to do that. No man is commanded to do something in order to be born again, or to be born from above, or to become a child of God— no more than one is commanded to do something in order to be born of his natural parents.
In verse 45 the reference is to the language of Isa. 54:13“And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord.” The “they” in John 6:45 are the same as “thy children” in Isa. 54:13. They belong to Jesus — they are His by choice, by gift and by redemption; and they shall be all taught of God. To be taught of God and to be taught about God are two different things. If one is taught of God, God is the teacher. This is a teaching that is not done by men, but which is done by the Lord alone and by Him only. It is OF the Lord, not ABOUT the Lord.
“Every man therefore that hath heard”— heard [pg 257] whom? Heard the Father. It is the Father they hear in this work. It is a work the Father does. “God is a Spirit.” It is the office work of the Holy Spirit. They hear the Father and learn of the Father, and all of them come. Many who hear the gospel do not come. Therefore, the teaching in this text is not gospel teaching, or the teaching that is accomplished in the gospel. It is the teaching which the Lord does in the heart by the Holy Spirit. If you have ever realized in your heart that you are a poor sinner, and have been made to hate sin, it is because you have been taught of the Lord. If you have ever been given the sweet assurance in your heart that Jesus is your Saviour, and have had the sweet peace which follows such assurance, it is because you have been taught of the Lord; for that is the teaching which brings peace to the poor soul; and you are a child of God. May the Lord’s richest blessings rest upon our readers.
C. H. C.
ON THE WARPATH
January 1, 1925
We have received and have seen a few copies of the Glad Tidings, a paper started by Elder W. H. Richards, and now published by N. O. Carter. They seem to be very much on the warpath, and have published several thrusts at us, and in one issue say they do not know whether we desire a getting together with them or not. We feel that it is necessary for us to say just a few words for their information.
First: There are some good brethren among them [pg 258] who are orderly walking, and we would be glad to know that they were in peace with all orderly walking Primitive Baptists; but they have some among them that we have no desire or inclination to walk with. We say this frankly and in all kindness for the information of those who have said something about such a matter, and yet have opposed such a coming together. We have no fellowship for fornication, adultery, and such ungodly practice among the ministry. So you brethren need not be wasting so much space and time and labor in writing against a union of your brethren with us, unless you are willing to forsake some against whom there seems to be so much evidence of immorality.
Second: We do not care to enter into any war with any of you. You may say just what you please. Our life has been a public one, and an open book. We do not care to enter into any fight at all with any of you, and especially as unbecoming as some seem to act. You are not hurting us, and you will only hurt yourselves by your unbecoming conduct and unbecoming course. May the good Lord pity you. We do not propose to notice further any of your statements concerning our doctrine or our efforts to labor for peace among the Lord’s poor and orderly walking children, who have been so divided and troubled by ungodly wars among them.
C. H. C.
GOOD EVIDENCE
January 15, 1925
After so long a time Elder J. C. Morgan says, “I did not know the standing of Elder Bragg.” He also says he might have made a mistake in publishing appointments for him, and if so he is ready to make acknowledgments for same. And again, he points out some [pg 259] ten years ago, the writer visited the Baptists in the north. He pleads the above excuses to justify what he has done, and I suppose it will give his followers perfect satisfaction. He says, in the same article, when Elder Bragg wrote him two or three years ago he referred him to older brethren. Elder Morgan reminds me of a certain kind of frogs— they change to the color of whatever object they are on. When it suits best he is willing to risk his “older” brethren, and when it suits best, then he knows more than all his old brethren and all the churches too. Elder Morgan would shoot a cannon ball at a gnat, but let an elephant appear and he would not use a popgun. He would turn the world upside down to convict a brother preacher who was reported as a fornicator and him denying it, and then take the evidence of a confessed fornicator. But Jesus said,”some would strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.”— S. N. R., in Glad Tidings.
We do not copy the above to have a thing in the world to say concerning the dispute between Elder Morgan and Elder Redford or any of the Richards crowd. We do not expect to enter into controversy with them. We only wish to call attention to the fornication business mentioned. In the name of the good Lord, how much better evidence could one have of the guilt of such a preacher? Evidently, from the statement of Elder Redford, some woman confessed that she was guilty with the preacher! If she was guilty so was the preacher! We suppose she was excluded on her confession. If she was not guilty she was excluded on a false charge. If she was excluded on a truthful charge, then the preacher was guilty too. Any body of people who love the sanctity of the home, and who love morality (to say nothing of the house of God), should withdraw fellowship from such a preacher under such circumstances— and permit us to say that if they deal honestly and faithfully they will do it. May the good Lord deliver us from such filthy preachers. C. H. C.
[pg 260]
ELDER WILSON’S CONFESSION
February 1, 1925
In another place in this paper will be found a short statement from Elder J. R. Wilson under the heading, “A Correction and Confession.’‘ We are glad to see this from Brother Wilson, and we trust that the matter between him and Danville Church and Brother Spangler may be healed.
Elder Wilson says the charge he made against Elder Spangler that he is an Absoluter is a false charge. We do not understand Brother Wilson to mean that he intentionally made a false charge against Brother Spangler. We might be led to believe that a brother believes a certain thing, and charge him with it, and be sincere in making the charge, and yet be wrong about it. Therefore we should be very careful how we charge a brother with believing a doctrine that is not true. If we charge a brother wrongfully, though we be ever so sincere, we do the brother an injustice. When we have done a brother an injustice, and done him an injury or a wrong, it is right and commendable to acknowledge the wrong and ask forgiveness. Then it is Christ-like to forgive. We all make mistakes, and we all do wrong; and as we desire forgiveness for our wrongs, we should forgive those who wrong us. We do hope that those good brethren will all come together once more in peace and fellowship, forgiving all wrongs that have been committed.
Just here we are going to take the liberty to say that we think Brother Wilson did wrong and made a mistake in declaring against Danville Church as he did. Then we think he made a mistake in going to the Mill Church [pg 261] and joining there on confession of faith or by relation; and we think that Mill Church made a mistake and did wrong in thus receiving Brother Wilson and the others. Especially is this so when no “gospel labor” had been bestowed on Danville Church by the Mill Church, or by any other sister church that we are aware of. To do that is very wrong, as all our able writers have contended and pointed out all along the line.
We do hope those good brethren may get together now and get all these matters adjusted, and that sweet peace may be restored among them. May the good Lord bless and lead them all in the right way, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
A QUESTION OF ORDER
February 15, 1925
Since there have been some moves for settlement of troubles existing between some of the different factions among the Primitive Baptists, and efforts being made to get them together, we have seen some suggestions and questions raised concerning some points of order. So far as we know just now every point called in question is discussed and brought out in a little pamphlet called “Church Order.”
Some years ago the Mount Zion Association, of Alabama, was called in question as to her order, and as to whether church identity had been lost by the churches of that association. The churches of that association called upon Elders G. W. Stewart, C. H. Cayce, J. E. Adams, R. O. Raulston, M. E. Petty, Lee Hanks and J. A. Taylor to sit as a committee to investigate the [pg 262] charges which had been made against them. In summing up the matter and in setting forth their idea concerning some points of order the members of this committee wrote out the contents of that pamphlet for those churches, and the same was published. We would suggest that you order a copy of this pamphlet from our office and study its contents. That will answer the very questions that seem to be a puzzle to the mind of some brethren now. The price of the pamphlet is fifteen cents a copy.
But we desire to quote here some of the contents of that work. Quoting from pages 16 and 17 we give this language:
The following questions were submitted to us, and we present our answers with the questions:
Should churches receive expelled members from other Primitive Baptist Churches without official investigation and labor? No.
What constitutes official investigation and labor? Investigation and labor by authority of the church, and not an association.
If a church receives and endorses an excluded person from an orderly church, what attitude does it place the church in that receives the excluded person? In gross disorder unless the act is speedily rectified; and if said church or churches persist in such a course they should be officially labored with and withdrawn from. Such disorder cannot be endorsed by orderly Baptists. Should we receive and baptize members from a sister church, though the church has error in it, until official labor and a withdrawal of fellowship from the erring church? No.
We quote the following from page 18:
Churches, as churches, may err, be inconsistent and get into gross disorder, and, as churches, they may repent and turn away from such disorder. To illustrate: The Corinthian Church became involved in gross disorder concerning the communion, or Lord’s supper, were guilty of gross immorality by sustaining and fellow-shipping fornication among them; were divided among themselves; [pg 263] had heresies among them, for some denied the resurrection; some held to the idea of ministerial regeneration; going to law one with another, and tolerating and following, to some extent, false apostles and ministers of Satan. (see 1 Cor. 5:1-5; 6:1-11; 11:20-27; 2 Cor. 11:13-16) Yet Paul recognized them as churches of Jesus Christ, and labored with them as such; and the very fact that he told them what to do shows, or proves, that he understood and taught that a church in disorder can do orderly things, or acts; and also carries with it the doctrine, or fact, that the wrong acts of churches do not make void their right acts.
On page 19 may be found the following:
Now, according to this new teaching and logic, which seems to have come newly up in this section of country, those Israelites away back there in those distressing, troublous times should have put away, not only those strange wives and children, but should also have put away all children that were born to any and all Jews or Israelites during the time or prevalence of the disorder that prevailed among them; because of the fact that they were all identified together and were all contaminated with the leaven of disobedience and disorder. But such was not required by the law of the Lord; neither does the law of the Lord require that the illegal acts of churches shall make void their right, or legal, acts.
On pages 22 and 23 may be found an article copied from the Gospel Messenger for January, 1890, written by Elder J. R. Respess, who was then the editor of the Messenger. Concerning Elder Respess the committee said on page 22 that “he was considered one of the meekest, wisest and purest and ablest ministers Georgia ever had.” Elder Respess said:
If the church sins she should not visit her own sins upon the heads of the innocent members baptized by her authority, because that would be a violation of the law of God as laid down in xxiv. 16 of Deuteronomy, wherein, ”that the fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children for the fathers, but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” If a church sins, to be [pg 264] purged of it, she must confess it with penitence, not by force, ask forgiveness and do it no more, and that is the end of the gospel law. As said before, such things as she can, righteously, she should and will undo, and she will know by the spirit what they are, and there will be peace. We think the church erred in expelling those members baptized by her authority and re-baptizing them. They were as lawfully baptized the first time as they were the second time. If the church authorized an improper person to do it, that was her sin, and could not attaint the innocent members baptized by her authorized agent.
From page 24 we quote the following from the pen of Elder Respess again, in the Gospel Messenger for June, 1891:
If we recognize a body as a church at all, even if its disorder is as gross as the disorders of the seven churches of Asia— and their disorder was very great— if it is a church it can repent as a church, and if it can repent as a church, it can do any other church act. The seven churches were admonished to repent, which shows that the Spirit recognized them as churches. If, then, a church repents as a church, we may receive them as a church cleansed of their sins. But they are required to repent only of their sins; they are not required to repent of their right acts, their baptisms, communions, preaching and charities. The church at Corinth was disorderly as holding a member who had his own father’s wife, and she was required to repent of it, and she did and withdrew from him; but she was not required to repent for her baptisms— to undo them and do them over. If a church is not a church, she can neither repent as a church, nor do any other church act; but if she is a church, her right acts as a church are valid and not to be repented of. The Superior Court may make a wrong decision, but its wrong decision does not invalidate its right decisions, because it holds commission to act from the supreme law of the state, and that law sustains its right decisions and reverses its wrong ones. So it is with the church of Christ as holding authority to act in the name of the Lord; its wrong acts are set aside by the Lord, who, at the same time, sustains its right ones.
On pages 28 and 29 is a letter written by Elder T. S. [pg 265] Dalton under date of August 4, 1913. Elder Dalton at that time lived at McLean, Va. He once lived in Texas. He now lives in Baltimore, Md. He said:
* * * If we were to go back to the apostolic days and undertake to straighten all the crooks and mistakes the church has made, we would have more than a lifetime job. Even the seven churches of Asia made their mistakes, and God commanded them to “hold fast and repent.’‘ The church at Corinth got wrong and out of line, but they did not reorganize them, but accepted them when they repented, or turned from their errors. The church at Galatia imbibed the wrong doctrine, but they were not unchurched for it; but they repented, or turned from their errors. * * * My brother, we have too many Baptist regulators among us who think they know it all; and many of them (I fear) know nothing as they ought to know it. May God pity our people in their scattered and torn up condition, and humble us all under a feeling sense of His great love, and our nothingness, and bring us to each other’s feet and keep us in the way everlasting. And may He ever pity those who are continually striving to keep up a row among us. I am old now, and desire so much to see our people united in the bonds of love and union before I go hence.
Much more could be quoted along this same line from this pamphlet, but this is sufficient to show very clearly, we think, what that committee, as well as other brethren, thought concerning the very question which has been raised by some brethren in regard to the baptisms which have been administered since the troubles began among the brethren. Dear Brother Dalton said he was old when he wrote that letter in 1913— eleven years last August— and so much desired to see our people united in the bonds of love and union before he goes hence. Dear brethren, how much do you suppose it would rejoice the heart of that old servant now in his old age if he could hear the glad news that our dear people in Texas and other [pg 266] places were once more all united? Remembering that this dear brother labored much among our people years ago in Texas, Tennessee and other sections of this country, we know he would rejoice to hear that peace has been restored and that our dear brethren had come together, forgiving all wrongs, and are once more united in love and fellowship.
We were present several years ago at the meeting of the one hundredth anniversary of the White Water Association in Indiana. That association had been divided for a number of years, and for years two associations had been held in the same territory, each claiming to be the White Water Association. The session we speak of that we attended, on the one hundredth anniversary, the two bodies came together and met again as one association— the first time for years. If any of them were ever required to baptize again all who had been received and baptized during the time they were separated we never heard of it.
Some might say that upon this principle we could accept the Missionaries the same way. Not so, for they have lost the marks of church identity. They have departed from Baptist principles in doctrine and practice. There are very few things, if any, which the world has but what they have. They have lost all marks of identity of the true church. They are not a church, and therefore do not have the ordinances. They are not real Baptist Churches; they only claim the name.
May the good Lord pity us in our distressed condition and enable us all to confess our wrongs to each other, and to be a united band in His service, is our humble prayer.
C. H. C.
[pg 267]
1 CORINTHIANS 16:1-2
March 1, 1925
E. A. Wyatt, R. 3, Jackson, Tenn., requests us to give our views on 1 Cor. 16:1-2, and asks us to write a good explanation of it. It reads as follows: “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, even so do you. 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.”
We do not see how that this language needs much explanation. It seems to us that it is as plain as it could very well be made. This laying by in store was for the poor saints at Jerusalem, and was to be sent there for the express purpose of relieving the poor saints at that place, as the next verse plainly shows. It just simply means that the churches, or the members composing the church, are required to lay by in store on the first day of the week, according as God has prospered them, for the benefit of the poor saints.
What we know about the matter is that a great many churches are very remiss in this matter. If we give, do we give as God has prospered us? And do we lay by in store on the first day of the week? That laying by in store to be for the relief of the poor saints? Perhaps we lay by in store for ourselves, by way of laying up worldly possessions. Are we alive to our duty in this matter as we should be? C. H. C.
[pg 268]
REMARKS TO MRS. C. N. BROWN
March 15, 1925
We woul
d admonish you to discharge your duty— do what you feel the Lord requires of you. If you want more evidence, do what He has impressed you to do. How much more do you want than what He has done? Suppose you do feel little. Are not the Lord’s people called little children? Did not Paul say, “Unto me who am less than the least, is this grace given?” Can you feel any less than that? Of course you are not worthy, in and of yourself, but the Lord says, “Their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord.” If you want peace, there is just one way to get it— and that is to do what you feel to be your duty. Offer yourself to the church and follow your Saviour in baptism, and then endeavor to walk in His precepts and examples. The fitness the Lord requires is to feel your need of Him. C. H. C.
GOD’S PEOPLE IN THE FLOOD
March 15, 1925
We have a letter from Elder G. S. Schuler and Joe Vines, at Farrell, Miss., in which they tell of a good meeting and an ordination, and state that they had a question up and ask us if God had any people to get lost in the flood. In answer to their query we would say that the destruction of those who were out of the ark, being destroyed by water, was not an eternal destruction, but a temporal one. Their temporal or natural life was destroyed. Noah was a child of God, and an obedient one. He obeyed the Lord, and was saved from the old world to the new, with his family. “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,”etc.— Peter. That was a figure, and baptism is a figure like that. Baptism does not save with an everlasting or eternal salvation; and as it is a figure like the other, then the other did not save with an eternal salvation. It saved from the old world [pg 269] to the new; and baptism now saves the obedient child of God from out in the world into the church of Christ. No one dare say that all who were drowned in the flood went to hell. To say that would be to preach infant damnation by the wholesale. In our discussions with men who have argued that baptism in water was necessary in order to a home in heaven we have often asked if all who were drowned in the flood went to hell. Not one of them would ever say yes. It was a temporal or timely matter, and had no reference to eternal life at all. C. H. C.
REMARKS TO
MRS. W. M. HOPSON, JR.
April 1, 1925
Dear sister, we truly believe that you have an experience of grace and that you are one of the Lord’s dear little children. We feel to rejoice with you that you have been enabled by the mercy and grace of God to realize, understand and know the truth, in part at least. Your expression of feeling so little is just the way Paul expressed himself, “Unto me who am less than the least of all saints is this grace given, that I should preach [pg 270] among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.” Paul felt that he was less than the least of all saints. He was a child of God. So that is the feeling of a child of God. This is a good evidence that you are the Lord’s child.
You do not want to be a hypocrite. A hypocrite is one who pretends that he is something that he knows he is not. If you have been enabled to see that the Primitive Baptist doctrine is the truth, you could never be acting the hypocrite to unite with them. If you believe the Old Baptist doctrine to be the truth, and feel like the Old Baptist Church would be a home for you, we would advise you to offer yourself to them. Follow your blessed Lord, walk in His commandments, and you will find the peace and rest that you are so much longing for. May His blessings rest upon you. C. H. C.
A NEW THING UNDER THE SUN
April 15, 1925
To All Whom it May Concern:
We, the Church of Christ, of Five Mile, Hale County, Alabama, known as Primitive Baptist, in conference assembled, do hereby declare and affirm our belief concerning some points of church order, or discipline, as follows:
I We believe that each local church is sovereign and independent of all other churches or persons in receiving, disciplining and excluding her members.
II We believe that the church is the only disciplinary body known or authorized in the Scriptures.
III We believe that when a church withdraws fellowship from a sister church for reasons satisfactory to herself, the church that is withdrawn from has no legal right nor authority to appoint a committee to visit the church which withdrew from her with any sort of complaint or grievance.
[pg 271] IV We believe that no minister or preacher, whatever, upon any plea whatsoever, has a right to ignore or disregard the act of the withdrawing church.
V We believe that the church withdrawn from has no legal right to call upon sister churches to go with her or aid her in her complaint against the withdrawing church and that churches granting her request would involve themselves in the same disorder as the dropped and disorderly church.
VI We believe that if a church becomes offended with a sister church on account of some act, doctrine or practice, she has a legal right to labor with her offending sister church for satisfaction; and should she fail to obtain satisfaction she may ask a near-by sister church to aid her in such labor; but in such labor it would be illegal and unscriptural for her to call upon and procure the labor of more than one or two such churches. Matt. 18:16.
VII We believe that in such labor it would be inconsistent and out of order to call upon distant churches, and churches, too, which have no direct knowledge of or personal concern in the matter— churches which are strange and unacquainted with the church to be labored with, especially when there are sister churches nearer by and which understand the nature of the reported grievance or trouble.
VIII We believe that when distant and strange churches are thus called upon to the neglect of near by churches which are acquainted with the trouble in dispute and with all concerned, it is a true sign and token of lack of knowledge or of willful intent to do wrong, or to deceive or oppress.
IX We believe that much of the trouble, confusion and disorder among Primitive Baptists in various parts of our country today is to be ascribed to certain ministers, or spirits, (1 John 4:4) who, in going hither and thither, from section to section, or state to state, are ready to pry into local church troubles and intrude their advice, verbally or in writing, as to how such troubles should be settled or disposed of, and in this manner, in the name of love and peace, actually widen the breach and intensify the confusion and disorder. (Be sure to read Prov. 26:17; 1 Thess. 4:11; 1 Pet. 4:15) Hence we believe the time has come when churches and true ministers and servants of God should regard with distrust and grave [pg 272] suspicion all traveling spirits who come among them proposing to aid them and advise them in their church troubles.
X In conclusion, we desire to confess our weakness and un-worthiness before the Lord and His believing and afflicted people, with the request that they bear with us, and should they find us in error in the principles of church order or discipline herein expressed, we hope they will kindly show unto us the way of the Lord more perfectly, for we know we are liable to err. Five Mile is now in her one hundred and fifth year of age and, if not deceived in ourselves, we desire to be in harmony with the Scriptures of truth. Hence we are open to investigation, and our church records are open to the scrutiny of our brethren everywhere.
G. W. Stewart, Moderator.
W. M. Martin, Church Clerk.
Akron, Ala., December 13, 1924.
REMARKS
We verily believe that the foregoing is the worst thing we have seen for years along that line. It is worse than the proposed form for a federal government put out by Elder Kirkland some years ago. In all kindness and sincerity we wish to examine the foregoing statement of belief just a little. It is not necessary to examine all the points contained therein— just a few will be enough for any fair-minded Baptist, we are sure.
1. If each local church is a sovereign and independent of all other churches or persons in receiving, disciplining and excluding her members, then, pray, what right under high heaven did Five Mile have to receive on confession of faith two members that had been excluded by Hopewell Church— and that, too, without bestowing a moment’s labor upon Hopewell? We freely grant that any church which is standing faithful on the doctrine and order of God’s house, keeping the ordinances as delivered to the church, has the God— given right to refuse membership to any person in her body [pg 273] that she sees fit, and no other person or church on earth has any right to disregard the act of the church in that matter. This being so, just as long as Hopewell Church maintains the doctrine and ordinances of the church as given in the New Testament, no church on earth has any right to receive the members on confession that she excluded. On the other hand, if Hopewell, Five Mile, or any other church, should be holding a member whose conduct is a disgrace and detrimental to the cause, a sister church has the right to make complaint to her in regard to her disorderly member and to ask her to deal with such a member as the circumstances demand. Sister churches have that right, for the simple reason that such a member being held is detrimental to the cause in general, and for that reason other churches are concerned. No church esteeming the order of God’s house as she should can afford to refuse to hear such a complaint and to listen to the proof and to deal with the case as the circumstances may demand. If she will not do that, then sister churches have the right to withdraw fellowship from her, and they should do so, after such labor is had. To receive a member on confession of faith that has been excluded from another Old Baptist Church that maintains the doctrine and ordinances of God’s house, and the identity of that church still remains, is GROSS DISORDER. It always has caused trouble, and always will.
3, 4 and 5. If these three items be correct, we have the very principles of popery. According to that, a church may withdraw from another, the reason may be absolutely groundless, yet satisfactory to herself, and if others think she has erred and dare to so express themselves, they immediately become involved in the same [pg 274] disorder and loss of identity as the church that has been withdrawn from— thus the church that does the first withdrawing becomes high pope, supreme ruler, independent disposer, the only potentate, the one executive and the only viceregent of Christ on earth! If that is Old Baptist doctrine, may the good Lord pity us, for we never heard it on that fashion before. We confess that we have read some of the confessions of churches, both ancient and modern, and have read some little church history, but we never saw anything like this before. Pray by whose authority does a church become so highly exalted just because she sees proper, perhaps to gratify her own personal ambition, or the ambition of some preacher, to declare non-fellowship for some sister church? She sees proper to do so! She has reasons that are satisfactory to herself! And, forsooth, that ends it! According to these items, if one church withdraws from a sister church, the church withdrawn from does not even so much as have the right to ask the reason why! If that does not give supreme authority and power to one church, under certain conditions, we do not understand the reason why; and it destroys the very idea of there being any such thing as a sister church. The term sister church signifies equality.
6. We never heard before that Matt. 18:16 limited the number to one or two. We had always understood it to mean, and have always heard Old Baptists claim that it meant, that as many as one or two should be taken, so that there might be witnesses, for that is what the text says, “that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word maybe established.” The idea is that it is necessary to have witnesses, but we never knew before that it was necessary to limit the number of [pg 275] witnesses. If that be true, and a man can prove his contention or charge by more than two witnesses besides his own testimony, he would lose his case, but it would be sustained if proven by himself and no more than two others. This is too absurd to even favor the truth.
7 and 8. We pass these by as of minor importance, though the matter may be a technical one. That is, the contention therein may not always be correct.
9. This is simply a direct thrust at what we now call a traveling preacher. In olden times they were called evangelists. But it seems to us that Elder Stewart might have taken some of his own medicine a few years ago when he went over into Mississippi and was in a meeting that declared a part of a church to be the church who preached a man who was in line with the people not recognized by the Ramah council, which council he had sat in as a member of the same— and that man preached over the protest of some of the members of the church. If it is such a crime, and such a preacher is of the world, who will go away from home and advise the brethren in regard to their troubles, then it seems to us Elder Stewart was involved when he was at the meeting in Mississippi. If this item be correct, it dawns on us that the Apostle Paul was a transgressor and a violator when he told the Corinthians how to do and what to do concerning some disorders they had among them. Paul was a traveling preacher, and according to this item, he had no right to advise that church as to what would be right for her to do, and the church and other preachers should have regarded him with grave suspicion.
We would not make mention of these things in our columns but the above statement has been sent out in [pg 276] print broadcast, and we feel that the cause demands that the inconsistency and fallacy of them should be brought to the attention of our people. As long as such things are practiced and persisted in, just that long will there be troubles and divisions among us. It is no good omen for us to have such an opinion of self as to think that we have a right to do a thing and no other party has a right to call it in question. May the good Lord help us all to rightly consider His teaching as to how we should treat each other and observe the order of His house, and enable us always to so consider ourselves that we may be willing to listen to the counsel and advice of our brethren and sister churches. C. H. C.
“MURDER WILL OUT”
April 15, 1925
“Murder will out” is an old saying which is generally accepted as true. A saying in Holy Writ very much like it is, “Be sure your sin will find you out.” When trouble develops, the true cause may not be known just at the time, but in time it will become known what the real trouble is— or what was the real cause. So it now seems to develop just what the cause of the trouble is in Virginia and North Carolina. It seems that Danville Church claimed that the doctrine had nothing to do with the exclusion of Elder J. R. Wilson. Elder Wilson is and has been all along in perfect accord with Elder J. T. Jackson, Elder Pruitt, and other brethren. The majority of the church at Martinsville and at Leatherwood were agreed with Elder Jackson in [pg 277] doctrine. Most of our readers will remember an article written by him and which we published, which was headed “Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth.” Some of the elders in the Pig River Association and elsewhere in that country would not accept the doctrine set forth in that article, and denounced Elder Jackson as a heretic. The Pig River Association preferred charges against him on the doctrine, or denounced him. Elder Jackson’s church invited any and all who had charges against him to present them to her. This none of them would do, or did do. The church of his membership endorsed the doctrine he set forth and exonerated him. The majority at both Martinsville and Leatherwood stood with him. We do not now remember where Elder Jackson has membership, but believe it is at one of these two churches. A minority at both these places rebelled against the action of the church, and after due labor they were excluded. The Pig River Association recognized the excluded factions of these churches. They brought suit for the church property. A report of the court decision says that the decision is expected to “finally end the controversy which arose many months ago when a large number of the congregations in the Leatherwood and Martinsville Church sided with Elder Jackson in his contention that under the doctrines of the church two plans of salvation were allowed.” This shows very clearly that those who oppose Elder Wilson, Elder Jackson, and those who believe and teach as they do, are opposing them on account of their doctrine. One of these leading preachers in North Carolina, we have been informed, said publicly that Cayce is an Arminian. These things show that the doctrine is at the root of the trouble. When we published the [pg 278] article referred to above from Elder Jackson we said then that the doctrine set forth therein will stand when the world is on fire, and we still say the same. Not one of those preachers in North Carolina and Virginia, or any other place, can ever overthrow that doctrine. If they think they can, will they try it? They will not try it in public where their contention can be examined in public before the people.
When we were in North Carolina a few years ago we tried to preach at an association, we think at Coats, from this text: “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”-1 Tim. 4:16. In that discourse we remember that we showed that Timothy was already a child of God, and that one is made a child of God without any works performed by him; and that it was, therefore, too late for Timothy to save himself in that sense by taking heed unto himself and unto the doctrine. Neither would he by thus doing be the means of any other person becoming a child of God. But he would save himself in some sense by doing what the apostle here instructed him to do, and others would be saved in the very same sense in which he himself would be saved. Elder Gold, we remember very well, was present and endorsed the discourse. No one objected to it that we ever heard of.
At another association in that state we argued that the material universe is governed by physical law, and that there is no such thing as disobedience to that law, nor is there any such thing as active obedience to it. The sun, moon, stars, and the earth, all passively remain in their respective places by reason of physical law. We also argued that God saw fit to control His [pg 279] moral or rational creature, man, by moral law, and that there is activity in obeying the moral law or disobeying it, and that there is such a thing as disobedience to moral law. We also argued that God saw fit to govern His people, His children, by parental law, and that there is disobedience to parental law; and that in obedience and disobedience to that law there is activity.
These positions we took when we were in North Carolina then were the principles held to by Old Baptists then, and they hold to them yet. These things are not new. The man who denies them is the man who has some new thing.
We are sorry that the brethren in North Carolina and Virginia are having a war over this position; but it seems that the ones who do not accept this doctrine are the ones who are pushing the fight. Elder Wilson went before Danville Church more than once and confessed his wrong in using any harsh words, and the church which had received him on confession of faith without official investigation also confessed her wrong and begged forgiveness, and Lawyer Spring confessed her wrong for continuing to use him as pastor; but Danville saw fit, after saying in one conference that she would forgive, in the next conference to dismiss the matter and said she would have no more to do with it and would not forgive. If what they claimed as the reason for excluding was the true reason, and there was nothing else at the bottom of the matter, it is very evident to our mind that they would have forgiven the brother and the churches. But this they have refused to do. Now they should just come right out and make their fight in the open on the doctrine for which they propose to stand.
We have written the foregoing for the plain and simple reason that we feel like justice demands that our readers know just the true status of affairs in that country, as it appears to us. We are sorry that these matters exist as they do, and we were very hopeful that it would all be settled. But it seems that Danville Church and some of the preachers in that country are determined not to have any settlement. May the Lord pity us. C. H. C.
PEACE MEETING CALLED
May 1, 1925
In another place in this paper will be found a call for a peace meeting to be held at Jamestown, La., beginning on Friday night before the fifth Sunday in May. We trust our brethren will all try to attend that meeting. We very much desire to be there, and if the Lord will, and we can arrange so as to go, we will try to be present. We pray the good Lord may lead and direct in the meeting, and that much good may be accomplished in His great name, and that our poor divided people may be united again in love and sweet fellowship. May the Lord help us all. C. H. C.
PRIVATE LETTERS
May 15, 1925
We frequently get letters from brethren saying they would be glad to get a letter from us. Now, we do not at all doubt what they say about it, but we just do not have time to write as many private letters as we would [pg 282] like to. The duties devolving upon us are so many and so pressing that we just cannot write any more private letters than it seems to us to be absolutely necessary. We do not wish any brother or sister to feel, though, that we do not appreciate their letters, for we do. They encourage us much along the way. We often feel cast down and discouraged and some letter comes to us that revives us again, and makes us feel like pressing on in the service of the Master. All our readers hear from us in nearly every issue of the paper, as we try to write something for nearly every issue, and would write something for every issue if we could. Write to us when you feel like doing so, and remember us in your prayers. C. H. C.
MATTHEW 8:11-12
May 15, 1925
Brother A. H. Middleton, Reagan, Tenn., requests us to give our views on Matt. 8:11-12, which reads: “And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
We do not have space to comment at length, and must be brief. Those to come from the east and west were the Gentiles who were to come into the gospel service, and the children of the kingdom who were to be cast out were the Jews. They were called the children of the kingdom, as the oracles of God were committed [pg 283] unto them. Because of unbelief they were cut off from the privileges of gospel worship and service and were cast out into outer darkness, and they are in darkness to this good day. But it looks to us as though the fullness of the Gentiles is just about come in. We find as much darkness, or almost as much, among the Gentiles now as was among the Jews in the days of the apostles. It seems to us that we are living in perilous times, and it behooves us to awake from our slumbers. May the good Lord help us so to do. C. H. C.
SOME QUESTIONS
May 15, 1925
We have received a letter from Curtice Conwill, Fulton, Miss., in which he says: “I am enclosing a few questions which I do not understand very well. Will you please explain them for me? I am not after an argument, but the truth, and the whole truth.’‘ We will give the questions as he has them and answer them as briefly as possible.
1. John 13:8“If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.” The Saviour simply meant that if He did not wash Peter’s feet he had no part with Him in that service and the enjoyment of it.
2. Matt. 20:16 “So the last shall be first, and the first last; for many be called, but few chosen.” Matt. 22:14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.” Many are called to eternal life; many are called out of darkness into the marvelous light and liberty of the children of God; but there are few chosen as witnesses for and to the truth. God has a few of His chosen and called [pg 284] children whom He has chosen as witnesses for His truth.
3. Does John 3:5 mean water baptism? No. Baptism is no place in the Bible represented as a birth. It is a burial and resurrection.
4. A person once said to me, “If I could get my heart right while the big meeting is going on, I’d join.” We suppose you will have to get the party to explain this who said it.
5. Who can keep the commandments? The living child of God can keep the gospel commandments, and all people can keep the moral commandments to live honestly and uprightly.
6. Do the non-elect die in infancy? No.
7. Is every person, when an infant, a child of God? No. C. H. C.
FILLING APPOINTMENTS
May 15, 1925
We left home on Thursday, March 26, and arrived in Huntsville, Ala., at 2 o’clock Friday morning, and were met at the train by our father-in-law, Brother B. B. Lawler, and son, Claud. We filled the appointment that day at Flint Church, and had a very pleasant meeting. Elder H. P. Houk was with us there. Saturday we filled the appointment at Union Church, near Woodville, Ala. A large crowd was present, and we enjoyed a sweet meeting at this place. Elders Andrew Houk, Tom Flanagan and John Page were with us there. Saturday evening we left Woodville for Chattanooga, and were met at the train by Brother Mack (D. M.) [pg 285] Raulston. We enjoyed a sweet meeting at this place Sunday and Sunday night. An appointment was published for us and also for Elder J. W. Bragg for Sunday, and we preached together. Brother Bragg was present at night also. Monday morning we left Chattanooga for Knoxville, arriving there at 10 o’clock. Elder J. E. Hurst and some other brethren met us at the train and we went at once to the church. A good crowd soon gathered, and we had a sweet meeting at this place. Besides Elder Hurst, Elders W. C. McMillon and W. A. Gregory were with us here. Other ministers may have been present, but if so we do not now recall their names. That evening we went to Bristol where we spent the remainder of the night. Tuesday morning at 6:30 we left Bristol for Marion, Va., where we changed cars for Trout Dale. At Chilhowie Elder C. N. Tilson and Brother W. A. Bailey boarded the train and went with us to Trout Dale. At this place we had meeting Tuesday night at the home of Elder B. H. Blevins, near Trout Dale, and in Trout Dale Wednesday, Wednesday night, Thursday, Thursday night and Friday. It was a pleasant meeting indeed. Elders B. H. Blevins, C. N. Tilson, J. A. Cave, H. B. Miller and S. J. Heath were with us during the meeting. On Wednesday a sister was received into the fellowship of the church as a candidate for, baptism. This seems to be a good live church. On Friday afternoon we were conveyed from there to the home of Elder Ed Davis, about twenty-five miles, into the neighborhood of Pond Mountain Church, Elder Tilson coming with us. We spent the night with Elder Davis, and today had meeting at the Pond Mountain Church, and enjoyed a very sweet service. Elders J. A. Church and R. A. May, besides Elders Davis and Tilson, were with [pg 286] us. We are now at the home of Elder Ed Davis, on Saturday evening, April 4. We feel to hope the good Lord has graciously blessed us to speak in His great name since we left our loved ones at home, and our trust and hope is in Him, that He will continue to bless us with liberty of speech, and that He will care for and keep our loved ones while we are away from them. Please pray for us and our dear ones at home and that the Lord may be with them in their lonely hours.
C. H. C.
CHURCH DISCIPLINE
May 15, 1925
We have had quite a number of requests to write an article on the subject of church discipline. This is a great subject and cannot be treated in full in any short article, or in a long one, for that matter. Some write and tell us of members who never attend church nor even write to the church— some perhaps near the church and yet do not attend; some have united with other orders, and yet their names remain on our church books as members; some say they have not had the rules— read for a long time, and such like things.
It seems to us that where such conditions exist it is high time for them to awake from their slumbers. Any member of the church has the right to ask for the rules to be read in any conference. But they do not have the right for all to wait for some one else to ask for something to be done that should be attended to. Where each one is just waiting for somebody else to make the suggestion for that to be done that needs to be done, [pg 287] they are all, evidently,”asleep on the job.” Wake up, and get busy.
If a member never goes to his church, where he is in reach of the church, and never lets the church hear from him when he is not in reach, he is not worth anything to the church, and he is a dead load for the church to carry. Dead folks should be buried and put out of sight. If you have some dead folks in your church you should get busy and bury them, for if they are not buried they will likely begin to smell so bad after awhile that live folks cannot stay around. You know that live folks cannot stay very long where dead folks remain unburied.
Most church rules of decorum say that if a member fails to attend about three meetings it is the duty of the church to inquire the reason. The object of this is not to find something to bring as a charge against the absent member, but to find if there is something in the way that might be removed by a little effort on the part of the church. The member might be sick or in need. It is the duty of the church to find out. There might be some good reason for staying away which could, and should, be removed. If there is no good reason, and the member cannot be reclaimed, then a charge should be preferred and the person dealt with.
Where some member has joined some other order the church should appoint a committee to labor with such a member. Who knows but what the member might be reclaimed? We have known such to be the case. Such a thing might be done by a member in a moment of darkness and discouragement, and if the brethren would try to reclaim him he might feel assured that the church loves him, when he might have been feeling [pg 288] that he was forsaken and that the members of the church did not care for him. If, upon investigation, it is found that the member thus acting does not really believe the Old Baptist doctrine and cannot be reclaimed, then he should be dealt with.
Sometimes we may become careless and neglectful of each other. We should visit each other more and associate together more. They used to do that more in our younger days than we do now. If we would do that we would be a great help to each other, and that would be a great help to the church. It seems, though, in this fast age, that we hardly have time to speak to each other when we meet, and seldom have time to visit each other in our homes. We are neglecting the most important matters and are going in a mad rush after the world and the things of the world.
Another thing that is grossly wrong is for a member to live right in the community of an orderly Old Baptist Church and have his membership at another church at a distance from him where he cannot attend regularly. In our young days this was considered gross disorder; and yet we know brethren who will, and do, ask such members to let their membership stay in that case. This is very wrong, and you who have done so should be ashamed of it; and you should at once ask the member thus advised and requested to do to forgive you for the wrong advice and advise him to go ahead and do the right thing. If all members were to hold their membership thus at a distant church, there would be no Old Baptist Churches kept up to attend. If it is wrong for all to do that, then it is wrong for any to do so.
May the good Lord help us all to awake to our duty, and give us grace whereby we may serve Him acceptably and with godly fear. C. H. C.
REMARKS CONCERNING J. T. M’RAE
June 1, 1925
Brother Petty, do you not know that these forked-tongued blatherskites would not tell the truth on the Old Baptists, even if they were paid to do so? They preach for hire and divine for money. One of their brethren betrayed the Lord for thirty pieces of silver, and they would do you and me as bad for a penny. If this little saphead wants a discussion with you, Brother Petty, through our columns, we are willing for him to have it if he will get space in one of their papers for the same discussion. We will not take up our valuable space for such vituperations from the devil’s emissaries as is hurled by such fellows, unless they will give space in one of their papers for our side of the question. C. H. C.
ANOTHER NAME ON OUR STAFF
June 15, 1925
Since the peace meeting at Munday, Texas, is leading to reconciliation between our people and Elder J. H. Fisher and many of his brethren, so it seems, we felt inclined to place Elder Fisher’s name on our editorial staff, and so wrote him requesting the same, and he has granted the request. Elder Fisher is an able minister and a good writer, and we hold him in high esteem. [pg 290] We are so glad to see our poor, distressed and divided people getting together. These unholy wars are distressing, and we should not strive about words to no profit. Those who love the cause of the Master should be striving to see how near we can be together, instead of striving to see how far apart we can get. May the good Lord help us to strive for peace and the things that make for peace. We desire to continue striving in that way, and disregard the hard things which may be said of us on account of pursuing that course. C. H. C.
OUR TRIP IN VIRGINIA AND NORTH CAROLINA
June 15, 1926
We fully intended to write an account of the remainder of our trip in Virginia and North Carolina for the last issue of the paper or for this one, but we have not had the time to write it. We have a whole lot more matter on hand now for the paper than we will ever have room to publish— much of it is real good, too. We wish we had room for all the good letters we get for the paper, but we do not. On this account, for these reasons just stated, we will have to content ourselves with saying that we met all the appointments that were made and enjoyed some pleasant meetings. True, some of the churches visited were in a cold state, but most of them seemed to be alive. There were some additions to some of the churches we visited, and at those places the churches seemed to be revived and rejoiced to see the Lord’s little children coming home.
We attended the spring session of the Bear Creek Association. A number of ministers were in attendance. The meeting was an enjoyable one and the preaching was harmonious all the way through. They are a good band of brethren and have no use for Arminianism on the one hand or Antinomianism on the other hand.
We were kindly treated all the way along the trip and enjoyed our tour among those good Baptists, and do not feel that we will ever forget the many deeds of kindness shown us. May the good Lord bless them and lead them in the right way, and give them the Christian courage to press on in the sweet service of the Master. We trust that they may all remember us in their prayers, and take this as a personal letter to each one. We would be glad to write more and tell the places visited and the ministers we met, but time and space will not allow this time. May the Lord’s richest blessings rest upon you. C. H. C.
LETTER FROM D. V SPANGLER
July 1, 1925
When we returned home from our recent trip in Virginia and North Carolina we found a letter here waiting for us written by one D. V. Spangler. He takes us to task for what we said concerning Elder Wilson and the Danville Church, etc. He says: “Are you sure you have been rightly informed about these matters? Are you all trying to force a division among the Baptists of this country on the doctrine?”
We stated that the cause of the trouble was doctrine. Were we wrongly informed about that? If that was [pg 292] not the truth, then why was the court decision so rendered? Why does the report of that say that it started over doctrine? And why did Danville put out a leaflet, a part of which was signed by W. R. Dodd as moderator and W. L. Parker as clerk, and by Elder C. T. Evans as moderator and R. L. Dodson as clerk of the Staunton River Association, the very first paragraph of which says, “For several years there seemed to have existed a difference among the elders and members on some points of doctrine,” etc.? Why did you say this if there was no doctrinal difference? Then on the second page this same leaflet says, “Now, we wish to say if they will turn over our property or loan it to us, so we can relieve our clerk by furnishing the Baptists with minutes, as is our custom, Wilson and his crowd may go on with their doctrine of many salvations and conditional stuff to their heart’s delight and satisfaction,” etc.
You fellows have repeatedly denied that there was a doctrinal difference, and here you emphatically declare that there is, and virtually say you have no fellowship for the doctrine Elder Wilson advocates, and a great majority of the Baptists have always advocated the same doctrine. Then since you say here that there is a difference, and have at other times said the doctrine was not the difference, pray tell us when you told the truth? Did you tell it both times? How could your folks have told the truth in both statements, seeing that the statements are diametrically opposed to each other — just the opposite to each other?
In this leaflet your crowd deny there being more than one salvation spoken of or taught in the Bible. If there is only one, we will give you and your whole gang until the next day after the judgment to reconcile just these [pg 293] two statements from Holy Writ: “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.”— 2 Tim. 1:9. Here the apostle most emphatically declares that we are saved, and that not according to our works, either good or bad. The works done by us have nothing whatever to do with this saving. The inspired apostle most emphatically so declares in this text. But the same writer says: “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.”-1 Tim. 4:16. Here the same inspired man says to Timothy that “IN DOING THIS thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee.” This was a saving that was to be accomplished by DOING, and doing is working. The whole conglomerated mess of you one Salvationists cannot harmonize these two expressions from the same inspired writer from now until the next day after the judgment. Suppose some of you try your hand at it? Will you? Not much, we guess. Your stuff is new among Baptists, and you have departed from the faith.
Your crowd have proven that they are wrong all the way through by refusing to forgive an erring brother and erring churches when they humbly begged forgiveness. If you loved the Saviour and His blessed truth as you should, you would forgive. May the good Lord pity the poor deluded brethren who are being led astray by designing men. C. H. C.
[pg 294]
ANOTHER EDITOR ADDED
July 1, 1925
At the conclusion of the peace meeting at Jamestown, La., we asked Elder T. L. Webb if he was willing for us to put his name on our editorial staff. He said he would consider the matter, and his “Salutatory,” to be found elsewhere in this paper, is the result.
Elder T. L. Webb is a good writer and a good preacher, and we believe he is a good man, and we are glad that we can now stand together in laboring for peace among our poor and afflicted people. At the meeting in Jamestown Elder Webb made full and complete confession for all the part he took in the late trouble and division among our people. He manifested such an humble spirit that we felt to be drawn closer to him than we had ever been before. May the good Lord abundantly bless him, is our humble prayer. We are glad to have his name on our editorial staff, and trust he may feel a desire to write for our columns, for we are sure all our readers will enjoy his writings. And we humbly pray the good Lord to enable us and all our editors to continue to labor for the peace of Zion and for the unifying of our poor divided people.
C. H. C.
BEAR CREEK ASSOCIATION
July 1, 1925
We had the pleasure of attending the Bear Creek Association in North Carolina the first Sunday in May and Saturday before and Monday following. A large crowd was in attendance, and the meeting was a pleasant one from [pg 295] first to last. The preaching was all a unit, not a jar or discord was heard. The ministers present from other associations and from other states were: Elders J. A. Cave, John S. Lewis, W. F. Pruitt, H. M. Williams, R. H. Pittman, Joel T. Lewis, M. L. Riner, J. R. Wilson, Lee Hanks, C. B. Kilby, W. C. McMillon, Wm. Cribbs, J. M. Royal, S. G. Caudill and C. H. Cayce. Their home ministers present were: Elders J. M. Bagwell, W. C. Edwards, B. L. Treece, J. Eudy and Robert Helms. Elder Edwards is the efficient moderator and is an able and humble gift. He preached the introductory sermon and at the close of the meeting made some very pointed and appropriate remarks. May the good Lord bless this noble band of Baptists. C. H. C.
LAW OF GOD ON BAPTISM
July 15, 1925
We have before us a little pamphlet with the above title, published by one John A. May, member of the North Alabama Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church South (of God), which is about as great a perversion of truth as we have seen recently in so small a space. The pamphlet contains thirty-two pages. We do not have the space to take up different things the author has stated, but will pay some respect to just one or two. On page 10 may be found the following question and answer: “In the Old Testament, what is the law of God on the Bible mode of Bible baptism? Answer: The law of God is recorded in Ezek. 36:25-28: ‘And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all [pg 296] your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.’” If this is the law of God on the Bible mode of Bible baptism, then it is also the law of God as to how one is to be cleansed from his sins, for there is a cleansing performed in this work. In it the one operated upon receives a new heart and a new spirit. This little Methodist (South of God) evidently believes, then, that no one can be saved without being baptized according to his plan— it not only denies salvation to those who are without baptism, but it denies salvation to all who are not baptized by sprinkling. The truth of the matter is that this text has no reference whatever to baptism.
The next thing we wish to notice is his contention that Philip baptized the eunuch by sprinkling. He quotes Acts 8:26-40, in which may be found the statement: “And they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.” He argues that the eunuch was a colored man. The gentleman certainly knows that a colored man is a Gentile; and he certainly knows that no Gentiles went to Jerusalem to worship. The Jews were the only people who went to Jerusalem to worship. The eunuch, therefore, was a Jew who held a position of trust under Candace, queen of Ethiopia; he had charge of all her treasure. The Jews were always a money making people, and that queen knew it; so she had this Jew in her employ and gave [pg 297] him charge over all her treasure. He had been to Jerusalem to worship— a thing which no Gentile ever did. Cornelius was the first Gentile to ever hear a gospel sermon, and that by the mouth of Peter, who said, in Acts 15:7 “Ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.” If the Rev. Mr. May is correct then Peter was wrong, and they did not know what he said they knew, for Peter did not go to the house of Cornelius and preach there until after Philip had baptized the eunuch. Peter took some of his brethren with him when he went to Cornelius in answer to the call for him to go, for he yet, as other Jews, considered it unlawful for the Jews to keep company with the Gentiles. The gentleman’s contention is, therefore, wrong.
But let us notice his text: “They both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.” It does no violence to language nor to God’s word if we take a word out of a sentence and put the true meaning of that word in place of it. What does the word sprinkle mean? The Standard Dictionary, published by Funk & Wagnalls, says: “Sprinkle, to scatter in drops or small particles.” Now let us read the text, “And they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he scattered him about in drops or small particles.’‘ Dear reader, do you sincerely believe any such thing as that was done? Do you believe Philip scattered the eunuch about in small drops or in small particles? What sane, or reasonable, person would believe any such foolishness or tommyrot as that? Such men as the Rev. (?) Mr. May and his dupes may believe it— but excuse us, please.
[pg 298] The inspired Apostle Paul tells us most emphatically in Rom. 6:4 that “we are buried with him by baptism into death.” If we are buried by baptism, as the inspired apostle says, then baptism is a burial; and as sprinkling is not a burial, then it is not baptism. Let us read the text again: “And they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he buried him.” That is the truth of the matter, and no man can deny it without denying the plain language of the word of God; but we suppose a Methodist Reverend South of God may not mind doing a thing like that. There are quite a number of other things in this little pamphlet that are foreign to truth, but this is enough. C. H. C.
LOST IN THE FLOOD— REMARKS
July 15, 1925
Certainly, some of the Lord’s people were drowned in the flood. The destruction by the flood was only a temporal destruction. Infants, as well as old people, were destroyed by the flood, but all who die in infancy are saved in heaven. It was a temporal or timely destruction of those who were drowned in the flood, and many of God’s people are punished for their rebellion, for their wickedness. They are punished now for their disobedience, and die to the enjoyment of gospel life and peace as a result of their wrong doing. C. H. C.
[pg 299]
APPOINTMENTS CALLED IN
August 1, 1925
We are sorry that it seems most impossible for us to fill the appointments that were arranged by Elder P. H. Byrd and others for us in South Georgia, but unforeseen circumstances have made it necessary for us to postpone the trip. We wrote Elder Byrd some days ago that we would try to fall in with the list of appointments at Vidalia on Aug. 5th and fill the appointments from there on, but since then matters have developed and things have taken such a turn that makes it so we cannot well go on the trip now. We are truly sorry, and trust the brethren will pardon us. We never like to fail to meet appointments that are made for us, but this is one of the few times that we will have to fail. If the brethren desire, and the Lord wills, we can make the trip in November, and can possibly spend a little more time than we could have done at this time. If it is desired that we make the trip in November, the brethren will please let us know as soon as possible, so we will not have other promises out. Please remember us in your prayers. C. H. C.
WOULD NOT HEAR THEM
August 1, 1925
In the trouble a few years ago, and in the unholy war and division among our people, there was a division in New Ramah Church, then in the Louisiana Association. The brethren on our side of the question have been holding their meetings since that time at a schoolhouse a [pg 300] few miles from the old meetinghouse until a few months ago, when arrangements were made with the Methodists at Mt. Pisgah for them to have the use of the house for helping to repair it and keeping it up. Our brethren worshiping at this place are tired of war and deplore the sad state of affairs. So on the first Sunday in July they adopted the following letter and appointed messengers to present it to the brethren worshiping at the old meetinghouse:
THE LETTER
We, the Primitive Baptists at New Raman, worshiping at Mt. Pisgah, to our brethren and sisters called New Ramah, worshiping at the old New Ramah meetinghouse:
Dear Brethren— Feeling grieved in our poor hearts over the divided and distressed condition of our beloved Zion, and for the purpose of endeavoring to obtain peace and reconciliation between us, we feel constrained to come to you as unto brethren in the Lord in an effort to restore peace and try to obtain and bring about reconciliation, that we may once more be a happy and united people, as we were before the unholy war among us. We beseech you to hear us patiently, and that you prayerfully consider what we say.
Dear brethren, we feel sure that in the unholy war among our people which brought confusion, division, distress and sorrow of heart among us, that wrong was done on both sides— things were said and done on both sides which should not have been said and done; and feeling that it is right to do as the Lord has commanded, “Confess your faults one to another, and pray with and for each other, that ye may be healed,’‘ we come to you in love for the cause of the Master to ask if you will agree for us to meet together to mutually forgive each other of all wrongs committed, and bury the past, and come together in peace and love as one band of brethren in the Lord, and let us henceforth endeavor to forget the things that are behind and strive for the things that make for peace, and the things whereby we may edify one another. [pg 301] We are ready to make peace with all our brethren and sisters who want peace. We send this by the hands of our beloved brethren, E. F. Evers and E. B. Meeks.
Will you, brethren, please hear us for the sake of the cause of the Master, and let us have your kind reply? Done and signed by order of the band of brethren called New Ramah, worshiping at Mt. Pisgah, on Sunday, July 5, 1925. Elder G. P. Woodall, Moderator.
E. B. Meeks, Clerk pro tern.
The above letter was delivered on Saturday before the second Sunday in July, at their regular meeting time. It will be seen that Brother E. B. Meeks, of Haynesville, La., was one of the messengers appointed to bear the letter. Under date of July 13 he wrote us as follows:
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Very Dear Brother— According to promise I delivered the resolution adopted by our brethren to the brethren in Louisiana, but they ignored it and would not have it read. I understand that there was quite a bit of sentiment against them for not having read it. I don’t know just what would be best, but I feel like it should be made known to the brethren just how they stand. I was there Saturday and Sunday. Elder N. L. Martin was their preacher. He delivered able discourses both days. I could not help but have a prayer for a man that could preach so ably and be so blind to duty. May God speed the day when Israel can live in peace.
Dear brother, may the Lord’s richest blessings be with you and family; and if not asking too much for one so unworthy as I, when at a throne of God’s rich grace please remember me. Your unworthy brother in bonds of peace and love, if one at all, E. B. Meeks.
Haynesville, La.
We regret that those brethren would not hear the pleading for peace and for the privilege of confessing [pg 302] wrongs and faults to one another, as the inspired Book commands. It seems to us that when brethren will not hear their brethren pleading for an opportunity to confess wrongs and for brethren to live together in peace, that something must be radically wrong. “If you forgive not men their trespasses, how shall your heavenly Father forgive you your trespasses?” We publish the above so that our brethren everywhere may know what our brethren have done, and the effort they have made to obtain reconciliation. The peace meeting at Jamestown has accomplished great good, we are sure; but there are just a few yet who seemingly do not want peace or reconciliation with their brethren. We trust the good Lord may yet show them the error of their way and put it into their hearts to labor for peace with their brethren. C. H. C.
WOE BECAUSE OF IMMORAL PREACHERS
By Price Billingsby
August 15, 1925
The following article by the name above and under the above heading is copied from the Gospel Advocate, published in Nashville, Tenn., by the McQuiddy Printing Company. It is a Christian (or Campbellite) paper. The article is so timely and so full of truth that we feel like giving it to our readers. Although our space is so limited, and we have so much more matter on hand than we have room for, yet we think the matter about which this article is written is so important that we are glad to give it space. Read it and ponder it well. No [pg 303] wonder there is so much trouble, unrest, distress and disturbance. No wonder so many are looking upon Christianity as a failure. No wonder so many look upon the church as being a bundle of hypocrisy. It is the imperative requirement of Holy Writ that the minister must be of good report of them that are without. It is not required that those without believe the doctrine the minister preaches, but it is required that he be esteemed as an honorable and an upright man. C. H. C.
THE ARTICLE
Woe when we have preachers, some widely known, who are liars, cheats, and unchaste, whose sins are white-washed and hushed up, allowed station and honor almost without a break, or their gross offenses not becoming known at all save through whispers, or, if for various rascalities they are withdrawn from at one place, they, through the collusion of silence, go elsewhere, unrepentant and abetted, to prey upon an innocent brotherhood! I say woe! Our leaders and those who publish our papers, who are under special obligation freely enough betimes speak out against this and that offender. But is the divine rule for public rebuke in these matters often invoked? See l Cor. 5:5; Gal. 2:11; 1 Tim. 1:20; 5:20; 2 Tim. 2:17; Lev. 5:1; 19:17; Prov. 29:24; Rom. 1:32.
Do you say nothing can be done, however badly needed? But why not? Is it not being increasingly taken for granted that the divine order can be treated with impunity? Cheaters, liars, and apostates need to be shown; it is owed both to the world at large and to the church to be understood that nobody, least of all a gospel preacher, shall defy and flaunt the moral code and the proprieties, and lightly get off with it. When Israel’s leaders fell into immoralities, God terribly rebuked and cursed them; and when some of our preachers grossly err and wantonly bring the Lord’s cause into disgrace, and the outrages be hidden or winked at, the Lord will again terribly destroy. The guilty should be rebuked and humiliated by being published and their offenses named; the offense and the offender should be chastised in the open. Only so will the claims of justice be somewhat satisfied, the loose and unruly warned, and an outraged public sentiment vindicated.
[pg 304] The Lord’s irrevocable decree is that sin must be paid for in full. Even divine pardon cannot save from many of its evil consequences. They that stand high have many blasts to shake them, and when they fall they are dashed to pieces. The church puts a man to the fore. But when he falls, he forfeits the right to honor and place bestowed upon him, nor can he rightly complain at severe measures of correction. He has made his bed, and lie on it he must; he must pay the penalty, even as a guard and warning to others. He has brought the church into deep odium, and many now suffer innocently on his account. Let him stoop down and kiss the rod that smites him, else Jehovah will utterly destroy him. He is a bird with a broken pinion, never to soar so high again, forever a wounded creature, often to be reminded of his shame, and only through long years of unwavering purity can he hope by so much as one jot to outlive and put down the ill fame of his fall. But let him rejoice that in coming to God with all his soul he will be lifted up to pardon and some usefulness.
It is ever a mournful thing, working general havoc, when those who sit in high places fall into disgrace. Disaster overtakes the masses when their leaders lapse in conduct. Yea, life for the many is surer made when public offenders are brought to account, exposed and denounced, let this be ever so painful and disturbing. Nothing could be more destructive of the public weal than that sins be let alone. Uprighted wrong dare not be hushed up and forgotten. God cancels sin when the full price of repentance is paid, else it eats the soul to eternal damnation. Then, in these days of falling away, let the rising tide of departure be stemmed or stayed by plain truth being spoken.
WORK LEGAL
August 15, 1925
We have been asked to state through our columns our views as to the legality of the work of the committee from the different churches in their labor with Danville (Va.) Church. We are free to state that the work of that committee is legal. They were acting under church [pg 305] authority. When Danville Church rejected all labor by the sister churches, there was no other course to pursue but the course pursued by that committee. There is no question but what the doctrine was at the bottom of the matter, and the Lone Pilgrim is now making a plain and bold fight on that doctrine— they are openly advocating it now (unlimited predestination) in the last issue, and are on the warpath in dead earnest. It has come to a “show down” now— recognize Elder Wilson and those who stand on the true doctrine with him, or recognize such stuff as those fellows are advocating, as well as some other matters that might be mentioned. C. H. C.
DON’T WANT THE PAPER
September 1, 1925
A few days ago we received the following letter:
Mr. Cayce: I have written you twice to stop my Primitive, or Mrs. R. M. Abbott did, and she sent in my subscription— . I did that in March, when it was out. I see you keep sending one just once in a while, when Wilson has some of his letters in it. I never get one unless there is some remark from him or some of his followers; and I do not want to read anything he has to print. I have already learned more of him and his than I care to hear. I think if you had been here at the start and all along and knew all as we do, you would not be so fresh yourself. So please do not send me any more of the Primitive copies, for I do not want them. Very respectfully,
Mrs. W. W. Terrell.
1209 Claiborne St., Danville, Va.
You can put this letter in your paper if you wish to do so.
REMARKS
The above name was marked off our list as directed. [pg 306] The printer is a long time behind in correcting the mailing list that is in type, and from which the papers are mailed out, and on this account every issue of the paper has been sent to the above address. When papers are thus sent on because of the printers being behind with the work there is no charge made for the papers, for the name no longer appears on the book as a subscriber.
We suppose if the doctrine the above party has lined up with is the truth, then God unchangeably decreed and fixed from all eternity that Elder Wilson should contend against that doctrine; and He also unchangeably fixed it that some others should advocate it.. If the doctrine is the truth, then those who advocate it could not help doing so, and Elder Wilson could not help fighting it; for God unchangeably fixed and forged it that they should do and say just what they did do and say. Therefore, when the good sister arrays herself against Elder Wilson, she arrays herself against what God has predestinated, fixed and unchangeably decreed from all eternity. But if that doctrine be the truth we must conclude that God did also unchangeably and unalterably predestinate, fix and decree that she should thus array herself against what He had unchangeably and unalterably fixed and decreed from eternity.
If their doctrine is the truth, then God did, from all eternity, absolutely, unconditionally, unalterably and unchangeably predestinate, fix and decree that we should not be there at the start and all along, and that we should not know as they do, and that we should, therefore, “be so fresh” as we are. Now, if your doctrine is the truth, we have only been carrying out God’s absolute and unalterable and unchangeable [pg 307] predestination, and we could not do otherwise. So, why are you raising such a howl with us about it? If the matter does not suit you, why do you not raise a row with the Lord about it, for thus fixing, predestinating and unalterably decreeing the thing the way He did? It seems to us that if the thing does not suit you that the eternal God is the one for you folks to raise a row with; for if your doctrine is the truth, He is the one that is responsible for the matter being as it is. May the good Lord pity the poor deluded mortals who will advocate such a doctrine. C. H. C.
ACTS 10:36-39
September 1, 1925
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother in Christ, I Hope— I see your reply in The Primitive Baptist to one John May on baptism in July 15, and I see that you say Cornelius was the first Gentile to hear the gospel and believe, which I believe. A question: Had the Gentiles ever heard the gospel before that time? Acts 10:36. What word is this that God sent to the children of Israel? Acts 10:37, “That word, I say, ye know.” Does “ye” here refer to Cornelius or to the six brethren that went with Peter down there? If this does not mean the six brethren who went with him, you make it strong. I know it won’t take you long to look this up for me. Acts 10:39: Does Peter mean the apostles or the six that were with him? I have thought he had reference to the six, and if I am wrong make it strong. You know I have to be cited and knocked around a whole lot before I give up. If I am wrong knock both feet from under me. If you just knock out one foot at a time it will take longer to get me down. I don’t love to differ from anyone, and more especially my brethren. I know you don’t have time to fool with me, but I want to know whether that word in Acts 10:37 means the life giving word or the preached word.
[pg 308] I have been having some good meetings. Had some additions to the churches while I was in the West Tennessee Association. Am just out of a four days meeting at Brush Creek. At Mt. Zion, in my association, had no additions, but good interest. If Brother John R. Harris, at Thornton, Ark., ever learns what to say to get them to come in, I want him to tell us through The Primitive Baptist and then I will go back to Mt. Zion and say it and get those old “highlanders” to come in and take up their abode with us. I said all I knew to say. They seemed to enjoy the preaching, but we did not get them to come in. If we could tell the secret of fellowship I believe we could get them to come; but the Old Baptists have a secret they can’t tell, and the Masons have a secret they are not allowed to tell. “A good understanding have all they that do His commandments.” May the Lord help us to live in a way that the little children may be encouraged to turn in with us. I did not think of writing as I have. Please answer my question through THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST when you have time. May the Lord bless you and yours. Pray for me. I am, I hope, your little brother in Christ,
J. W. Lomax.
719 S. Third St., Paducah, Ky.
REMARKS
If the Gentiles had ever before heard the gospel we have no record of it. The brethren in Judea heard of the visit of Peter and the brethren to the house of Cornelius, and at the same time they also heard that the Gentiles had received the word of God. See Acts 11:1. Did they hear the truth? Yes. Then this was when the Gentiles received the word of God. See Acts 15:7 “Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel and believe.” It was by the mouth of Peter that the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel. This was God’s choice. As this was God’s choice, this was the first gospel sermon the Gentiles had ever heard.
[pg 309] The word that the Gentiles heard was the same word that the Jews had previously heard, and the word which the Jews already knew. Peter was addressing the brethren who accompanied him when he said, “That word, I say, ye know.” The first thing the apostle said in his discourse at the house of Cornelius was addressed to the brethren who went with him. He had previously thought the Lord’s people were confined to the Jews; but he had been convinced of the fact that the Lord had a people among the Gentiles, so he said, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him.” He found a man among the Gentiles who was a devout man; one that feared God, and prayed to God always. In the vision before he went to the house of Cornelius the voice had said,”What God hath cleansed.” God had already done the work of cleansing, which is done by the Spirit. When Peter and his brethren got there he found that it was so, that God had a people among the Gentiles, and he so informed the brethren with him; and told them that they knew the word which had been spoken by the apostles. God regenerates the sinner without the preacher, and he had been preaching that doctrine, and so had the other apostles, and those brethren knew it; and now here is evidence of the truthfulness of that doctrine right before your eyes. Now, Brother Lomax, if you can get any consolation from what we have written, we are glad of it. We are glad to hear of your good meetings. May the Lord’s blessing continue with you. Our brethren want you to visit them in Arkansas again. Remember us in your prayers. C. H. C.
[pg 310]
THE INFANT QUESTION
September 1, 1926
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— On page 8 of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of May 15, 1925, under the heading,”Some Questions,” I want to say a few words and ask two or three questions, and hope you will give me the desired information. Fifth question: “Who can keep the commandments?”Your answer is,”The living children of God can keep the gospel commandments; and all people can keep the moral commandments to live honestly and uprightly.” Do you believe God’s children who do not know the commandments can keep them? Do you believe either God’s people or those who are not God’s people can keep the commandments, of either gospel or moral class, without the will power to do so? No question as to whether or not all have physical power to do either of the commandments, but the mind is the supreme court of all living beings, and without the consent of the mind the body is powerless to act rationally, and if not rationally it would be worthless. Referring to questions 6 and 7 you say the non-elect do not die in infancy. How do you know, or what Scriptures do you rely upon to sustain what you say? I have not been able to find any Scripture that sustains your answer, according to my knowledge and belief. Seventh answer is all right, I think. Please answer in your paper, so all can learn. In sincerity, J. I Caneer.
Montebello, Calif.
REMARKS
In our answers to the questions above referred to, of course, it was understood that the child of God who knows the commandments is the one who can keep them. All people know that it is right to live moral lives, and they can do so. If they cannot, then they are not responsible and are not blameworthy. No blame rests upon a man for doing what he cannot help doing; and if a man cannot live morally, then he cannot help living immorally. [pg 311] If he cannot help living immorally, and yet is punished for it, then the punishment is not just.
The servant that knows not the Master’s will, nor does it, is beaten with few stripes. No doubt it is frequently the case that some are willfully ignorant. They do not investigate as they should. They may neglect to study, and on account of that neglect, they may fail to know the Master’s will. God’s people have a will for holiness and righteousness, though they may sometimes act in such a way as to cause others to doubt them. While they have that will for holiness and righteousness, which springs from the divine life which God has given them, yet they still have the old nature that is poisoned with sin, and have that old nature to contend with.
Now, with reference to the infant, we will refer to Mark 10:15 “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.” Now, Luke 18:17“Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.” In Mark’s description he uses the term little child, which word in the original is used sometimes with reference to children in youth; but Luke uses the word translated infants in Luke 18:15, which is not used in referring to older children, but the original word is used with reference to small children, and sometimes used with reference to the child in the mother’s womb, even before the natural birth. We call attention to this to show that it does not refer to old people young in Christ. It refers to babes in the mother’s arms.
The Master does not say, “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as this little child,” referring to [pg 312] some special or particular child, but “as a little child.” Luke 18:17 He uses the indefinite article— a
“Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God AS a little child,” etc. If an adult receives the kingdom of God as a little child, then a little child does not miss it. If a little child misses the kingdom, and you receive it as a little child, then you miss it, too. Therefore, if a little child misses the kingdom, it will be a universal damnation for all the adult race of Adam. If one of the adult family of Adam is saved, or receives the kingdom, then a little child does not miss it.
From our understanding of the matter, no other Scripture is necessary to prove our position. May the Lord bless these few words to the good of the reader. C. H. C.
MOUNTAIN SPRINGS ASSOCIATION
September 15, 1925
We have just attended the Mountain Springs Association, which met with Fullers Chapel Church in North Little Rock. A good crowd was present each day— Friday, Saturday and first Sunday in September. The ministers present were Elders J. H. Fisher, Newcastle, Texas; C. J. Holcomb, Ft. Worth,Texas; P. E. Whitwell, Poplar Bluff, Mo.;A. D. Cencibaugh, Donaldson, Ark.; T. P. McCain, Gumlog, Ark.; J. D. Elkins, Blevins, Ark.; J. J. Brown, Clarksville, Ark.; C. M. Monk, Abbott, Ark.; F. H. Inman, Roselle, Mo.; J. Sandage, Donaldson, Ark.; H. J. Woodruff, Sardis, Tenn.; E. W. Hargett, Donaldson, Ark.; and C. H. Cayce, besides their home ministers. Elder J. H. O’Neal was [pg 313] moderator and Brother J. N. O’Neal was clerk. There was not a discordant note sounded in the preaching. No hobby riding. All preached peace by Jesus Christ, and peace and love abounded. All seemed glad to be there and to meet each other, and rejoiced in the good things of the kingdom. The Lord’s presence was felt and manifested, and it was a good meeting. The next session of the association is appointed to be held with Bethlehem Church, at Bee Branch, Ark. C. H. C.
ELDER W. S. BROOM
September 15, 1925
We should have made this announcement before now, but having so many things to look after and attend to we just overlooked it. At our regular meeting in Fordyce in July (we think it was July) Elder W. S. Broom was present and offered himself for membership in our church, and was gladly received. He joined by relation, or on confession of faith, as it is sometimes termed. His membership has been at Tioga, Texas. He had just been down in Louisiana in the section where they had the Jamestown peace meeting, and having seen the good effect of that meeting, and being tired of war and confusion, he desired a home with those who are laboring for peace, and so asked for a home with us, which was gladly granted him. He left immediately after the meeting for Mississippi, and he is still visiting among the brethren. May the Lord bless his labors for the benefit of His dear children. C. H. C.
[pg 314]
ANOTHER MOVE FOR PEACE
October 15, 1925
For quite awhile there has been a difference between the Salem and the First Oklahoma Associations, growing out of some matters at Little Flock Church. During our recent trip in that section of country, in Arkansas, we were at Little Flock Church on September 15th. Elders A. D. West, B. M. Green and J. M. Newman were present. These brethren presented the following resolution as a basis upon which the differences existing might be done away and the trouble all settled between the two bodies. The resolutions were unanimously adopted by Little Flock Church, and those brethren said they believed their churches would adopt the same. If they do, then the differences between these churches and associations will all be settled. We were so glad to see this done and to see such steps taken. Fellowship Church, at Hon, also adopted the same resolutions on the 16th or 17th, the day we were there, as that church was also involved in the trouble. We were so glad to see them so ready and willing to settle any trouble or differences that might exist. The only way to really settle trouble is to confess our wrongs and ask forgiveness, and to forgive those whom we think have wronged us. When we are in the spirit to confess our own wrongs it requires but little effort to settle troubles. May the good Lord help us all to confess our wrongs, and may peace and prosperity be restored to our bleeding and beloved Zion. C. H. C.
THE RESOLUTIONS
Forasmuch as conditions in our beloved Zion are such as the hearts of many of the saints of God are torn and bleeding over our [pg 315] distressed condition on account of differences between some of the churches in the Salem Association and the First Primitive Baptist Association of Oklahoma, and inasmuch as we realize that we are all poor, finite, fallible beings, depending alone on the merits of a crucified Lord, and believing it to be to the glory of God, and desiring peace, union, love and sweet fellowship to be restored, be it, therefore,
Resolved, That we, Little Flock Church, confess our wrongs, errors, mistakes and sins, of whatsoever nature they may be, to any and all of our dear sister churches in particular, and to all our dear brethren and sisters in general, and ask their forgiveness, assuring them by these presents and this, our official act, we freely forgive all.
Be it further, Resolved, That we reaffirm our faith in the principles upon which we, as a church, were constituted.
Be it further Resolved, That we will endeavor to keep the unity of the faith in the bonds of peace.
Be it further Resolved, That where members have been excluded at any place and received by another church, that this mutual confession shall be accepted and all wrongs forgiven, which shall mean a restoration of excluded brethren and sisters to our fellowship and a transfer of their membership to the places where they are now.
Done and signed by order of Little Flock Church while in conference on September 16, 1926. Elder C. M. Monk, Moderator.
J. D. Caudle, Clerk.
HERESY AND HERETICS
October 15, 1925
On another page in this paper will be found an article from Brother John R. Havens, of Santa Anna, Texas, under the above heading. Brother Havens takes us and our contributors to task on account of the use of the word heresy, and this has caused us to look diligently for the meaning of that word in the original language, as well as in English.
[pg 316] We have never met Brother Havens, though we would be glad to do so. We have learned to love him from his writings. It is not our intention to wound his feelings, nor do we wish to wound the feelings of any. We feel sure that many of God’s dear children are wrong, both in doctrine and in practice— some are wrong in one, and some are wrong in the other, and some are wrong in both. We may be wrong ourselves. But if we are, we desire to know the truth. There is no real or lasting comfort or joy in believing a false doctrine; and real and true happiness comes from practicing the truth. “If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.” We desire to know the truth and then to live in harmony with it.
We are free to confess and to say that many of us— and most of us — have been too bitter and have engaged too much in war with our brethren. Many times when we have differed we have magnified the difference, instead of trying to minimize the difference and endeavoring to stay together. We feel sure that this is wrong; and it is no wonder that our people are divided into so many factions. We should labor and strive for the things that make for peace, and the things wherewith we may edify one another, instead of laboring to divide and to destroy one another.
If a brother makes a hobby of any point, and thus stirs up strife and confusion, and will not desist, or quit it, if the church would simply withdraw from him and let him remain out until he is willing to cease such hobby riding, it would save much trouble in our ranks. It would have saved some of the divisions that have taken place in our day. This principle is the same, no [pg 317] matter what the hobby might be. But we desire to say just a few things concerning the matter of heresy.
In Gal. 5:19-20,21, we have this language: “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” After investigation we sincerely believe that Brother Havens is mistaken in his view that heresy is not false doctrine. Let us reason a little on the matter before we look at the definition of the word.
Idolatry is here mentioned as one of the works of the flesh; but yet what is it? It is “the worship of idols; the paying of divine homage to false gods or images; also adoration of created or imaginary beings or natural objects or forces; inordinate love or admiration to; fervent devotion.” We may safely say, then, that idolatry is a false worship, a wrong worship. One may be ever so sincere, and honest in the matter, and yet be an idolater. Now, if idolatry is this kind of worship, and yet it is one of the works of the flesh, why may not heresy be a false doctrine and still be one of the works of the flesh? False doctrine does not come from the Lord, any more than false worship comes from Him. If they do not come from the Lord, do they not come from the flesh?
The word heresy in the text is defined by Webster thus: “Religious opinion opposed to the authorized doctrinal standards of any particular church, especially when held by a person holding to the same general [pg 318] faith, and tending to promote schism or separation; lack of orthodox or sound belief; rejection of, or erroneous belief in regard to, some fundamental religious doctrine or truth: heterodoxy. An opinion held in opposition to the established or commonly received doctrine, and tending to promote division or dissension. A characteristic opinion held by a person or a party; a particular body or style of doctrine; a sect.”
Webster defines a heretic thus: “One who holds to a heresy; especially one who, having made a profession of Christian belief, deliberately and pertinaciously upholds a doctrine varying from that of the church, or rejects one prescribed by his church.”
If one holds a view contrary to the Catholic doctrine, in the eye of the Catholic, or from the Catholic standpoint, such a one is a heretic. So if one holds a doctrine contrary to Campbellism, such a one is a heretic from the Campbellite standpoint. In like manner, if one holds a doctrine that is not Primitive Baptist doctrine, or that is contrary to it, then such a one is a heretic, from the Primitive Baptist standpoint. Such a person may be orderly walking, and may be a lover of the truth in every point except that one point. If he holds to that one false doctrine or principle, then from that standpoint he is a heretic. This does not necessarily say, at all, that such a person is a bad man at heart. A man may be a good man in heart and yet be a worshiper of an idol. So a man may be a good man in heart and practice, and yet believe a doctrine which is one of the works of the flesh, or that came from the flesh and not from the Lord. Many of God’s dear children, we are sure, are deceived and led to believe some false doctrine.
Liddell and Scott, the highest authority on the Greek [pg 319] language, define the word translated heresies in Gal. 5:20 thus: “A philosophic principle or set of principles, or those who profess such principles, a sect, a school; a religious party or sect, such as the Essenes, the Sadducees and Pharisees, by them used of the Christians, and by orthodox Christians of those who dissented; especially also of their doctrine, heresy.”
Thayer defines the word thus: “That which is chosen, a chosen course of thought and action; hence, one’s chosen opinion, tenet; according to the context, an opinion varying from the true exposition of the Christian faith (heresy). A body of men separating themselves from others and following their own tenets (a sect or party), as the Sadducees; the Pharisees; the Christians; dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims; Gal. 5:20; 1Cor. 11:19.”
We believe that these definitions given of the word are sufficient. We trust that Brother Havens will take what we say here in kindness. We regard him as a child of God, and trust we have due respect for his feelings and for his position in the matter. May the good Lord bless and keep and sustain him in all his trials and conflicts, is our humble prayer. We should all try to be careful in our expressions and try not to unnecessarily wound the feelings of any of the Lord’s dear children.
We would be glad to see all our people once more united, who are standing together upon the fundamental principles of the gospel, and all striving for the things that make for peace, and leaving those things alone that cause strife and confusion. May the good Lord help us all.
C. H. C.
[pg 320]
ISAIAH 5:8
December 1, 1925
Brother A. Dodson, of Plains, Ga., asks us to give our views through the paper on Isa. 5:8, and asks if it applies to anything being built now. The text reads, “Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth.” In the marginal reference the word ye appears for the word they, so that the sense is this,”that ye may be placed alone in the midst of the earth.”
There is sufficient in this text for a long article, but we do not have time to write at length upon the subject. The language was to national Israel, and they were typical of spiritual Israel. In some sense that text belongs to the church today, and is to be applied to the church.
There is some building going on today. Some may be building of wood, hay, stubble; and some may be building of gold, silver, precious stones (1 Cor. 3:12-13). There may be some working in the Lord’s vineyard, though they may be doing very little. As they labor, they may join in with others, join house to house and field to field.
When the church of God joins house to house, or field to field, with the nations around, then there is no place left for them in all the earth. The Lord’s church or kingdom is not to be like any other, nor is it like any other. To join house to house or field to field with other folks is to be like others. When they are like others, they are not like the Lord’s kingdom or church. There cannot be two things that are alike, and those things be [pg 321] different. The Lord’s kingdom was to be different from all other kingdoms. If they do just as other folks, and practice the same things that other folks do, they would not be different from others; then there would be no place left for them in all the earth. Israel were a peculiar people, unlike any other nation. So the Lord’s church is peculiar, and to be unlike any other church or kingdom. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” Others are of this world. If the church uses and practices the same things that the world uses and practices, then they would be just like the others—of the world. When one of the Lord’s churches goes into the practice of the things of the world, the inventions of men, she finally loses her identity or becomes extinct.
To join in with the world in their worship and service is to join house to house and field to field. The secret orders of the day have their prayers and ritual services. They have their forms of worship. To join in with them is to join house to house and field to field, and to do so is to bring distress and final destruction. The Lord pronounced the woe. We may think it necessary to do as others do, and to allow what they allow, and to join in with them in order that we prosper. If we think that way, we think wrong. God’s way is better than our way. His ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts higher than our thoughts. We think wrong many times; but God’s thoughts are always right. He did not promise a blessing upon Israel when they join house to house, or field to field, with the nations around, but He pronounced a woe upon them that thus do. The same thing applies to His church today, for Israel were a typical people, representing spiritual Israel today.
Suppose the Old Baptists were to engage in and [pg 322] practice the many things that other orders engage in and practice today. Where would the Old Baptists be? Would there be any Old Baptists? Certainly not. They are different, and must remain different in order to retain and maintain their identity.
These are just a few of our thoughts in connection with the text. If any other brother feels like writing some more we will appreciate it; but we do not have time to write more now. May the Lord bless the same to the good of our readers. C. H. C.
INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME 41
January 1, 1926
This issue begins the forty-first volume of The Primitive Baptist. The time seems to be short since the first issue of the paper was sent out from Fulton, Ky., January 1, 1886, just forty years ago, by our sainted father, Elder S. F. Cayce. He continued to edit the paper until he fell asleep, while actively engaged in the service, on the fourth Sunday in August, 1905, while preaching the closing discourse at the Collins River Association in Tennessee, near McMinnville. Thus he was editor of the paper almost twenty years. Since that time we have been trying, as best we could, to fill the place as editor of the paper, now a little more than twenty years. As to how well that has been done, is for others to say. We are very well aware of the fact that we have made mistakes, and if we continue to live, no doubt we will make more. There is just one kind of man who makes no mistakes, and that is a dead one. “The man who never made a mistake, never made [pg 323] anything.” This is true, as far as human beings are concerned. We cannot promise our readers now, in the beginning of this volume, that we will make no mistakes. Yet we do not desire to make them, and when we do make them, and find that we have done so, it is our desire to correct them, as far as possible.
We believe the same doctrine now that was set forth in the first issue of the paper, and which has been maintained in the columns of the paper since that time. We have found no reason for any change along that line. Those principles have been loved and cherished by the humble followers of the Master in all ages, and they are just as true now as they have ever been. There have been many changes along the line during the past forty years, as well as along the line before, but principles have not changed. Principles are eternal and never change. Whatever is a principle of truth today has ever been a principle of truth. Truth continues to live, and cannot be destroyed. It may be “crushed to earth, but it will rise again.” We desire that the same principles of eternal truth may still be maintained in the columns of The Primitive Baptist that have characterized the Primitive Baptists as being a separate and distinct people from the world in the years and ages past. If the good Lord spares our life so that we may live through the coming year our humble desire is to labor for the peace of Zion, and to try to unify the Lord’s dear children. The purpose of the gospel of the grace of God—or one purpose of it— is that the Lord’s people may “come into the unity of the faith.” The plain and simple truth of the gospel does not divide and confuse the Lord’s little children. But when we fail to “avoid foolish and unlearned questions, which do gender [pg 324] strife,” then strife and confusion comes as a result. Let us all try to avoid such, and let us all endeavor to strive together for the peace of the gospel and for the peace of our beloved Zion,
THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST has increased some during the past year, but it is not yet what it was before the war and before the “slump” came a few years ago. We trust that our corresponding editors and all our brethren in the ministry and all our readers will put forth a special effort this year to increase the circulation of the paper. We very much desire to make the paper a weekly again, but the circulation is not yet enough to enable us to do that. Will you, each one, try this year and see how many new subscribers you can send in? Insist on the brethren, sisters or friends subscribing for the paper. Ask them to do so, and then ask them again, if they do not subscribe at once. Send us their names so we can send them a copy of the paper occasionally, so they can see what kind of articles the paper contains in these trying times, and then ask them again to let you send in their subscription. You can help much in this way, and not be much expense to you. Will you try it?
We are now, at this writing, in Hohenwald, Tenn. Have been in this section, in the bounds of the Buffalo River Association, for several days. By oversight, on account of being from home, we failed to write an article for last issue on the close of volume forty. Besides, we had so much to do, and manuscript to prepare for the paper, and letters to answer, we did not take the time to think about what was needed along that line. We hope soon to have our affairs so arranged [pg 325] that we can keep up with these matters better and also do more writing for the paper.
Some of our corresponding editors have taken an active part during the past year in writing for the paper and also in sending subscribers. We appreciate that, and trust they will continue to do that, and we also trust the others may be stirred up to a little more activity along these lines. Brethren, let us all awake. The times look brighter to us, the prospects look better to us, for our people, now than they have for years. Many of the Lord’s children are tired of war and confusion, and peace is being restored in so many places where they have had trouble and confusion. Truly it seems that the winter is almost over and that the time of spring is about here and the voice of the turtle will once more be heard in the land, and the time of rejoicing is coming— really, it is already begun. We have seen so many of the Lord’s dear children rejoice during the past year over the restoration of peace. May the Lord be praised, and may He help us to live more devoted to Him and closer to each other. Brethren and sisters, will you please pray the Lord to help us live to His honor and conduct THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST in a way that will benefit His humble poor and be a blessing to His cause? C. H. C.
MORE EDITORIAL HELP
January 1, 1926
After considering the matter for sometime we requested Elder W. A. Bishop, of Jackson, Tenn., to allow us to place his name on our editorial staff as one of our corresponding editors, and he has granted our request. [pg 326] In another column of this paper will be found an article from him granting this request.. Brother Bishop is moderator of the old Mississippi River Association. In our young days we were frequently in attendance at the sessions of that association and frequently visited the churches in the bounds of the same. That is the old home association of that great man of God, Elder W. W. Sammons, who filled up the measure of his days some years ago and was “gathered to his fathers.” The memory of that old servant of God is sweet to us yet. Many happy seasons have we spent with the dear people in years gone by where Elder Bishop is now identified — that is, in that association. We are glad to have Brother Bishop take a place on our editorial staff. We trust he may be impressed of the Lord to write frequently for our columns, and we pray the Lord to bless his efforts to the good of His people and to the good of the cause. We love Brother Bishop, and we trust that our labors together in the Lord’s vineyard may be blessed of the Lord, and that we may still be drawn more closely together in love and sweet fellowship. Brother Bishop, please pray for us, and may the Lord direct you and keep you, is our humble prayer.
C. H. C.
PEACE RESTORED
January 1, 1926
We were requested some weeks ago to be at Enon Church, in the bounds of the Buffalo River Association, in Middle Tennessee, to meet with that church and sit in a committee with Elders J. M. Fuqua, of Dickson, [pg 327] Tenn., W. A. Bishop, of Jackson, Tenn., and Lee Hanks, of Atlanta, Ga., in an investigation of a trouble that had existed in the bounds of that association, the meeting to be held on the first Sunday in December and Friday and Saturday before. The trouble there seemed to have arisen on account of Elder J. B. Hardy being recognized by two of the churches, when his standing and order among the Baptists was called in question. The trouble had been existing and growing worse for quite awhile, and had resulted in a division in the association.
We left home on Tuesday night, December 1, and arrived in Jackson, Tenn., at about 3:17 Wednesday afternoon. Elder Bishop met us at the train and conveyed us to his home. We filled an appointment at his church that night, where there was a good crowd assembled. We enjoyed a pleasant meeting with those dear brethren and sisters. This seems to be a lively band of Old Baptists. We spent the night with Brother Bishop in his home.
Thursday morning we took the train for Perryville, Tenn., Elder Bishop accompanying us, he having been requested to serve on the committee mentioned above. We had to lie over at Lexington nearly, or about, three hours. A few minutes after we arrived there Brother J. M. Brantley came to the depot looking for us, and took us all to his home, where we enjoyed a few hours wait and had a good dinner. Brother Billie Pope, brother of Elder W. C. Pope, had joined us at Luray. We arrived at Perryville, Tenn., on time and were met by a son of Elder W. C. Pope and conveyed to Brother Pope’s home at Pope, Tenn. Brother Pope had published an appointment for service that night at the schoolhouse near his [pg 328] home. Brother Bishop preached first and delivered a good discourse, which we and others enjoyed, then we tried to talk for a short while. A good crowd was present and gave good attention.
Friday morning the weather was bad and the rain was coming down, but Brother Pope took us all in his car and we started for Union. We arrived there about on time, and quite a crowd had already gathered. Most of the churches in the association were represented there. After preaching service the church was called into conference by Elder W. C. Pope, the pastor of the church, and the church was asked if they were satisfied with the committee who had come at the request of the brethren in that section to help them to settle the trouble that existed among the brethren of their association and among the churches. They voted unanimously that they were satisfied with the committee. Then all the Baptists present were asked if they were satisfied with the committee, and they voted unanimously that they were satisfied, Elder Hardy being among the number. After some other preliminary and miscellaneous matters being attended to, the service was dismissed and the committee went to the home of a Brother Lane near by, and the announcement made as to where the committee would be, and that witnesses would be called or sent for as they might be needed, and that those who knew they would be wanted, or expected to be wanted, should come to Brother Lane’s home as soon as they could, so that the committee might proceed with their work and get through as soon as possible. All the evidence was placed before the committee that night that both sides said they desired to introduce, [pg 329] and both sides said they did not wish to introduce any further evidence.
Saturday morning the congregation was again assembled at the meetinghouse, and the committee said they were ready to make their report at the hour appointed for service. The brethren all decided to hear the report of the committee before proceeding with further service, which report was read, and which follows:
REPORT OF COMMITTEE
We, your committee, having been requested by you to come and investigate the trouble existing among your churches, having heard the evidence that both sides said they desired to introduce, beg leave to make the following report:
We find that mistakes, errors, and wrongs have been done on both sides. We do not deem it advisable or necessary to itemize those wrongs or errors in this writing, but, if necessary, will point them out orally.
Now, we wish to submit the following recommendations:
First: That the brethren and churches on both sides mutually confess your faults and your wrongs to each other and ask forgiveness for all wrongs done, and come together, forgiving each other, and live together in peace and fellowship, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace.
We further recommend that the brethren and sisters of Coon Creek Church confess wrongs to each other and forgive each other of all wrongs done, and come back together as one band of brethren and sisters in the Lord, and thus be a re-united band; forgiving each other of all wrongs and errors committed.
We further recommend that all official work that has been done on both sides since the trouble began to be received and recognized and accepted. This may be done upon the principle of Christian charity, and should be done upon that ground, if for no other reason.
We further recommend that this mutual forgiveness of all wrongs, and mutual confession of wrongs, should include and mean a restoration to fellowship of all those who have been excluded or withdrawn from on account of this trouble; and also a transfer of membership of [pg 330] those who may have joined another church on confession of faith, so that their membership may remain where they are now.
As this trouble seems to have arisen on account of the standing and order of Elder J. B. Hardy being called in question, and as Brother Hardy says that he is willing to do what this committee says in order that his standing and recognition among our people may be unquestioned, we therefore recommend that Brother Hardy go before one of our churches whose standing among our people is unquestioned and lay his case before that church. If that church receives him into her fellowship we are sure that the sister churches would all then recognize Brother Hardy.
We further recommend that all our people leave off the use of expressions that confuse the minds of our dear brethren which are not found in the Bible, and adopt the use of Bible expressions as much as possible on controverted points. Let us all try to labor to unify our dear people, and strive for the things that make for peace and for the things whereby we may edify one another. Signed:
Elder Lee Hanks.
Elder J. M. Fuqua.
Elder C. H. Cayce.
Elder W. A. Bishop.
The foregoing report of the committee was read carefully three times, and then it was adopted by unanimous vote of the Baptists present. Then the brethren began to sing and to extend the hand of fellowship to each other. Thus all confessed their wrongs and mutually forgave each other for all wrongs done. Shouts of praise and thanksgiving to God went up from the mouths and hearts of many of those present as they extended the hand to each other, and many embraced each other in their arms. Many lovers of the cause of the Master, not members of the church, were present and freely shed tears of joy upon seeing the happy settlement of the trouble which had caused so many heartaches and so much distress among the churches. We cannot fully describe [pg 331] the happy scene. How any lover of peace among the Lord’s people and in His churches can object to such meetings and such settlement of troubles is more than we can understand.
On Saturday afternoon Elder Bishop left the meeting to return home to have service there on Sunday or Sunday night, perhaps both. Elder Hardy went with him. Since that time we received the following letter from Elder Bishop, dated December 7:
Elder C. H. Cayce:
It is with pleasure that I write to you that we had a fine meeting yesterday at our church in Jackson. Brother J. B. Hardy preached us a fine discourse. He also united with our church by relation. I hope the Lord is still blessing you with good meetings. Your brother in hope,
W. A. Bishop.
May the good Lord bless all these dear people and help us to live in peace and to live in such a way as to have the love and confidence of each other, is our humble prayer.
The meeting at Enon Church on Sunday was a sweet meeting. The presence, of the Lord was felt in the midst. Elders H. M. Sanders and W. C. Davis were present at the meeting from the West Tennessee Association.
We filled the appointments made for us at Liberty and New Hope Churches. Elder Fuqua was with us at Liberty during the three days there and one day at New Hope. Elder Sanders was with us two days at Liberty. Elder W. C. Campbell conveyed us and was with us at both places, where very pleasant meetings were enjoyed. Elder Fuqua did some of the preaching, which was enjoyed very much.
From New Hope we came to Hohenwald, where we [pg 332] had service Friday night. A large crowd was present and we had good attention. Saturday morning we were conveyed by Dr. (Elder) J. H. Pickard to County Line Church, Giles County, Tenn. This is the old home church of Elder J. M. Johnson, who will be remembered by many of our readers. Seventeen years ago last August we tried to preach the funeral of Elder Johnson and his mother and brother at that place. Several of the sisters are yet living and have membership there. We were glad to meet the dear brethren, sisters and friends at this old church once more. A large crowd was present, especially on Sunday, and the good Lord blessed us with His sweet presence on both days, and the meeting was an enjoyable and a happy one. Elder Cromwell, who lives near the church, Elder Pickard, who lives in Hohenwald, and Elder Miller, from Albany, Ala., were all present.
Today (Monday, Dec. 14) we were to have been at Salem Church, about eighteen miles from Hohenwald. They have been recently building a road between here and that place, and it rained nearly all last night, and those who are acquainted with the roads said they felt sure it was useless to try to get there today. So we had to miss that appointment, and remained here and have been writing all day, writing some for the paper and writing some letters. Tomorrow, the Lord willing, we expect to go to Goshen Church, and then try to fill the remainder of the appointments that have been published for this trip. We trust the dear brethren and sisters will remember us in humble prayer, and also remember our dear ones at home. C. H. C.
[pg 333]
ANOTHER UNPROFITABLE AND
DEPLORABLE STRIFE OF WORDS
January 15, 1926
Under the above heading is an article from the pen of Elder S. Hassell written a number of years ago and published again in the pamphlet,”Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth,” by Elder R. H. Pittman. For the satisfaction of the brethren in the Buffalo River Association in particular, and our brethren elsewhere in general, at the meeting in the Buffalo River Association on Friday and Saturday, December 4 and 5, in adjusting the trouble there, Elder J. B. Hardy submitted the following statement and the article, which we are glad to publish for the benefit of all our brethren. Notice Brother Hardy’s endorsement, and notice carefully the sentiment and doctrine set forth in the article. C. H. C.
ELDER HARDY’S STATEMENT
For the satisfaction of the little people of God, and to prevent further confusion and misunderstanding among them as to my position and teaching on predestination and what is termed conditional time salvation, I wish to state that the following article by Elder Sylvester Hassell fully sets forth my views, and I heartily endorse it. J. B. Hardy.
THE ARTICLE
1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 2:14. I have earnestly labored for years (I hope not without success, which I gladly confess is due entirely to the Lord,) to show that the contention, among Primitive Baptists, in regard to the extension of predestination is, when properly understood, a mere unprofitable and unwholesome strife of words. Every true Baptist believes that God foreknows and controls all things; and no true Baptist believes that God influences or compels His creatures to [pg 334] sin. Thus God’s foreknowledge or predestination of sin is not of a causative or compulsive, but of a permissive, directive, restrictive and overruling character. So far as I am aware, the war, among the most of our brethren, on the extent of predestination seems to have about ended— the vexed question being finally settled on this immutable basis of Scriptural and eternal truth.
Another equally unnecessary and unprofitable verbal contention among a few Primitive Baptists is one similar to, if not connected with, the controversy on predestination. It is the question concerning what is called “the conditionality of time salvation,” and, connected with this, the question as to the ability of the child of God to obey the commandments of his heavenly Father.
All Primitive Baptists are agreed upon the unconditionality of our eternal salvation, and the inability of those who are dead in sin to render spiritual obedience to the law of God. Instead of repentance and faith being conditions prerequisite to salvation, we understand that they are the work of the Holy Spirit in the renewed heart, and are thus essential parts of salvation; and, until this spiritual renewal, the fallen child of Adam will love sin and hate holiness and continue in rebellion against God.
But there is an apparent disagreement in two or three of our associations, among worthy and lovely brethren, who would be heartily fellowshipped and gladly welcomed by other Primitive Baptists everywhere, as to whether our time salvation, that is, our deliverance from spiritual darkness, coldness, distress, and chastisement during the present life is conditioned or dependent upon our obedience to God, and as to whether the child of God is able to obey God or not.
Now, even the authors of dictionaries have no right to manufacture or change the meanings of words; their business is simply to ascertain and state the meanings which words actually and already have in the language of which they treat. It would be deceptive to use words in a different sense from that which they generally have, unless we explain the sense which we mean. The most of controversies are strifes of words; and when words are properly defined, and their correct meaning is accepted by both parties, the controversy ends.
A “condition” is defined by the best of English dictionaries to be “an event, object, fact, or being that is necessary to the occurrence [pg 335] or existence of some other, though not its cause; a prerequisite; that which must exist as the occasion or concomitance of something else; that which is requisite in order that something else should take effect; an essential qualification.” And these dictionaries say that the word “if” is “the typical conditional particle, and is nearly always used to introduce the subordinate clause of a conditional sentence,” and means “on the supposition that; provided, or on condition that; in case that, granting, allowing, or supposing that.”
There are 1,422 “ifs” in the Bible— 830 in the Old Testament, and 592 in the New Testament; and these conditional sentences make up about one-fiftieth part of the Bible. Thus forty-nine fiftieths of the Scriptures are unconditional, and one fiftieth is conditional. All reverent minds must admit that this conditional part of the Scriptures, though comparatively small, has a real and true meaning.
It cannot be denied by any informed and honest man that such Scriptures as the following are conditional: “If His children forsake my law, I will visit their transgression with the rod, nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from Him.” (Psa. 89:30-33) “If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land; but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” Isa. 1:19-20) “If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.” (John 13:17) “If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye, through the Spirit, do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.” (Rom. 8:13) “How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?” (Heb. 2:3) “If we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin.” (1 John 1:7) See, also such Scriptures as Lev. 26; Deut. 4:29-31; 7:12-26; 11:13-32; 28; Ezek. 18; 33.
Not only is it certain that these Scriptures are conditional, but it is equally certain that the condition, introduced by “if,” necessarily precedes the conclusion, which would not take place unless the condition took place first. If the conclusion in these sentences means eternal punishment, then Arminianism is true; but either the text itself, or the context and other Scriptures, prove that the punishment or chastisement threatened in case of disobedience, is [pg 336] temporal and corrective, and not eternal and destructive, for God gives His children eternal life, and they shall never perish, and though their voluntary sins separate them from His face, nothing present or future can ever separate them from His love. (John 10:28-30; Heb. 12; Isa. 59:2; Rom. 8:28-39) The conditionality of time salvation is just as certain as the truth of the eternal word of God. Baptists have always heretofore understood it so; nearly all Baptists understand it so now; and this truth is in perfect accordance with Christian experience. And if the living child of God, having the indwelling of the Spirit of life and grace, which makes him alive, is not able to obey heartily and sincerely, though imperfectly, the commandments of his heavenly Father, his real state does not differ from that of those who are dead in sin. Of course he can do nothing spiritual or acceptable to God except by that Spirit of grace; but that Spirit dwells in him; (John 14:16-17; Rom. 8:9-17; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:22) and he “can do all things through Christ, who strengthens him;” (Phil. 4:13) and he well knows and loves to confess that he has nothing good which he did not receive from God, and that without Christ he can do nothing, and that, by the grace of God, he is what he is— a poor, hell-deserving sinner, saved by grace— a brand plucked from the eternal burning. (1 Cor. 4:7; James 1:17; John 15:5; 1 Cor. 15:10; 1 Tim. 1:15; Zech. 3:2) And he knows just as well, both from the Scriptures and his own experience, that, in willful disobedience to God, he does not enjoy that spiritual comfort which he has in obedience. All the children of God are as assured of these truths as they are of their own existence; and bitter contention over them is wholly unnecessary, unprofitable, unwholesome, and subverting. The entire Scriptural truth about any matter unites, comforts, and edifies the children of God; while a contention for a part of the truth for the whole truth divides, distresses, and overthrows them. Truth is spherical; we must look at it on all sides to understand it at all aright. Extremes are dangerous; let us avoid them as we would the verge of a fatal precipice. “Let our moderation be known unto all men— the Lord is at hand.” (Phil. 4:5)
God is the only independent and absolute Being in the universe; not for one instant does any other being cease to be, both naturally and spiritually, dependent upon Him. All our sins come from ourselves alone, and with confusion of face we must take all the [pg 337] shame for them, and not charge them in any way upon our holy Creator— upon His foreknowledge, or predestination, or the partial withdrawal of His Spirit of grace, for well do we know that such a blasphemous imputation would be the grossest of sins; while all our salvation from sin and its consequences comes from God, who deserves and will receive every particle of the glory of it.
While fear and hope are in the conditional Scriptures, recognized and addressed as strong motives to human action, pure, self-denying love is set forth, in the Scriptures, as the highest and strongest motive that can actuate any being; the motive which assimilates us most to the character of the Three-One-God, who is Love, and who saves His people because of His eternal and infinite love of them. Without this divine motive in our hearts, our services cannot be acceptable to God, and we can never enter that “heaven above, where all is love, “or, if we could enter the home of eternal love, we could not enjoy its holy delights.
Man is not an unthinking, involuntary, irresponsible machine. He can and should be moral— it will be better for him in this world; but it is far better for him to be spiritual, and to be thus prepared for heaven. I believe that all right-minded Primitive Baptists will accept these Scriptural truths. Such acceptance would put an end to the useless and ruinous strife of words on this subject. S. H.
APPOINTMENTS CALLED IN
January 15, 1926
In the last issue of the THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST some appointments were published for us, as arranged by Elder M. E. Petty. We have received a letter or two from others that they did not think it best for us to make the trip at the present time. For this reason we call in the appointments and will not now make the trip. We trust this will cause no serious disappointment, and that no one will think hard of us for taking this step. We are informed that the peace meeting is appointed [pg 338] to be held with the church at New Hope, in Grady County, Ga., on Friday, Saturday and fifth Sunday in January. We are also informed that some do not approve of the meeting. Of course we do not know what is expected to be done at the meeting, more than to try to get the brethren together who are divided in that country. It appears to us that an effort to reconcile brethren who are separated is commendable and according to the Scriptures. Certainly the Lord does require His children to live together in peace, and to walk in love.
We have a letter or two telling us that they did not think best for us to visit that section or those churches at this time. We also have letters insisting that we attend the peace meeting. For this reason we have called in the appointments. We expect, the Lord willing, to attend the peace meeting, but will fill no appointments before the meeting, and will not fill any after the meeting, unless it is desired by the brethren. C. H. C.
REMARKS TO ELDER LEE HANKS
February 1, 1926
We do not object, at all, to the sentiment expressed in the above from Brother Hanks, but we think that he is mistaken as to the time of the conversation which took place as to who should betray the Saviour. Matthew and Mark both show very clearly that this conversation took place while they were eating the Passover supper. And while that conversation was taking place Jesus gave a sop, or what we now call gravy, to Judas, and John tells us that Judas went immediately out. [pg 339] Immediately means at once. He did not stay there longer. As this took place while they were eating the Passover, then Judas went out while they were eating the Passover. After that Jesus took the bread and wine, which is the substance of the Passover supper, and instituted the sacramental supper, and then He washed the disciples’ feet. We do not suppose that this matter is of vital importance, but felt that it would be right for us to state, in connection with the article from Brother Hanks, how we understand the matter as to the order of these occurrences— that is, the order in which they occurred. C. H. C.
JUDAS AND THE SACRAMENTAL SUPPER
February 15, 1926
A sister asks us if Judas was in the sacramental supper, and she says, “I do not think the Lord set up His church here on earth with a devil in it. I may be wrong; if I am, I sure do want someone to enlighten me on this.” To this sister we would say, that Judas was in the church, and was sent out by the Saviour with the other eleven to preach.
Thus have we an example and the lesson that some bad folks get in the church, and even
occupy the pulpit. But Judas was not in the sacramental supper. The Saviour instituted the sacramental supper at the time He ate the last Passover supper with His disciples. Now get your Bible and turn to Matt. 26:17-25 read verses 17 to 25 inclusive. Then turn to Mark 14:12-21 and read verses 12 to 21 inclusive. These [pg 340] records show very clearly that while they were eating the Passover supper the conversation was engaged in as to who should betray the Saviour. Now turn to John 13:18-32. In these verses John tells of the same conversation recorded by Matthew and Mark as to who should betray the Saviour, and remember that this conversation was engaged in while they were eating the passover supper. John has it recorded that Jesus told who it was that should betray Him by saying,”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.”— John 13:26. There is no sop in the sacramental supper, but there was sop in the Passover supper.
Then in verse 30 John says, “He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.” This makes the matter very clear that Judas left or went out while they were eating the Passover supper. Then Jesus took the bread and wine, the substance of the Jewish pass— over supper, and instituted the sacramental supper. Read now Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25.
Now go again to John 13:1-17 and you will find the account of what the Saviour did, which account was omitted by the other writers. After giving the account of what the Saviour did, John goes back and relates the conversation which took place, corroborating what the other writers had said concerning that conversation, which took place while they were eating the Passover. C. H. C.
[pg 341]
ORDERED NAME DROPPED
February 15, 1926
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— Please discontinue my subscription for The Primitive Baptist. I do not think you are keeping your word to me, that you would not print anything from either side, the Wilson faction and the Danville Church. You have kept your word as to the Danville brethren, but you have printed all the music you could get from Mr. Wilson. I did not think you would go off after an excluded faction, but you have. It’s all over here in N. C. Every association has cut correspondence with the Bear Creek except one (Silver Creek, I believe), and the brethren and sisters who are tired and sick of their trouble over Wilson are declaring non-fellowship for J. R. Wilson and his followers and coming out from among them. I do hope that the Lord will help His bleeding Zion to overcome their trial here, and at last take them home where there will be no leading sharks to molest them, or make them afraid. Respty.,
C. B. Owen.
Salisbury, N. C.
REMARKS
Now, don’t you know we will have to quit and go out of business since Brother Owen has ordered us to discontinue his subscription? And is not the above a “stunner?” How does he know what “music” we have received that we did not— publish, since we have not told him about it? There used to be some folks who were “wise in their own conceits.” Perhaps there are some more of them in the present age.
Suppose we have gone off, as Brother Owen says we have. According to the doctrine of the leaders of the crowd he is in line with, the eternal God, from all eternity, absolutely and unconditionally predestinated, unalterably fixed and decreed that we should do just what we have done, and we could not, by any sort of [pg 342] means, do otherwise. The things we have done were in the chain of events which the eternal God molded in eternity, even before time, and they could not possibly be otherwise than the way they were. The Lord molded and welded and fixed the chain of events, and they had to be just that way. So, why are you raising a complaint with us about it? We only carried out God’s will and His absolute predestination. So did Elder Wilson, according to the doctrine of the leaders you are following and are in line with. You fellows are trying to tear up God’s predestination. But we suppose, if your heathenish doctrine is the truth, God absolutely predestinated that you should try to tear up His absolute predestination. May the good Lord pity the poor dupes who will be deceived by such blasphemous, God-dishonoring, devil-inspiring doctrine. C. H. C.
THE WORD SHALL
March 1, 1926
Dear Brother Cayce: I am writing to let you know to discontinue my paper, as I believe it is best to do without the paper than to read something I do not believe. I learned to love you years ago through your paper before this unholy war began between the dear children of God. And to think you would depart so far from the truth as to even publish such a piece as J. R. Wilson’s in the Jan. 1st issue of your, paper; rating the holy word of your Lord and Master as a little phrase was enough to offend any Old Baptist. Don’t you believe every will and shall between the lids of that holy Book will be fulfilled in His own good time? For He has said, “Surely, as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand.” If He is a God that changes not, how can we ever change one degree of His word? While we do not, of a certainty, believe [pg 343] He causes us to sin, or is the author of confusion and strife, yet if He saw the end from the beginning, He saw our evil deeds as well as our good ones, and they are just as sure to come. Yet I believe He will give us all a desiring heart to do good, and will enable us to plant our foot on every temptation we should shun.
We are told that by Him all things are created. If He created all things then surely He didn’t leave out one. And how can we read Isa. 45:7 “I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things,” and believe otherwise? Or are you like Elder Fisher in his book of why he left the New School Baptists, trying to reform the Old Baptists? I pray the Lord He may show you, as He did him, that you will get drowned.
I do hate about the trouble, for I believe it is more over words, than anything else; and I truly hope this winter season between our dear people may cease. Your sister in hope,
Mrs. W. G. Carson.
Low Gap, N. C.
REMARKS
Now, please read the above letter again carefully, and let us examine it for a few moments. Of course we stop the paper. Of course the good sister does not read things she does not believe. But she says we have departed from the truth. We do not see how that can be. We never knew of a person departing from a place they have never been. If that Mohammedan doctrine of the absolute and unconditional predestination of all things that come to pass is the truth, then we never departed from that, for we never did believe it; and one has never departed from a belief he never had. Did he, Sister Carson?
Sister Carson, Elder Wilson never said that the word of our Lord and Master was a little phrase. He said the word “shall” is a little phrase, meaning a small word. Is it not strange that some people will get so full of [pg 344] prejudice that they cannot even correctly read or quote what a brother says?
Sister Carson asks if we do not believe that every will and shall between the lids of the holy Book will be fulfilled. Sister Carson, suppose we ask you to read your own question, and allow us to ask you if you believe every shall in the Bible will be fulfilled? Do you? Let us read: “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it.”— Gen. 2:16-17. The words “thou shalt not,” mean the same as “you shall not.” In our present day English now, Sister Carson, the Lord said, “You shall not.” Do you believe that the man did not, or do you believe that he did? If you say you believe he did not, then you admit you do not believe the Bible, for it testifies that he did. If you say you believe that he did, then you admit that at least one shall is not fulfilled. Which horn of the dilemma will you take?
Now let us notice the text quoted: “Surely as I have thought, so shall it stand.” Is that all of the sentence? No; but it continues, “That I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot.” Does that prove that God purposed all things that come to pass? Not by a whole lot. It only proves that God purposed to punish the Assyrians for their wickedness, and that He will surely bring that punishment upon them.
Sister Carson, let us read Num. 14:23,34 “Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it:” “After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, [pg 345] shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years and ye shall know my breach of promise.” Can you harmonize this with your doctrine that God absolutely and unconditionally predestinated everything that comes to pass, and that everything has to be just as it is? Let us kindly ask some questions: Did not the Lord swear unto their fathers that He would give them the land of Canaan? Did He not promise them the land? Did the Lord intend, when He made the promise and swore to it, that these people should have the land of Canaan? Did He swear a lie? If He did not, then He meant what He promised, did He not? Did He not determine that they should not do what He swore they would do? Did He not say they shall not see the land? Did He not promise it to them— the promise being made to their fathers? Did He not say, “Ye shall know my breach of promise?” The marginal reference to. “breach of promise” says, “altering of my purpose.” Was there a change in His purpose in any way? If not, how could there be an altering of His purpose? Was there a breach of His promise? If not, how could they “know my breach of promise?” Did not the Lord say they “shall” know it? Here is something that no person in all this wide world can harmonize with the doctrine that God did from all eternity absolutely and unconditionally predestinate, fix and decree, all things that come to pass in the world. Will one of them try it? We would like to see him make the effort.
Sister Carson says,”I believe He will give us all a desiring heart to do good, and will enable us to plant our foot on every temptation we should shun.” Then according to this, we should yield to every temptation we do yield to. David had Uriah put in the front of the [pg 346] battle so he would be killed so he could have Uriah’s wife. David had committed adultery with Uriah’s wife. According to the doctrine Sister Carson says she believes, David did right in committing adultery with Uriah’s wife, and did right in having Uriah killed, because the Lord did not, according to Sister Carson, enable David to put his foot on those temptations, and she says the Lord enables them to put their foot on every temptation they should shun. Therefore, David should not have shunned those temptations; and, as he should not have shunned them, he should have yielded to them; and, as he should have yielded to them, it was right for him to do those things; and, if it was right for David to do those things, it is also right for us to do those things now. If not, why not? If that doctrine is true, it is right to do wrong. How could there be any such thing as wrong, if that doctrine be true?
Sister Carson refers to Isa. 45:7, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” If the evil in this text is sin and wickedness, then no man under heaven can escape the conclusion that God is the author and the instigator of it. Is He not the author of all things that He created? Why say you do not believe that God is the author of sin and wickedness, and then quote this text to prove that God creates it? If one believes that God creates the sin and wickedness, then he believes that God is the author of it. He could not believe otherwise. Then when he says he does not believe God is the author of it, he does not tell the truth. The evil mentioned in that text is not sin and wickedness, but it is punishment for sin and wickedness. It has reference to the same thing as Amos, iii. 6, “Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, [pg 347] and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” Verse 2 of the same chapter shows very clearly that the evil is punishment for their wickedness. It says, “You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.”
According to the doctrine Sister Carson advocates, as well as those other Absoluters who are fighting Elder Wilson, the Lord in eternity forged and welded the chain of events just as they come to pass; He absolutely and unconditionally predestinated, unalterably fixed and decreed every event just as it comes to pass, so that it could not possibly be any other way. If that doctrine be true, we had to do everything we. have done, and Elder Wilson had to do everything he has done. God fixed it that you should have the war in your ranks in that country. It is according to God’s will and pleasure, according to your doctrine. God fixed it that way. So your doctrine says. If He fixed it that way, and it is according to His will and pleasure, why do you mourn on account of it? Do you object to God’s will and pleasure being done? If it is not according to His will and pleasure, and yet He fixed it that way, why did He do so? Could He not have just as easily fixed it so it would be according to His will and pleasure as to fix it the way it was and is?
No, we are not trying to reform the Old Baptists. The heathenish, blasphemous, devil-invented doctrine that God did from all eternity absolutely and unconditionally predestinate, unalterably fix and decree, everything that comes to pass; molded and fixed every link in the chain of events, so that everything must come to pass just as it does, which some folks among the Old Baptists [pg 348] advocate, is not Old Baptist doctrine, and never has been, and never will be. The man who advocates such a blasphemous heresy gives evidence that he needs something— either regeneration or reformation. We rather stay away from such blasphemous heretics, rather than try to reform them. The Old Baptists do not believe such rot and need no such reformation. May the good Lord deliver His humble poor from being deceived by such a devil-invented doctrine. C. H. C.
WHAT ELDER NEWMAN SAID
April 1, 1926
In the Glad Tidings of March 12 we read the following from the pen of Elder H. G. Ball, of Tioga, Texas, who is on the editorial staff of that paper, with the Richards faction:
I see in the Banner Herald, a Georgia paper, some are advocating gospel instrumentality in the work of regeneration (and calling themselves Primitive Baptists). I see, too, there is a book written on the subject. I think its author is a Georgia minister, and some are endorsing his writing with highest praise, and among them is the well known Elder J. S. Newman, who has wrought his part of the havoc of the Baptists of Texas on the subject of regeneration in Texas, and now he has found another string to pull, and I presume he is yet a good puller, especially if someone else is in the lead. He says gospel instrumentality is orthodox Primitive Baptist doctrine. I guess the Missionary Baptists would claim that, too. Elder Newman also claims they were the orthodox Baptist church in doctrine and practice. With my stay with the Primitive Baptists I have never heard one admit that he believed the gospel had any part in the quickening of dead alien sinners, and I [pg 349] don’t believe such a doctrine is Primitive Baptist doctrine, if Elder Newman does say it is the orthodox doctrine of Primitive Baptists.
If Elder Newman said that gospel instrumentality is orthodox Primitive Baptist doctrine, where and when did he say it? Can Elder Ball produce the writing? We urgently demand it, and insist that he produce it. If he will produce the statement from Elder Newman’s pen, wherein he advocates the doctrine of gospel preaching being instrumental in regeneration— or any other instrument being used in regeneration, outside of the direct and immediate work of the Holy Spirit, we pledge ourselves that we will present a charge against him for heresy before his church, and we believe the church would deal with him upon the charge. Can Elder Ball produce it? NO. But what did Elder Newman say? On page ten of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of February 15, 1926, Elder Newman says:
Gospel instrumentality in the eternal salvation of dead, alien, sinners IS WRONG. * * * This view of the gospel ministry (that it is instrumental in regeneration) is nothing but dehorned Catholicism, for the reason that it places the ministry between God and the eternal salvation of the dead, alien, sinner.
It is not necessary to quote farther from Elder Newman on this line, though he went on and argued farther along the same line. This is sufficient to show that Elder Ball simply misrepresented the fact. The representation was either intentional or unintentional. Elder Ball has the privilege of saying which way it was. If unintentional, he will correct it and make apology. If it was intentional, what did he do? You may name it.
The facts are that there are about two, perhaps more, but two leading men among the Progressives in Georgia [pg 350] advocating the idea that the gospel is used as a means in the work of regeneration. Those two leading men are Elders W. B. Screws and T. E. Sikes. They are Georgia preachers. The advocating of that doctrine among the Progressives has caused a disturbance among them, and some of their able men are contending against it. Elder W. H. Crouse, of Statesboro, Ga., wrote a book condemning that doctrine, and Elder Newman is one of the men among our people who has endorsed that book. We call your attention to the fact that Ball says that Elder Newman endorsed this book in the highest of terms. The book condemns the doctrine of instrumentality in regeneration, and Elder Newman endorsed it; which fact is stated by Elder Ball. Then why does Elder Ball say Elder Newman advocates the doctrine of instrumentality in regeneration? It is a pity that our brethren will resort to such things just to injure a brother against whom they have prejudice.
We have read Elder Crouse’s book and it is an able defense of the doctrine of the direct and immediate work of the Holy Spirit in the work of regeneration, independent of and without any means, agency, or instrumentality whatever. We would be glad for all our people, as well as every seeker after truth, to read that book. The arguments are plain, clear and forcible.
C. H. C.
[pg 351]
PREDESTINATION
April 15, 1926
The following article appeared in the Zion’s Landmark of March 1st, and is so timely and full of truth that we feel like copying it for the benefit of our readers who do not take the Landmark. If all our brethren would take heed to what Brother Rowe says on this line there would be no more trouble among our people on this question. The cause of so much trouble on this question among our people has been the use of words and phrases in connection with it that are not to be found in the Bible. C. H. C.
THE ARTICLE
This form of the word is not found in the Bible. In Rom. 8:29 Paul tells us that those whom the Lord foreknew He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son; and in the 30th verse he says that whom He did predestinate, them He also called. In the epistle of the same apostle to the Ephesians, (Eph. 1:5) , he says,”Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.” Eph. 1:11, he says, “In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will.” These are the only places in the sacred Scriptures where these terms are used; and it is quite clear that in each case the apostle uses them in direct reference to the salvation of the chosen, or the predestinated way He leads His people, and no one is at liberty to use them in any other way than the God of our salvation is a sovereign ruler of the universe. No one of my capacity believes stronger than I that He most assuredly overrules all evil intentions of men and devils and gets the victory to Himself, and that for His people. But until I can explain how God can predestinate a thing and yet not be the author of it, I will not say that the wicked acts of men were predestinated by Him. It is the nature of men to sin. But salvation from sin could be [pg 352] accomplished only by God’s predestinating it. Whatever is said of the purposes of God, or of His overruling power, save in the places referred to, the apostles have seen fit to use other words than predestination; and if, as we believe, they wrote as the Holy Ghost dictated, the words they used were chosen by the Holy Ghost, and we cannot improve upon them. When we use words not found in the Bible in an effort to make our position stronger, we weaken it instead. The strongest position is the Bible position, and its use of words the very best form. I do wish our brethren would stop using their own words and use those which the Holy Ghost gave to the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. These are intended for the instruction and edification of His humble poor, and do this better than any form of words that men can devise. We all believe that our God is a sovereign; that the salvation of sinners is by the grace of God through Jesus Christ, and that we are dependent upon Him for the grace that we daily need; and for all that we receive and enjoy, we desire to give Him the praise. We merit nothing but His judgments. But His mercy endureth forever. Our wrongs are in no sense chargeable to God. By man came sin, and sin is the transgression of the law, and hence contrary to the will of God. Joshua T. Rowe.
PEACE DESIRED
April 15, 1926
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— After reading of the many good peace meetings published in The Primitive Baptist I thought I would write and tell you that it has done me so much good to hear of our poor divided people coming together in peace. I fully endorse the report of the committee at the meeting in Tennessee just published. Dear brother, will you try to help us work up just such a meeting here in South Mississippi? I feel like you could have good influence with a lot of the brethren here. I do not believe in fellowshipping any and everything; but where we are all of the same faith, and contend for the same order, but only practice discipline in a different manner, I feel we ought to come together and forgive each other; and I know the Baptists here in the Good Hope, [pg 353] South Mississippi and Amite Associations are one in faith and generally the same in practice, as I have been associated with all of them. They are, as you know, in the main, one people; and, as I feel about it, they ought to be together. Now if you think favorably of a peace move here, will you please help us that want peace to bring it about? As you know a good deal about the condition here, I would be glad if you would suggest a plan by which we might all get together, or visit this section and help work it up. I know I am ready and willing to ask forgiveness and to forgive all concerned and shake hands with them in peace and love, and my home church is highly in favor of it. I feel sure mistakes have been made by most all of us, and we should forgive. May God help us to come together. Pray for us, and let me hear from you if you can. Yours in humble hope and desire for peace, C. L. Clark.
Harriston, Miss.
REMARKS
When we received the above letter we wrote Elder Clark asking permission to publish the same in The Primitive Baptist. We have received his consent. We told him we would be glad for the brethren to come together in that section in peace and fellowship, as we felt sure they were all one people, and that we were willing to do anything reasonable that we could to that end. Since receiving the above letter we have received a card from Elder Lee Hanks written at Laurel, Miss., and dated Feb. 24th. Elder Hanks was on a trip in that section. He says:
I am glad to tell you that I consider the trouble settled now between the Good Hope and South Mississippi Associations. New Zion accepted the proposition and all settled Feb. 22, 1926. Providence unanimously accepted terms of peace and came together Feb. 23, 1926. So Providence and New Zion are together, which virtually settled the trouble between the two associations. Elders Alderman, C. N. Ware, J. A. Ford, Blackledge, and all present, cheerfully and unanimously settled their differences. They are all [pg 354] rejoiced greatly now. I am to be at Palestine tomorrow. I am sure they will accept it, which eliminates everything here. Brother Alderman is greatly rejoiced. I don’t think there will be any hitch now anywhere. The Good Hope brethren said if Providence would accept it that would satisfy all. They are heartily in it. In love,
Lee Hanks.
From this it seems that the matter is practically settled in the Southeast part of the state, and we believe that will eliminate any difficulty in the way of a settlement by any others involved. We trust they may now all come together again and live in peace and sweet fellowship. They should have never been divided, we are sure. May the good Lord bless the lawful efforts that are made for the restoration of peace. C. H. C.
ROGER WILLIAMS
April 15, 1926
We have received a letter from a brother in which he says, “H. B. Taylor, of Murray Ky., says the Hardshells originated with Roger Williams in 1835. I wish you would answer this falsehood, and also get him to tell about the Welsh Tract Church, of Delaware.”
If the brother writing the letter made no mistake in the date, and H. B. Taylor made such a statement, he certainly did display ignorance. Roger Williams was born in 1599 and died in 1683. Then how he could have originated a church in 1835, when he died in 1683, is beyond us, and beyond the ability of H. B. Taylor to explain, even as great as he thinks he is. Roger Williams established the colony of Rhode Island in 1636 and established his [pg 355] church there in 1639. That church was founded upon the principle of religious freedom, or liberty of conscience, but never was identified with the Baptists, though founded upon Baptist principles. The first Baptist Church founded in America was by John Clark at Newport, Rhode Island, in 1638. If Roger Williams was the founder of the Baptist Church, or the “Hardshells,” as Taylor calls our people, then they are older than the Fullerites. The people Taylor is identified with were never heard of before the days of Fuller and Carey.
Welsh Tract Church, in Delaware, was organized in Wales in the spring of 1701, and in June of the same year they came to America as an organized church. They first settled near Philadelphia and then moved to their present location, where they still continue upon the same principles upon which they were constituted in Wales 225 years ago. Concerning this church and the doings of the Missionary Baptists when in debate with a Campbellite or a Methodist J. H. Grimes said, in the Baptist Flag of April 11, 1907:
When a Campbellite or a Methodist assails Baptist succession, or tries to cram the Roger Williams ruse down their throats, they fly to old Welsh Tract Church, and through her, link themselves on to the Welsh Baptists, through which we have clear sailing to the days of the apostles. In my imagination I see a Baptist debater in a tussle with a belligerent Campbellite; the Campbellite attacks the succession of Baptist Churches, when the Baptist, as with a flashlight, throws old Welsh Tract Church out before the audience, and with a triumphant air defies the onslaughts of his bombastic opponent. He takes the pains to inform his opponent that this old Welsh Tract Church, which was constituted in Europe more than 200 years ago, is still in existence, coming down to us from Wales without change. All these things are facts. But there is still [pg 356] another fact which he does not tell. This Welsh Tract Church is a Hardshell Church.
This old church was organized long before the Fullerite sprout, with which H. B. Taylor is identified, was born. C. H. C.
THE MEETING AT NEW HOPE
April 15, 1926
The reason of our delay in publishing the account of the meeting at New Hope Church, Grady County, Ga., the fifth Sunday in January, and Saturday before, as found elsewhere in this paper is because we failed to get a copy of the suggestions as put out by the brethren at the home of Brother Blackshear in November. After we returned home we sold the office building we were occupying and had to erect another building and move. While we were engaged in that we had to let all other matters rest, or wait.
There were six churches in Elder Petty’s association not represented in the meeting— Union, Olive Grove, Trinity, Pisgah and Piedmont. While the information was given that Mt. Olive had agreed to represent, some thought this was a mistake. If they did appoint messengers, then seven of the churches in that association had appointed messengers to the meeting. This being the fact in the case, it seems to us that the object was not accomplished. If we understood the matter, the object was to try to get the two bodies together. There were two bodies, each holding their meetings as the Flint River Association. They were once together. They are one people, we are sure, in doctrine, and we [pg 357] do not believe there is any vital difference between them. We feel sure they should be united; and we yet believe it can be done. We trust that they may yet all get together and be a re-united band. Brethren, on both sides, do you wish to be re-united on gospel principles? If you do, write to us and tell us your desire and feelings in the matter. We would like to know how the brethren feel in regard to the matter. C. H. C.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
April 15, 1926
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother in Hope— I have been reading the glad news of the peace meetings in your part of the country. May God bless all that labor for peace on gospel grounds. We, Providence Primitive Baptist Church, have talked a lot about peace, but just how far to go is a mystery. Some say one thing, and some another, and the question has been asked,”What shall we do?’‘ We, Providence Church, would love for you to publish this and give answers to the questions as follows:
Question 1. Can we fellowship an article of faith that reads something like this:”We believe the foreknowledge and predestination of God are the same to the extent of time; therefore God foreordained and predestinated all things that come to pass,” and stay on Bible grounds?
Question 2. Can we fellowship secret orders and adultery and stay on Bible grounds? A poor sinner saved by grace, if saved,
W. B. Howard.
Freewater, Ore.
OUR ANSWER
In answer to question 1, will say no. We do not think the Bible teaches that God foreordained or predestinated all things that come to pass. If His foreknowledge and [pg 358] predestination are the same as to length of time, that would not prove that He predestinated all things that come to pass. He does, or did, foreknow all things; but that is no evidence that He predestinated all things. His predestination may be as old as His foreknowledge, and that would be no proof that He predestinated all things. His foreknowledge is one thing and His predestination is another. Wisdom and knowledge are attributes of Jehovah, and His predestination is the act of His mind.
In answer to question 2, we say no. We are aware that our people in some sections do hold members that affiliate with secret orders, but we think no Old Baptist should affiliate with such orders. We might bear with that under protest, and not fellowship it really— that is, not have fellowship for that, and yet bear with it. There is no excuse to even bear with adultery. If there is, we do not know what that excuse is. C. H. C.
DANCING AND SUCH LIKE THINGS
April 15, 1926
Dear Brother Cayce:
I want to ask a question for you to answer in The Primitive Baptist. What has been the attitude of the Primitive Baptists in regard to the modern evils of the day, and how should we deal with members that either go to dances or allow them in their homes? I claim we have always stood against such things. And haven’t we always affirmed that the Bible is true? Your brother in hope, J. A. Jackson.
Farmington, Ark.
OUR ANSWER
The Primitive Baptists are now and always have been [pg 359] opposed to the modern evils of the day. Modern evils are such evils as are lately invented and practiced or engaged in. The little book we have printed and for sale, price 30 cents, containing articles written by John Brine more than 200 years ago, shows that the Baptists were opposed to the evils of that day. True Primitive Baptists are still opposed to the evils of the day, whether ancient or modern.
The Primitive Baptists should promptly exclude members for attending dances or taking part with them, either by allowing them in their home or encouraging them by their presence. It has always been against the practice of Primitive Baptists for their members to attend dances or to give them in their homes. We have served as moderator in church conference when exclusions occurred for dancing.
Most assuredly the Primitive Baptists have always contended that the Bible is true. Most all their articles of faith contain an article reading about like this: “We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are of divine authority, and the only rule of faith and practice.” C. H. C.
MAKES ACKNOWLEDGMENT
May 1, 1926
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Through the courtesy of someone I have the last few days received one of your papers (we sent the paper to you.— C. H. C.) in which you have given me quite a thrashing, all of which I, no doubt, deserved, however unintentional the wrong was committed; and will assure you that your article was too late to show me my errors; but was not too late to speed me up in writing Elders [pg 360] Newman and Crouse to acknowledge my wrong and ask forgiveness. Now let me assure you that your very sharp rebukes never made me mad, but I never obtained the information from THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, and without further evidence than Elder Newman’s article in Banner Herald I wrote my little squib in Glad Tidings; and where I blame myself is for writing the article without knowing what Elder Crouse’s views were. Had I known that then as I did very soon after, I should not have made the accusation at all. And again let me assure you I would not intentionally misrepresent Elder Newman or any other man, though we are divided.
I regard myself more of a man than that, to say nothing of a Christian spirit. While he and I are divided, as you and I, yet I am just as sorry for the injustice done him as if it had been an injustice done Elder W. H. Richards, with whom you rightly say I am standing; and many others in the east would be where I and many others are if they would but impartially investigate for themselves, is my humble opinion. I have written Elder Newman a personal letter asking forgiveness for all wrong done him, and this also, if you see fit, so that your readers may see that while I stand with the Richards faction I intend to do the right thing, and that’s what we stand for in Texas, and hope we may never come to the time we are not willing to confess our wrongs and ask for forgiveness from those wronged. In humble hope, H. G. Ball.
P. S.-Since you wrote me up in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, will you not kindly publish my acknowledgments as I am enclosing to you from Glad Tidings of April 16, 1926? If you publish the article will you be so kind as to mail me a copy of the paper? H. G. B.
THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Floresville, Texas, Jan. 20, 1926.
Elder Wm. H. Crouse:
My Dear Brother— Received your book on Regeneration. I have carefully read it and am sure your positions on the various texts relied on to prove gospel instrumentality in the work of regeneration are the views of our people now as well as in all past ages. I wish it could go into every Old Baptist home in the United States. (Elder) J. S. Newman.
After the above article appeared in Banner Herald, Feb. 15th, I [pg 361] wrote an article in Glad Tidings of March 12th, accusing Elder Newman of endorsing gospel instrumentality in the quickening of dead, alien, sinners; but since writing the article to Glad Tidings I have procured a copy of Elder Crouse’s book on Regeneration, and after reading it and learning its true teachings, I have gone back and re-read Elder Newman’s endorsement and find I have misconstrued his article. He (Elder Newman) is not endorsing gospel instrumentality, as my first conclusion was, but is endorsing Elder Crouse’s position on the texts that are used (by those who teach gospel instrumentality in the regeneration of dead, alien, sinners). Elder Crouse DOES NOT teach that in his book; therefore I find it my duty to acknowledge the wrong done Elders J. S. Newman and Wm. H. Crouse in the article I wrote in Glad Tidings of March 12, and ask them to forgive me for the wrong done them, for I did it not for envy or to wrong anyone, but because I was sure I saw a departure from the faith in it. Now I see it was a failure on my part. Elder Crouse’s book is worthy of the consideration of truth-seekers everywhere. In bonds, H. G. B.
REMARKS
We willingly and cheerfully give space for the above confession of wrong from Brother Ball. This should be a lesson to him and to all of us that a brother may be accused of a thing of which he is not guilty, and the person be sincere in making the accusation. In the trouble and division in Texas, no doubt, many wrong accusations have been made, or were made, and perhaps some of them may still be made. We should certainly call a halt along that line. We should quit such a course — and stop making accusations.
Brother Ball says that many others would stand where he does and others do— with Elder Richards— if they would impartially investigate for themselves. Perhaps so. Did not some investigate who do not stand with him? Brother Ball, will you help us investigate? Will you begin helping us by furnishing us a copy of the [pg 362] evidence submitted before the council that met in regard to this matter?
We do not propose to open our columns for a discussion of this matter, and would not refer to it here had not Elder Ball made the statement he did in regard to the matter. We do not call Elder Ball’s sincerity in question in regard to the matter; but sincerity does not make a thing right. Paul verily thought he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth, but that did not make it right for him to do those things which he did. He thought he was doing God’s service when he persecuted the saints; but he was not. Perhaps some of you good brethren in Texas thought you were doing God’s service when you raised such a war among each other in that country and had a division; but you were not. Why not cease biting and devouring one another and being consumed one of another? May the Lord help us all to try to mend our ways. C. H. C.
ONENESS FOR TWENTY-FOUR YEARS
June 1, 1926
Elder C. H. Cayce: Precious Brother— Have read and re-read your editorial, “Introduction to Volume Forty-one,’‘ in The Primitive Baptist. May peace and prosperity accompany it through the year, is my only desire. I have read every copy of this paper for nearly twenty-five years. Was taking it when your sainted father was editor. Every copy that you have sent out I have carefully noticed. Have utterly failed to see a single change in the principles, as you contend for them, during all these years. This much could not be said about all the editors.
“These things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which [pg 363] have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works.’‘ This is one command you have carefully kept. I take some other Primitive Baptist papers, but not any of them like the one you send out. When the wolf is in the camp you give the alarm. When false doctrines are breaking in, you build fortifications against them. When invaders are giving trouble, you give the watchword. When opportunity opens up for peace among alienated brethren upon a sound basis, you will work at it as long as there is hope of peace being restored. You can defend the doctrine for which the paper contends. I know whereof I speak. I have seen it tried out face to face with the enemy. One thing I am extremely glad of, when you deal with a subject of practice, that you know how to do it as the Bible directs. God bless you for speaking out on so many things that need mending, and that right soon. You have proved yourself amply able to edit the paper your father started and worked so hard to circulate in spreading the truth of the Master. But that does not prove that the brethren have stood by and cared for you as they should. Their slackness has made your work too burdensome. You have turned over the hill now. Soon your work on earth must wind to a close. You then can go on to enjoy your eternal reward. Dear Claud, God will take care of you over there. But I shudder when I look for the man to step in and carry the good work on.
When all around were wrapt in silent slumber last night I could not sleep for thinking of you and your noble work as preacher and editor. In tears I finally went to sleep, begging God to bless, direct and keep you. Your brother,
H. L. Golston.
North Alexandria, Tenn.
REMARKS
The above was received last January. We could not keep back the silent tears as we read it. We feel so unworthy of such expressions of love and sweet fellowship from one of the Lord’s faithful servants. We are very well aware of the fact that we have made mistakes and have done wrong things; but our desire has been to be faithful to the Master and to His blessed cause.
Yes, we have crossed the top of the hill, and are now [pg 364] going down the western side, and we realize that it will not be long until we shall reach the end of the journey. The way has been rough and rugged. There have been many thorns along the way. Sometimes the clouds have been dark and lowering; but in the midst of all the storms, dark places and rough roads, the day-star of hope has seemed to beckon us onward.
“The Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.”— Acts 20:23, 24. Many of the Lord’s dear children whom we have met we know we shall never meet again in this life. So we might read on, “And now, behold, I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.’‘ — Acts 20:25-27.
This has been our sincere desire. We are sorry for all the wrongs and mistakes we have made. When we reach the end, which may be soon, we desire to die in peace and in fellowship with the Lord’s dear children. Please pray for us.
C. H. C.
A STATEMENT
June 1, 1926
In the account of the meeting at New Hope Church in Georgia we stated in the record of the meeting that information was given that Mt. Olive had agreed to represent and had appointed messengers, and in our [pg 365] remarks we stated that some thought this was a mistake. The brother who made the statement in the meeting that he had a letter to the effect that they had agreed to represent has sent us a letter from the clerk of the church, Brother A. I. Brunson, Sneads, Fla., in which Brother Brunson says that the church did agree to represent and appointed messengers to the meeting, but that later they decided to wait and see, or to just stand still for awhile.
This letter makes it clear that the brother who made the statement in the meeting had a correct statement and was not mistaken. In what we said about the matter we did not mean to leave the impression that the brother had misrepresented the matter. We trust this statement will be satisfactory to all parties concerned. C. H. C.
IMPOSED UPON
June 15, 1926
Several months ago we published an appeal for help from one A. McClinton, Trenton, Ga. A widowed sister sent him help, we think, and had two or three letters from him. She sent a check to the sheriff of the county at Trenton, Ga., and asked him to give the same to McClinton if he is in need and is worthy. The sheriff returned the check to her and wrote her that McClinton gets his living by that means— writing to people of different denominations and getting contributions from them. He says McClinton bought a Ford car from him and paid for it. He says McClinton has a daughter and son-in-law living in the house with him, and has a son [pg 366] large enough to support him and his wife. We are sorry that we have been imposed upon by this man. Occasionally we receive requests to make appeals for help through the paper. Such as this has brought us to the decision that it is better not to make such appeals through the paper. At least, we must be assured that the person is worthy, and must have some evidence to satisfy us, before we publish such appeals in the future. Please do not ask it of us. Anyway, we doubt the propriety of making such appeals through our papers, except in unusual cases. C. H. C.
SOME GOOD MEETINGS
June 15, 1926
We were with the church at Donaldson, Ark., on Saturday night before the third Sunday in May, and enjoyed a very pleasant meeting with those good people. Elder Fairchild was there, and had preached for them Friday or Friday night, when Brother Ceph Tucker had offered himself for membership and was received by the church into their fellowship. His baptism was to be attended to on Sunday, which was done. Sunday morning we drove to Little Rock, Elder Fairchild with us. Elder C. M. Monk had just begun preaching when we arrived at the church. We were a little late, as we had been delayed some on the road. Elder J. R. Harris and family were also there from Thornton. Elder A. Woodall, who is a member there, was also present. This was a good and pleasant meeting. Three were received on confession of faith— Brother A. S. Herndon and wife and a Sister Woodall. [pg 367] Brother Herndon and wife had held membership in Texas in a church that had been in so much confusion, and they were tired of it and wanted a home with those who are laboring for peace. The church where Sister Woodall had been a member had gone down and ceased to have meetings. This was the regular communion time at this church, which service was attended to. On the fourth Sunday and Saturday before we were with the little church at Hampton. Brother Ira Cencibaugh, whose home is at McFarland, Calif., and Brother I. B. Fuller and Elder A. D. Cencibaugh, of Donaldson, Ark., came to our home Friday afternoon and spent the night with us in our humble home. Saturday morning Elder John R. Harris came by on his way to his regular appointment at Harmony Church, Bradley County, and persuaded Elder Cencibaugh to go there with him. Brother Ira Cencibaugh and Brother Fuller went with us to Hampton. Elders J. N. and G. A. Jones, who now live near Hampton, were there. Services were held at the church Saturday afternoon, night and Sunday. Brother Cencibaugh made two short talks that were enjoyed by the brethren. Brother G. W. McWhirter and wife united with the church on Sunday by letter from the Forks of Buttahatchie Church in Alabama. It was a pleasant meeting and much enjoyed by all the brethren and sisters present.
C. H. C.
[pg 368]
IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL
July 1, 1926
Some of our readers may remember a few years ago some questions sent to us by Brother J. I. Caneer, of Montebello, Calif., and our answers to the same. Brother Caneer wrote the following letter in answer, which was received in 1922. We had filed it away in our desk, and it had been almost forgotten. Recently we received a letter from him calling our attention to it and asking that it be published. You will find our comments on the editorial page— page 8. C. H. C.
THE LETTER
Dear Brother Cayce: I have read your reply to the few words I wrote last winter. If I wrote what I should not have written first, I am sorry. I wanted to get the foundation of what you believe first. I will refer to the questions, that I think are out of harmony, in this writing.
First, I want to say that I never heard of there being two kinds of immortality before I read your reply. I must say that I do not believe there are two kinds of immortality. I humbly admit that my believing there is only one kind of immortality does not make it that way. 1 Tim. 1:17 — no, it is 1 Tim. 6:15-16,
“Which in His times He shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see.” There is a comma after immortality; a semi-colon after approach unto; a colon after nor can see. So they are all separate statements and none of them qualify the word immortality. All those phrases qualify the word God, or the King of kings and Lord of lords. It certainly does not qualify the word immortality, immortal life, eternal life and everlasting life; all three mean exactly the same thing. The word everlasting, when applied to inanimate things, does not mean the same as immortality or eternal.
Certainly God dwells in the light. He is light. Yes, I believe [pg 369] everything Paul said, but I may not understand just what he means.
Brother Cayce, I did not ask you, what did Paul say, nor what any Primitive Baptist says, nor what they did say in the past. That is not what I want to know. I want to know what you say. I can read the Scriptures, or history, as I see fit; that is not what I want.
Brother Cayce, do you believe that children are born into this world with both mortality and immortality? I do not see how it can be. Does not that idea contradict the very fundamental teaching of the Scriptures and the very laws of nature? Do not the Scriptures, as well as nature, teach that no tree, plant, fowl, animal or human being can bring forth two different kinds of seed? For myself, I feel sure it does so teach. We all know that a fig tree cannot bear good peaches; neither can a peach tree bear crab apples; neither can a human being bear two kinds of lives. If he can, trot out the chapter and the verse so that I may read it for myself. Why did you not give me some Scriptures and other reasons for the belief that human beings do transmit both mortality and immortality? That is the way to convert me. What other men say does not prove anything on this line to me. If you cannot prove a question to me by the Scriptures and logic then you cannot prove it to me.
Brother Cayce, do you believe the members of the Primitive Baptist Church are perfect in their belief and practice? Do you believe there are any now, or that there ever was any church, perfect in its belief? I fully believe that the fundamental principles of salvation as are taught by most all Primitive Baptists are in harmony with the Scriptures and with the very experience of God’s children, who have minds sufficient to understand God’s workings with them. I do not believe the teaching that natural human beings are raised immortal from the grave and are sent to the place, as is usually believed by the great majority of unthinking men and women, where they will consciously and eternally be, is doctrine. If it is doctrine, I cannot see where the man of God gets any reproof, any instruction in righteousness, any. correction or any comfort out of it. The doctrine of salvation is a comfort to God’s people. They get reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, and are thoroughly furnished unto all good works. [pg 370] Were not the apostolic churches, most of them, if not all, in error? I think they were. If they were, did that cause them to cease to be the church of Christ? No, it did not. Take it for granted that its organization was perfect, it did not stay that way, but became imperfect and was chastised. Is that not so? If there is a perfect church anywhere today, let me know where it is; I want to see it.
God Himself said when He breathed the breath of life into Adam that man became a living soul. Not that He gave him a soul, but that man has a soul. Every living thing is a soul, or has a soul. So every living human, animal, fowl, or insect, is a soul, or has a soul, as the case may be. They are all natural creatures. If the word soul means immortality, then why are not all souls immortal? I think these are pertinent questions. The word soul is almost invariably used to mean the person speaking, the person spoken to, or the person spoken about; as “my soul draweth near the grave;” to “deliver their soul from death.”
There are many places where the soul is similarly spoken of. If the natural soul is immortal, it will not need to be delivered from death; neither would it draw near the grave. Human beings have always been called souls. That is what God called them. He said Adam became a living soul. The words, “living soul,” mean the same thing as the words,”living man.” I think man is composed of soul, body and spirit, and these three are one. The soul is the leading part (mind); the spirit is the life, and the flesh or body is the thing that is alive. Nothing else is alive except the body. The mind leads the body. If he had no mind he would go at random, not knowing where he goeth. The spirit is the life of man; so when a man dies he has no spirit. So, you see, it is very necessary for all three parts to be together in order to have a living man, or a living soul, that would be of any use.
If you kill the body, there is no life or spirit, neither is there any mind or soul. The mind emanates from the brain, the life from the heart. If you stop the heart, you stop it all. Some think life lives on when the body is dead. I would believe the life was living before there was a body, if I knew it lives after the body is dead. I mean the natural life. There is no life without something is alive. If a body is dead, life is extinct. If a life lives on, without something being alive, why were not these lives living before [pg 371] the body was in existence? If a man has been born again, born of a higher life; if he has been born of God, then he has something in there that does not die. It is God’s Spirit in there.
I still say, Brother Cayce, that God’s Spirit is God. Please tell me what you think it is? God is nothing but Spirit. “God is a Spirit; they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth.’‘ God’s Spirit must be in the man or the man cannot worship Him. They that are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God. They are then the sons of man and also the sons of God, are they not? If they are sons of God, why not call them little gods as well as to call a human baby a little man? What would be the difference? They are akin to man, and also to God. He has two fathers now. He has two masters now. He can serve one awhile and then he can serve the other awhile, but he cannot serve both at the same time. Why? Just because the two are the exact opposite to each other. If there is a personal devil any more than man himself is, he is no more contrary or opposite to God than man himself is. If so, I cannot conceive of it. Man is all that does wrong things. He cannot blame anything else for what he does. He cannot say the devil is to blame. Do you think he can? Do you feel some other thing other than yourself is to blame for the wrongs you do? If so, you have a different feeling from the one I have.
See in your question book under the heading” Two-Seeders and Soul Sleepers.” In question 17 you ask,”Are not these three Persons (the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost) one in purpose, one in power, one in glory, and one in essence?” This indicates to me that you believe they are. I believe they are. Well, now, these things being so, there certainly can be no difference. Can you see any difference, Brother Cayce? If so, what is it? To my mind there is no difference. The official difference is all there is, except that Jesus came in the flesh, and that was only God manifest in the flesh. Ques. 26:”Is He not able to divide between the soul and the spirit?” Does Brother Cayce believe He is? Ques. 27: “Did not Paul pray God your whole soul, and spirit, and body, be preserved blameless,”and so on? 28: “Then soul and spirit are not the same, are they?” 29: “Does not the apostle teach that man is composed of soul, body, and spirit, and that it takes the three to constitute a man?”
Brother Cayce, if it takes all three to make a man, what would [pg 372] you have left if you take away either one of the parts? Would there be a man left? A man may lose his mind and still live. He cannot lose his life and live. You cannot kill a man’s mind nor his life, so the only thing that man can kill is the body. You cannot kill a hog’s mind or life, but you can kill its body, and then eat it. Then that part of the hog would be transformed to the life of man, would it not? If any one of the parts are more the man than any other part, which one is it? The body is the frame-work, or wall. The mind, or soul, and the life, or spirit, are the finishings of the man. If a man is not finished there is not much man there, is there? If you build the frame or walls of a house and do no more, you would not have much of a house, would you? No. It would not be finished, would it? No. The finishings of a house are similar to the finishing of a man— one must be completed to be a man; the other must be completed to be a house. All the parts of man are natural, fleshly; they are terrestrial.
Brother Cayce, in your questions 26, 27, 28, 29 you claim that soul and spirit are not the same, do you not? Then why do you change it in questions 35 and 36? In both those questions you say soul or spirit, making them the same thing or same condition. I do not believe the soul or the spirit is either one a thing. Do you believe they are things? A thing is something material, is it not? If you say soul and spirit are the same, why not say all three parts are the same? Let it be like Him (God) of whom man is the image. If the three composing the Godhead are the same in purpose, power, glory and essence, why not the three parts composing man be the same in purpose, power, glory and essence? Can you give me any good reason why they are not?
Brother Cayce, how many kinds of souls do you think there are? Do you think some souls cannot cease to exist and some souls cannot keep from ceasing to exist? All living creatures are souls, or have souls, as the case may be. They must all be immortal or else all are mortal, else some are immortal and some mortal. Which way do you think it is? You claim there are two kinds of immortality; so if you are correct in that idea, there will have to be at least two kinds of souls, or else no living creature, including man, has an immortal soul, while in a state of nature only.
If a man is born again he then has two lives, one that will cease and one that will not cease. I think so; you may not. If man has [pg 373] immortality from his natural birth, and later on is born of God, and by this God-birth receives another life, as you, Brother Cayce, admit, then does he not have two immortal lives? He is bound to have, because he receives, in the new birth or regeneration, a life that he did not have before. We know that life is eternal. If this is true, Brother Cayce, what are you going to do with those two lives when the body is in the dust? I would like to know. I cannot figure it out., When the body dies, the spirit returns to God who gave it. But where does the other life, that does not cease, go? This same spirit that God gives man in regeneration is the same spirit by which the body that is in dust will be raised in the resurrection morn. The Adamic man is the one for whom Christ died. It is the Adamic man that sinned; it is the Adamic man that has been born once. The man that has been born once is the only man that can be born again.
Brother Cayce, when you claim the soul of a natural man, unregenerated, lives on after the body is in dust, do you not virtually claim that that same soul was living before there was any body for it to live in? If you do not, tell me why not.
Question 101: “When the Lord spoke to Saul as he was on his way to Damascus, did He not impart life to him?” Question 102: “Saul had natural life before that time, did he not?” Q. 103: “Then the Lord gave him a higher order of life, did He not?” Q. 104: “If Saul had natural life before that, and the Lord gave him a higher order of life when He spoke to him at the time referred to, then Saul had two kinds of life, did he not?” Q. 106: “Does not everything partake of the nature of that from which it springs?” Q. 108: “When Saul was born of the natural parentage, did he not partake of the nature of that parentage?” Q. 109: “When the Lord spoke to him as he was on his way to Damascus, and thus gave him a higher order of life, was he not then born of God, or born of the heavenly parentage?” Q. 110: “Then was he not a partaker of the divine nature?” Q. 111: “Is it not a fact that Saul had two natures?” Brother Cayce, you are right on those questions, 101 to 111 inclusive, but I do not know what you are going to do with both the lives Saul had after he had been given the higher order of life. Will both lives go to God, or will the higher order of life, only, go to the God who gave it? I would [pg 374] like to know where they both go, if indeed the natural life still lives on when the body is in dust.
Now, Brother Cayce, I want you to tell me what you can on the questions I am asking you. Do not go off telling what someone else believes. According to your argument, both of those lives will live on. I do not believe the Scriptures teach anything of the kind. So I am asking for the Scripture that so teaches and would like to have your logical reasoning as well, so that I may have all the information possible. I am not writing this just for fun or for argument; but I want to know, if possible, the real truths of God’s word.
The best way out, according to my judgment, would be to admit that man in a state of nature, only, returns to dust and that there are no lives without something is alive; that all there is about a man who is untouched by the finger of God returns to dust as God said it would,”for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” God did not say that a part of man should return to dust and another part live on. No, He did not say it.
I have written this along at intervals, and so I may have repeated when it was not necessary; I hope you will look over my mistakes, as I have not time to write it over. Brother Cayce, if you cannot tell what kind of a God I worship, from my writing, I will try to tell you some time in a special letter on that line. I have made a copy of this and will send the copy to you, as the original is rather dim; think it will be better. It is plain enough except where I have made blunders.
Brother Cayce, space is not a thing. It is only an opening between two material things. There would be no space if there were no material objects. The distance from one material object to another material object is space.
I wonder if all Primitive Baptists love the doctrine that human beings, probably in almost innumerable throngs, will go to a burning and yawning hell, or place that is commonly called hell, there to consciously and feelingly burn just as though you were burning here in this life, and that to last while the years of eternity roll. If they do love that doctrine I cannot understand it. Brother Cayce, do you love to know that such is in store for billions of human beings, helpless as they are?
Brother Cayce, do you think God can make an eternal thing, [pg 375] without it is His own offspring? That would not be making them. It would be His begotten children. I know the Bible says God cannot lie. God never has said He could make an eternal thing, either, has He? If so, where are the words? Yes, it is contrary to God’s attributes for Him to make an eternal thing. When man’s life has become extinct there is no more man, or he is not a man any more. How do you like it? Brother Cayce, is life not a part of man? Would you call the dead body of a human being a man? If God’s life transmitted to man is not God, Brother Cayce, then tell me what it is. Now do not pass my questions up. I want to know. Brother Cayce, is not the natural life and the natural spirit the same? I think it is; what do you think? My words “are Spirit and life.” Now what is the difference in the three— His words, Spirit, life? Tell me if you think there is any difference. I will now close.
J. I Caneer.
Montebello, Calif.
REPLY TO BROTHER CANEER
On another page in this paper is a letter from Brother J. I. Caneer, the same being written in reply to an article which we wrote and was published in our issue of June 15, 1922, in answer to a letter he wrote us that was in the same issue of this paper. In that first letter Brother Caneer said,”I think that some questions indicate an opposition to some of the other questions.” In that letter he failed to show any question in opposition to each other. One question does not contradict another. This was written in regard to our pamphlet called Hot Shot.
We will now pay some respect to this last letter; but we will first say that we shall not continue a controversy on this question. If a brother will not accept a plain and positive statement of Holy Writ there is no necessity of continuing a discussion on the matter. In this letter Brother Caneer flatly denies that the soul has an existence after the body, and that the soul lives after the [pg 376] death of the body. In our former article we quoted the language of the Saviour in Matt. 10:28 “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Brother Caneer says, “If you kill the body, there is no life or spirit, neither is there any mind or soul.” If that is true, then when a man kills another man’s body, he also destroys the soul, or has also killed the soul. This is a flat contradiction of the plain statement of the Son of God, who cannot lie. Again, if the soul and body are the same, then the all wise Son of God’ used a meaningless word in the text when he said “both.” There could be no such thing as “both” if they are the same. It is true that the word soul is often used in the sense of man, or a living man, but it is not used in that sense in Matt. 10:28, as well as in many other places which could be cited. But if a man will not believe it in this one place he would not believe it if it were produced in a thousand more places.
Brother Caneer says that he does not believe it is doctrine that human beings will be resurrected and sent to a place where they will consciously and eternally be. In other words, he does not believe there is any such place as an eternal hell or place of eternal punishment. He says if this is doctrine he cannot see where the man of God can get any comfort out of it. If Brother Caneer, according to this, is a man of God, he gets no comfort out of the thought or out of the fact that he is saved from an eternal hell. According to his position, there is no such place; then Jesus Christ did not save anyone from an eternal hell, for there was, and is, no such place for them to be saved from. According to that, Jesus Christ did not save anyone from anything [pg 377] under heaven— His death was a useless thing. Their sins could not send them to an eternal hell— for, according to Brother Caneer, there was, and is, no such place. Such a doctrine denies the necessity and the efficacy of the death of the Son of God.
In our former article we also quoted Matt. 25:46, “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” It is the same word translated everlasting with reference to the punishment of “these” that is translated eternal with reference to the life of the righteous. If the punishment of “these” is not eternal, then the life of the righteous is not eternal. One is of equal duration as the other. It is the very same word. It is the same word used in 1 Tim. 1:17, “Now, unto the King eternal,” etc. If the punishment of “these” ever ceases, then the King eternal will cease. The word simply means never ceasing. To deny this is to deny the plain statement of the Son of God— that is, to deny the never-ending punishment of “these” is to deny the plain statement of the Son of God. It is the truth whether a man can reason it out or not.
Brother Caneer says he wants to know what I say, not what Paul says. Well, we have given Bible for what we say. Is not that better than for us to say and not give Bible for it?
Brother Caneer says, “If they are sons of God, why not call them little gods as well as to call a human baby a little man?” We must infer that Brother Caneer means, either that one who is born of God is a little god, or else the human infant is not a little man! The human race is simply Adam multiplied, but the children of God are not God multiplied. If they are God multiplied, [pg 378] then we have an innumerable number of gods, as we have an innumerable number of human beings-Adam persons.
Yes, it is still a fact that the Word of God (Jesus) is able to divide between soul and spirit. Yes, we claim that the soul and the spirit are not the same, and we do not change that in questions 35 and 36 by saying soul or spirit. Man cannot separate or divide between them, but Jesus can. They are not the same, though we may not be able to tell just what the difference is.
Brother Caneer says the spirit is the life. God says, Deut. 12:23 “Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.” God says, by the prophet, that the blood is the life.
Brother Caneer wants to know what about the life when the body dies. When the spirit leaves the body the body dies. The physical life ends. The blood ceases to flow through the veins. That is the end of the natural or physical life, or the end of living existence here in this world.
God says concerning man that his spirit goes upward; goes to God who gave it; and that the spirit of the beast goes downward. The spirit of one does not cease to exist, though the physical life ends, and the spirit of the other does cease to exist.
If the soul of man is the same as the body then the following language of the prophet is absolutely without meaning: “Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?”— Micah 4:7. In [pg 379] this the prophet plainly makes a distinction between the soul and the body.
Brother Caneer says, “I do not believe the soul or spirit is either one a thing. Do you believe they are things? A thing is something material, is it not?” Yes, we believe they are things. The word soul is a noun. The word spirit is a noun. A noun is an object or thing, whether visible or invisible, whether material or immaterial. “While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.” — 2 Cor. 4:18. Paul here calls things not seen things. Objects not seen are things: Things is “whatever exists, or is conceived to exist, as a separate entity, or as a distinct and individual quality, a fact, or idea; any separate or distinguishable object of thought.”— Webster. The soul is a separate or distinguishable object of thought; so it is a thing. The soul is one thing; the spirit is another thing; the body is another thing; these three things together constitute a living man.
When the Lord made the first man, Adam, and placed him in the garden of Eden, He gave him a law; and that law had a penalty attached to it,”For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” Gen. 2:17 or, “dying thou shalt die.” This signifies continuing to die, or continually dying, always dying. The impartation of divine life changes from a state of always dying to a state of always living.
No, we do not claim that the soul lived before there was any body to live in. Why? Just because we do not. The fact that it continues to exist after the death of the body is no proof or evidence that it lived before [pg 380] the body. “And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness.”— Rom. 8:10. In our modern or present day English, giving a strictly literal translation of the Greek language in this text, we would necessarily have it read, “And if Christ be in you, though the body dies on account of sin, yet the spirit lives on account of righteousness.” In this text the apostle most emphatically contradicts the position of every soul sleeper under heaven, and forever brands that position as eternally false.
While the Saviour was here on earth in person He went up on a mount with Peter, James and John, and was transfigured before them, and talked with Moses and Elias. Moses had been dead for several hundred years, and God buried him. Jesus did not talk with his body. If the soul or spirit of Moses did not continue to exist after the death of his body, and talk with the Son of God on the mount, then Jesus Christ was an impostor. If He was an impostor, then the Bible is false, and there is no God.
Brother Caneer says, “Space is not a thing. It is only an opening between two material things. There would be no space if there were no material objects. The distance from one material object to another material object is space.” The word space is a noun, and a noun is a thing. Webster tells us that space is “boundlessness, and indefinite divisibility; the subject of determinations of position and direction.” He says, “The question whether space is real apart from space-filling objects, that is, whether it is a receptacle for things or an attribute of them, dates from early times. * * * * * Aristotle (Physics, Book IV) held the view commonly [pg 381] accepted in modern times of space as the logical condition of the existence of bodies; space being ‘that without which bodies could not exist, but itself, (space) continuing to exist when bodies cease to exist;’ space possesses magnitude or extension, though itself is not a body— ‘for in case it were a body then two bodies would exist in the same place.’ He argued that inclosed places may be contained and moved in large including places— a ball in a box, the box in a house, the house in a town, the town on the earth, etc.; but all places are in one continuous space, an ultimate environment, peras (the Greek word), which contains all movable things and is not movable itself.” This is very clear, that space is boundless, and contains all objects; that is, all objects are in space; and space exists whether there are any objects or not. Space was before any objects were made; and when God made the worlds He hung them out in space.
It seems to us that if it is reasonable and right to say that the spiritual life which God imparts in regeneration is God, we can just as reasonably say that the natural life is God, for both came from God, or do come from Him. He is the Giver of the natural life as well as the Giver of spiritual life. It is true that in regeneration God takes up His abode in the heart of the sinner by His Spirit, and thereby imparts something else besides Himself, which is spiritual life. In the work of regeneration the Spirit of God operates on the spirit of man. It is an internal work. The heart is the seat of affection. At the death of the body, or at the end of this mode of existence, the soul or spirit (remember that we cannot divide between them, but the Lord can) leaves the body (then the body is dead, and that is the [pg 382] end of this physical life) and goes to God with that spiritual life which was given in regeneration. When the spirit of man that is unregenerated leaves his body, then his body is dead; that is the end of this physical life; but the spirit continues dying; it never ceases to die; it just keeps on dying— “dying thou shalt die.”
Brother Caneer, we have had our say. We have been plain, or tried to be. We have not meant to be harsh, and if our language sounds harsh, remember that we have not meant it to be with any harsh feeling.
It seems to us that the questions in Hot Shot rather upset some theory held to by Brother Caneer, rather than that the questions themselves were inconsistent or contradictory.
We still say that “whatever is Baptistic is Scriptural.” We do not say, nor have we said, that the church makes no mistakes. If some new or false idea is injected into the church and is advocated for a time, that thing is not Baptistic, but is a departure from that which is Baptistic. That which is Baptistic is that which has been advocated by the Baptists all along the line— not some new departure. And that which has been advocated by the Baptists, as a denomination, all along the line is Scriptural. If not, then the Baptist Church is not the church of Christ. Perhaps the Baptists have been an”unthinking people” all along the line until recently, when a few “thinking” ones have come up to deny what the Saviour said, that “these shall go away into everlasting punishment”— into endless punishment; for the original word means endless, never ceasing. C. H. C.
[pg 383]
AN ENDORSEMENT
July 1, 1926
Dear Brother Cayce: The beautiful snow is falling, which has deprived me of the privilege of going to church today. I saw our dear brother, Elder Lancaster, a few days ago, who was laid in his grave yesterday. I mourn his loss. We preached together forty-five years. I see in the Lone Pilgrim the courts have tried the case between J. R. Wilson and others. The Scriptures forbid brother going to law with brother. What right has an unbelieving jury to try a church trouble? I can’t endorse this unscriptural rule. But what interested me was what Elder Hutchens said concerning you, dear brother, and Brethren Pittman and Hanks. I know nothing of their troubles. I don’t know what you brethren did or said; but Elder Hutchens says “all Primitive Baptists who know the facts in the case and hold the doctrine, practice, faith, rules and order of the church dear have already marked and will avoid Hanks, Pittman and Cayce and all others who have followed Wilson.” I am not following man, but I had the pleasure of hearing you preach twice at the association at Coats. I heard Brother Hanks twice at Durham; and I heartily endorse the glorious doctrine you preached, which was, and is, the doctrine preached by Gold, Hassell, the Woodses, and all of God’s called ministers. I have been contending for this doctrine for forty-six years; and if God lets me live on, as long as I do live and He gives me strength I expect to hold up this blessed doctrine— salvation by grace. During forty-eight years I have lived with the Old Baptists we have not been disturbed with the stuff of absolutism, and I pray God we never will, and ask the household of faith not to allow it to come in our churches. We are all in peace here in Wayne and adjoining counties, as to the doctrine; and have not, and will not, give over that a just, true and holy God predestinated a man to murder or purposed us to sin. God forbid. If we all could see and feel the spirit that man of God, dear Brother Copeland, manifested, and many others, we would be walking in the sunshine of God’s everlasting love. Brethren, let your light shine.
My dear brother, I am so fearful, and so little, so ignorant, I dread to write. I am not writing this for publication, but just to [pg 384] let you know how I am and our brethren stand; but if you see fit, and think it will help and strengthen any of God’s little ones, you do as you will. I am your dear brother, I hope, in Christ. God bless you. May God enable you to live and wield the sword of God, who doeth all things well. Love to you. J. W. Gardner.
R. 1, Goldsboro, N. C.
REMARKS
We appreciate the above very much. May the good Lord bless you, dear brother.
The church trial reported in the Lone Pilgrim, referred to above, was reversed by the higher court in both cases, and the property was given to those with whom Elder Wilson is identified. The opposers of Elder Wilson were the ones who took the matter into court. They were the violators of the plain Scriptural injunction and instruction,
The reason why they propose to avoid us is for no other reason than that we call the doctrine they teach in question, and deny that it is the teaching of God’s blessed book. We do not believe that the monstrous crimes, nor any of the crimes, committed are links in the chain of events, all of which were forged and welded by the eternal sovereign God, who is the great fountain and source of truth and righteousness.
He is “a God of truth and without iniquity.”— Deut. 32:4. As He is without iniquity, it does not proceed from Him, either directly or indirectly.
Without His predestination there would have been no salvation. That being true, salvation follows as a result of God’s predestination. His predestination is one of the causes without which there would be no salvation. Upon the same principle, if God predestinated the sin and wickedness that is committed in the world, [pg 385] it would not have been without that predestination; and that being true, iniquity is from Him. But iniquity is not from God. But what God predestinated is from Him. Therefore, He did not predestinate iniquity.
Salvation is from the Lord; it is of the Lord. He predestinated to save. He predestinated some to be conformed to the image of His Son; and that salvation is of the Lord; it is from Him.
We have often been brought to the place where we are willing to try to pray to the Lord; but we never did feel like trying to pray this way: “Lord, be merciful to me, for I have done what thou didst unalterably predestinate and decree that I should. Lord, be merciful to me, for I have always done thy will and pleasure— just what was thy will for me to do; and, therefore, O Lord, I beg of thee to have mercy upon me.” No, we have never felt to pray that way— but that prayer would be according to the doctrine taught in the Lone Pilgrim.
C. H. C.
WORDS OF ENCOURAGEMENT
July 15, 1926
In The Primitive Baptist of November 18, 1892, we find the following letter from Elder Spencer F. Moore, then of Boston, Mo., but now at Maud, Texas. We feel like, perhaps, the letter and what Brother Moore endorsed would be of some benefit to our people now. Hence we give space for the same. C. H. C.
THE LETTER:
Elder S. F. Cayce: My loving brother in Christ, if it is right for such a great sinner, [pg 386] and weak minded as I am to call you brother— I have just read the last PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, and when I read your remarks under Brother P. J. Howard’s article, my poor soul was filled with love and sweet fellowship for you. Oh, Brother Cayce, I believe that the Lord is with you, and my great desire is that our darling Saviour will bless you for the good that I feel you are doing for the cause of Christ. It seems to me, my brother, that you never make a mistake; all your writings seem so smooth; every word seems to be exactly in its place; and I noticed in your sermons when you were here that every word meant something; and above all I rejoice to claim you as a true brother. Somehow you seem like a dear father to me; I suppose it is because I am weak and you are so strong. Oh, my dear brother, you don’t realize how sad I was when I felt that I could see your face no more. But still I yet hope to see you on earth again. How glad I am that our blessed Jesus went to prepare a place for His loved ones up in heaven. There’s where I hope to be, with all of God’s dear little ones. I don’t feel fit to be with them here, but when I am made like lovely Jesus, O then, dear brother, I won’t feel cast down any more, but will sing praises to our blessed heavenly Father, with all the redeemed forever and ever more. It seems to me if I could do all you are doing for the Lord, I would know that He (God) was with me, and that He was my strength. Don’t you ever get tired, dear brother? Oh, you have so much to bear! There is so much responsibility laid upon you. I think the dear brethren and sisters ought to help you, by not writing things that would bother you, and I suppose I am the worst of all; but I want you to forgive me, ‘ dear brother. I just feel like I want to tell you how I hope that I love you and all of God’s dear people. And, dear brother, I hope your loved ones at home will not get lonely while you are gone to cheer and encourage the Lord’s little flocks scattered here and there. Oh, how the souls of God’s little ones rejoice when they hear that one is coming that they can put full confidence in to feed them on the sincere milk of the word, or the plain un-mystified gospel of God our Saviour, Christ and Him crucified, and salvation by the grace of God. They like something that explains their experience and binds up their broken hearts. Oh, be faithful, dear Brother Cayce. Surely there is balm in Gilead; blessed Jesus said He would send the Comforter. Press on, dear brother; be instant [pg 387] both in and out of season. But Oh, I catch myself turning my letter into advice to you when I need your advice. I had better quit, hadn’t I? Cheer up, Brother Cayce. Goodbye. S. F. Moore.
Boston, Mo.,
Oct. 11, 1892.
THE REMARKS ENDORSED
We don’t think it advisable to publish anything here on the subject, “What is it that is born again?” Some of the brethren understand that it is the whole man, others understand that it is only the soul or spirit of man, but they all agree that it is the (Adam) man, the child of Adam, or sinner, that needs to be, and is, born again in regeneration, and that this birth makes us (manifestly) heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. None of them, however, believe that this birth of the Spirit purifies the flesh nor enables us to live without committing any sin; but they all agree that those who are thus born of God will, in the resurrection, be raised in the image of Jesus, that this corruptible will then have put on incorruption, this mortal will have put on immortality, and that we will then be free from sin, pain, sorrow and death. Hence we all agree that Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost, and that sinners are, therefore, saved, and will enjoy the benefits of salvation in that heaven of eternal rest that awaits the redeemed of the Lord. As we all agree in these glorious truths let us not devote any more space in discussing our fine-spun theories, but let us write and talk about the goodness and tender mercy, the power and sustaining grace of God, and such other things as make for our peace, and such things as tend to bind and unite us more firmly together in bonds of Christian love. This being our greatest desire, we shall decline publishing anything further on the mooted question above (what is it that is born again?), but we will be glad to hear from our dear brethren on subjects that pertain to the welfare of Zion and that we think will be comforting and beneficial to the dear saints of God.
C. in Primitive Baptist of Oct. 7, 1892.
REMARKS
If the brethren in 1892 did not all see just alike on this question and could, and did, live together in love [pg 388] and sweet fellowship, why can they not do so now? Did our father pursue the right course then? Was it right for the brethren to leave off their fine-spun theories and live in peace? We think it was right. If it was right for them to do that then, why would it not be right now? Verily, we think it would be right for all to confess their wrongs in engaging in the unholy war, forgive each other and live together in sweet peace and fellowship. May the Lord humble us all under a feeling sense of His goodness and make us willing to confess our wrongs and willing to forgive, as He taught us.
C. H. C.
CHURCH ACT
July 15, 1926
Whereas, a call for a general meeting in Dallas, Texas, Tuesday, August 24, 1926, of representative men from all the different factions of Primitive Baptists has been sent out, which meeting is called for the purpose of formulating a plan by which all Primitive Baptists who are agreed in doctrine may unite in their church worship; now, therefore, be it Resolved, by the Primitive Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas, while in conference on June 27, 1926, that we heartily endorse this move, and hereby offer our co-operation in the furtherance of the same. And that we wish to join with those whose signature appeared on the original call. W. W. Fowler, Moderator.
J. T. Watson, Clerk.
REMARKS
The above is copied from the Glad Tidings of July 2nd. This church is what is called the Richards or Glad Tidings faction. We do not know whether the church identified with what is called the Newman [pg 389] faction has taken any action in the matter or not. The above action makes it appear to us that those brethren really want peace; but of course the final result is yet unknown to us or to the people. We trust many of our brethren will be there, and that they will go as messengers from their churches. C. H. C.
GOD’S DETERMINATE COUNSEL
July 15, 1926
The following was written as a private letter to a brother whose name we withhold. He wrote us a good and kind letter, which we appreciated very much. After we wrote the letter we decided to put it in the paper and let our readers see what we think about the matter. We omit a few lines of apology and explanation in the first of the letter. C. H. C.
THE LETTER:
Dear Brother: * * * * I appreciate your kind admonition, and will try to be careful as to how I conduct myself. I, like you, wish the brethren would quit agitating the question of the predestination of all things. If God did predestinate my sins and wickedness it is no comfort to me to know it. If He did predestinate that I should be conformed to the image of His Son, it would be a great comfort and consolation to me to have the certain assurance of it. Paul says we are predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son. I hope— only hope— I am included in that number. Like you, that is the great question that concerns me.
[pg 390] I just notice especially the text you called attention to— “Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.” Counsel, as here used, means “deliberate purpose; design; intent; scheme; plan.” Determinate means “having defined limits; not uncertain or arbitrary; fixed, as by a rule or some specific and more or less constant cause; conclusive; decisive; positive.” He was delivered by the determinate counsel of God the Father. That was God’s deliberate purpose; design; His counsel; and it was determinate; it was fixed as by a rule or by some specific and more or less constant cause. That was the cause of Him being delivered. He voluntarily delivered Himself into the hands of the wicked Jews, and it was caused by that determinate counsel.
What they did by wicked hands was not what was the determinate counsel of God; but Him being delivered was by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, then they by wicked hands took Him and crucified Him. What the Lord did was determined by Him— not what the wicked Jews did.
The wicked Jews desired to take His life, and had tried to do so from the time of His birth. Though they had tried to take His life, and though He was delivered into their hands, yet they did not take His life. The Lord had determined that they should not take it, and they did not. Jesus said, “I lay down my life; no man taketh it from me. I lay it down of mine own self. This commandment have I received of my Father.” When He was on the cross we read that He cried, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit; and bowed His head and gave up the ghost.” When the Roman soldiers came to Him, He was dead [pg 391] already, so they brake not His legs. The thieves were not dead, so they brake their legs.
I would be glad to see you. I trust your son * * * is doing well. I would be glad to see him. I appreciate your Christian love and sweet fellowship more than I am able to tell. The first effort I ever made to speak in the name of the Master was a little more than thirty-six years ago— Saturday, Jan. 4, 1890— thirty-six years last January. I have had many trials and sore conflicts along the way. Have had some severe trials and persecutions. Many times I have felt like I was almost ready to despair, and to give up the battle. “By the grace of God I am what I am.” By His grace I continue to this day. I am now going down the western side of the hill, and am sure that it is not far to the end of the journey now. I am now a little older than my precious father was when the good Lord called him up higher. I now find myself, sometimes, looking forward to the other side of the river for joys and pleasures. I trust I feel so thankful that the good Lord has given me a dear and loving companion for my domestic happiness in my last days, and a precious family; and they all love me dearly— I know they do. From that standpoint the latter part of my life is a blessed state— but from a church standpoint there is. so much strife and confusion I sometimes long for a discharge from the warfare, and long for sweet rest.
My precious brother, as I said above, I would be so glad to see you; but I have very little idea that we will ever meet again in this low ground of sorrow. If not, I hope we shall meet in a better country. May the good Lord shower down His richest blessings upon you, is my humble prayer. Please pray for poor me. I feel to [pg 392] be so poor and needy. I need your prayers. Yours in love and fellowship,
C. H. Cayce.
LUKE 16:19-23
July 15, 1926
“We have received a letter from Brother Melvin Hall, Banner, Ky., asking our views on the above Scripture. He asks:
Was the rich man eternally saved?
Was the death spoken of a corporeal death?
Is there any Scripture that teaches that the children of God will suffer in hell after death? Were all the Jews saved, or will they be eternally saved?
We wrote a short article on this same subject which was published in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of Feb. 7, 1911, and another that was published in the issue of May 25, 1915. Those two articles have all the above questions answered except the third, but the fourth is answered indirectly. In the article in the issue of Feb. 7, 1911, we quoted a part of a text, “the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” The entire text reads: “They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”—Rom. ix. 8. Verse 6 says, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” These verses plainly show that some of the Jews were not God’s spiritual children. The Jews were His people as a nation; but His redeemed and saved children are OUT OF every nation, and not all of any nation.
[pg 393] We here copy what we said in the issues of the paper mentioned above, omitting a part of the introductory.
As these two articles referred to have already appeared in previous volumes, it is not necessary to take up space to insert them here.— Editor.
THE THIRD QUESTION
In answer to the third question we most emphatically say that there is no such Scripture. The Scriptures know of no place where people go after death but to heaven and to hell, and it is most plainly taught that God’s children go to heaven after death. The only hell they suffer is here in time, and at the second coming of the Lord they will be raised to a state of life and glory, and the others will be raised to a state of damnation John 5:28-29} or everlasting punishment. Matt. 25:46
C. H. C.
CAN THEY DISOBEY?
August 1, 1926
We are in receipt of a letter from a brother in which he asks us a number of questions and requests that we answer them as soon as possible through the paper. To save space we will just give his questions and our answers as follows:
“Can the natural man keep the moral law? That is, can he tell the natural truth, pay his just and honest debts, attend to his own business, refrain from profanity, from intoxication, fornication, adultery; and, in short, live a clean moral life?” Most assuredly men in. nature, the unregenerate, can live a clean moral life.
[pg 394] Men do not have to get drunk. If a man gets drunk, goes home and breaks his wife’s dishes and furniture, and raises a general disturbance— if every man in the world were to tell us he could not help it, that he could do no better than that, we would not believe it. We know he could do better; and, if he does not do better without, he should be made to do better. A man does not have to steal, lie and cheat. He does not have to take the name of the Lord in vain. He can and should live a moral life. If all would do that we would have a much better world to live in.
“Are those of the Lord’s people who have been renewed by the Spirit a live, active people; or are they just as dead and inactive spiritually as before? If the latter, where is the distinction between them and the unregenerate?” Most certainly there would be no distinction if God’s people are as inactive after regeneration as before. There could be no distinction unless there is a difference. Those who have been born from above are living characters; they have been raised up out of a state of death in sin to a state of life in Christ.
“Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.”— 1 Pet. 2:5. They are not dead stones, or lifeless; but they are “lively stones,” living characters; and they are, therefore, capacitated to act in a realm that the unregenerated are not capacitated to act in. They are capacitated to render spiritual service to God, to offer up spiritual sacrifices. This text teaches that they are, as lively stones, built up a spiritual house to offer up spiritual sacrifices; and if they cannot offer up these sacrifices, then the work [pg 395] of God is not sufficient for that for which He designed it.
“What is meant by the expression ‘Everything is fixed?’ Isn’t it a fact that when a Baptist preacher uses this expression that he is to be understood to mean to include all the wicked acts of men and devils; and they, the wicked acts of men, as well as all other events, were fixed by God, and could not be otherwise?” As to what is meant by the expression, “Everything is fixed,” we do not know what a man might mean by it when he uses it. If he does not mean what the words imply, then he should not use it. If he does not desire to stir up strife, he most certainly would not use it, if he does not mean what the words imply. The words would most certainly imply, to our limited understanding, that the same power that fixed one event fixed all other events. There is nothing in the expression to signify otherwise. If we were to say that God fixed one event, or one thing, and then add, “Everything is fixed,’‘ meaning every event by the use of the word everything, the expression would certainly imply that we meant that God fixed every event just as He fixed the one event. The Bible certainly teaches that God fixed the eternal salvation of His people from their sins; He fixed that they should be conformed to the image of His Son; and all the powers of darkness and the demons of the under world, and all men combined, cannot hinder or prevent one of them being conformed to the image of Jesus. Why? Because God fixed it, and it cannot, and will not, be prevented or hindered. The reason why it cannot be hindered or prevented is because God fixed it. Did He also fix every act they do and every sin they commit? Did He fix all the rape, [pg 396] lying, stealing, murders, robberies, assassinations, and all the dastardly crimes that are committed? All the preachers that live on God’s earth could not make us believe such as that.
“If the above be true, how could there be any violation of God’s law by His creatures, seeing that they are doing just what He wanted and intended?” If it is true, then there could be no such thing as a violation of God’s will, and His law would not be an expression of His will. But His will is expressed in His law. If His will is not expressed in His law, then the eternal God is guilty of double dealing. As He is not guilty of double dealing, then His will is expressed in His law. His people transgress His law. “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.”-1 John 3:4.
From these facts we have the following: God’s will is expressed in His law. Sin is the transgression of the law. God’s people sin. Therefore God’s people often fail to do God’s will. It was not His will for them to transgress. If they were doing His will in transgressing, then He would be well pleased with them transgressing, or else He is not well pleased with His own will. If He is well pleased with His own will, then they do not please Him when they transgress His law, and it is not His will for them to transgress.”And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness.”— 1 Cor. 10:4-5. They did not do God’s will, and He was not well pleased with them, and they were overthrown in the wilderness.
“Would not the theory that God has, from all [pg 397] eternity, predestinated, decreed and foreordained that we should do just what we do forever destroy all admonition to duty? In fact, could it be truthfully said that there would be any duties for us to perform, unless our wicked and sinful acts are duties, as well as any others; and would we not be serving God in our sinful acts just as much so as in our good ones? This is the way it appears to me, if this be true.”If that theory be true, there would be no need of admonition; there would be no place for it. The only reason that could be assigned for admonition to duty, in case that theory be true, would be that God foreordained and decreed that one should give the admonition which he does give. If that doctrine be true, then it forever destroys all accountability of man. No sort of reasoning can make it appear otherwise. If it is unalterably fixed from eternity that a man should do just as he does do, then he is neither responsible nor accountable for so doing. It was unalterably fixed from eternity that certain persons should be conformed to the image of Jesus, and they are not responsible or accountable for being thus conformed to His image. The one who does the fixing is the one responsible for the thing being done that was so fixed. To predestinate, decree, or foreordain is to fix beforehand.
“If the natural man can live a clean, moral life, could less be expected of those who profess to have been born of the Spirit of God?” It seems that Paul expected more of the children of God at Rome than he did of un-regenerate people.”And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.”— Rom. 15:14. Paul was fully persuaded that [pg 398] they were able to admonish one another, and expected chem to do that, evidently.
“If God’s people cannot do anything by way of keeping the commandments, why are they told to do so many things in the Scriptures?” This is a question we cannot answer. If they cannot do anything there would be no necessity of telling them to do anything, that we can see. If that question can be answered by any sort of logical reasoning we would be glad to see the answer.”If they cannot do anything, why does John say, 1 John 5:21 “Little children, keep yourselves from idols?’ Why did Peter say, ‘Save yourselves from this untoward generation?’ Acts 2:40 Why did the apostle say, ‘If one be overtaken in a fault, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness?” Gal. 6:1 Sure enough, if they cannot do anything, why did John say what he did? Why did Peter say what he did? Why did Paul say what he did? Why? WHY?
“Why did Paul tell the jailer to do something, if he could not do anything?”Yes, why did he? There is no why!
“When Paul says,’I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision,’ etc., is it not implied that he could have been, or that some of the Lord’s people were, disobedient?” That language most assuredly shows very clearly that there is such a thing as being disobedient. If there is no such thing as being disobedient, then there was no necessity for him to say that he was not disobedient. But God’s people do not all of them obey. “But they have not all obeyed the gospel.”— Rom. 10:16.”But thou shalt say unto them, This is a nation that obeyeth not the voice of the Lord their God, [pg 399] nor receiveth correction: truth is perished, and is cut off from their mouth.”— Jer 7:28.”
Is it not a fact that God’s people do disobey the commands? Then why do some of our preachers say, ‘When God commands us we always obey,’ or that we are just bound to do it?” To the first part we say it is a fact that God’s people do disobey, as we have shown in answer to the previous question. The latter part of the question— or, rather, the latter question, we cannot answer. We might give an apparent reason, and impugn the motives of some. We might judge that some say this as an excuse for their wrong doing. Then we might possibly be judging them wrong. We cannot see why one would say such a thing. We are sure there is no Bible ground for saying such.
“Is it God’s will for His people to sin in doing all the wickedness that they are guilty of? If so, why does He punish them for doing His will?” God does not punish His children for doing His will. He punishes them for disobeying Him, and their disobedience does not please Him. This we have already shown above.”With many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.’1 Cor. 10:4-5.
“Would a natural father be so brutal as to whip his child for doing what he was willing for it to do!” A loving father would certainly not punish his child for doing his will. If God’s children are doing God’s will when they disobey, or when they fail to obey, and He chastises or punishes them, for the same, then He is meaner to His children, and is less just to them, than a loving natural father would be to his children.
“Why do some preachers use such expressions as ‘Everything that ever I did was God’s will?” We do [pg 400] not know why they use such expressions, unless it be because they have “forgotten that they were purged from their old sins.” They have certainly forgotten their experience, for the time being, at least. They certainly never did try to pray, “Lord be merciful to me, for everything that ever I did was thy will.” When under conviction for sin, they certainly felt and confessed that they had done contrary to God’s will. We wonder if they do not, even now, in prayer say, “Lord, we have done many things that we should not have done, and have left undone many things that we should have done; we have often run counter to thy will.” We wonder if they do not confess that in prayer? If they do, and confess the truth in so doing, then when they say,”Everything that ever I did was God’s will,” they do not tell the truth-they are simply mistaken about it; and they should not say it again.
“What is the church’s duty when her pastor uses such expressions? Is it the deacon’s duty to see that the pastor preaches sound doctrine?” It is the duty of every member of the church to see that the pastor preaches sound doctrine— and especially is it the duty of the deacon, as an officer of the church. If a preacher uses such expressions he should be kindly admonished. If he will not desist, but persists in such a course, to the destruction of the peace of the church, then he should be dealt with as an offender. He should, at least, be silenced. If he stubbornly rebels, he may be dealt with for rebellion. If all the churches had thus faithfully dealt with the ministers much of the strife, confusion and divisions that have come among us could and would have been avoided. The preachers belong to the churches, and the churches do not belong to the [pg 401] preachers. If all our people would get that well into their mind and act accordingly, they would stop much of the confusion among us.
We have tried to answer your questions, dear brother, the best we know how, and have tried to do so in a spirit of love for the truth and in love to all our brethren. C. H. C.
1 TIMOTHY 4:10
August 1, 1926
Brother J. L. Harbour, of Dekalb, Miss., asks us to write our views on this text. The text reads: “For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe.” We will endeavor to make just a few remarks in connection with the text. We suppose the latter part of the text is that upon which the brother wishes our views. It is a text— the latter part of it— which is frequently quoted by some people in endeavoring to prove that the Lord desires the final salvation and glorification of the entire human family. Hence they emphasize the expression, “who is the Saviour of all men.” If the text belongs where they put it, and the right application is as they make it, to the final or eternal salvation and final glorification of human beings in heaven; and if the term all men includes and embraces the entire human family; and if some of the human family are finally lost and are not finally glorified, then the text contradicts itself. A saviour is one who saves. If one [pg 402] is a saviour of a man, then that man is saved. If one man of the race of Adam is not saved, or is finally lost, then the Lord is not that man’s Saviour in that sense. If, therefore, some of the race of Adam are finally lost, not finally saved, not saved with an eternal salvation, then the Lord is not the Saviour of all men in that sense. In whatever sense the saving may be used, the Lord is not the Saviour of a man not saved in that sense. If the word Saviour as used in this text has reference to a preserving in a natural sense, then in that sense the Lord is the Saviour, or preserver, of all the race. He is also the preserver of the beast creation. “O Lord, thou preservest man and beast.”— Psa 36:6. If this fact makes salvation in heaven possible for a human being, or for a man, it would do the same thing for the beast.
The Lord does preserve and uphold all His works in creation, and bestows His natural blessings in the natural realm; and the natural man enjoys them. But there are spiritual blessings which no one can enjoy unless one has the spiritual life. So there is a special blessing, or saving, or preserving, for His people that is not had or enjoyed by any others.
The term all men may be used in a generic or restricted sense, as that term is often used in Scripture. Used in that sense it would and should be applied to all the Lord’s children, all who are born from above. He is their Saviour, their Preserver. He saves them, and will finally deliver them from this present evil world, and they shall finally be conformed to the image of Jesus, though many of them do not here in this world believe in Jesus as the Messiah, as the King in Zion; they do not believe His teaching or doctrine. Some of His people do thus believe; and the Lord is a special Saviour of those who do thus believe. 1 Tim. 4:10 There is a special saving enjoyed by the Lord’s people here in this world who thus believe in Him that others do not and cannot enjoy. “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.” C. H. C.
DEUTEROMONY 11:26; 30:15
August 15, 1926
Brother H. T. Tucker, Star, N. C, asked us to give our views through the paper of Deut. 11:26; 30:15.
Deut. 11:26-27,28 reads as follows: “Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; a blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you this day: and a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.” It seems to us that this language is as plain as language could make it that the Lord here promised the children of Israel a blessing if they would render that obedience unto Him which He required of them. The blessing which He promised depended upon their doing what He commanded. Here were blessings that they were to enjoy upon the ground of rendering obedience, and upon that ground only. He did not promise these blessings whether they rendered obedience or not, or unconditionally. On the other hand, He promised a curse if they did not render that obedience unto Him, but if they should turn aside and serve other gods. Here is punishment promised upon their disobedience.
Deut. 30:15-20 reads: “See, I have set before [pg 404] thee this day life and good, and death and evil; in that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it. I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: that thou mayest love the Lord thy God, and that thou mayest obey His voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto Him: for He is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the Lord sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob to give them.” It seems to us that this language, too, is as plain as it can be made. He did not set life and death before the Gentiles, or the world of the ungodly; but He set them before Israel, His people, and required obedience of them, and promised the blessing if they rendered the obedience required. On the other hand, rebellion and disobedience would bring death and destruction upon them. The life nor the death were neither of them eternal, but the life was to be enjoyed in the land of Canaan, which the Lord promised to give to Abraham and to his seed after him. The land, therefore, belonged to the Israelites. It was theirs by gift and by birth. They were not required to render obedience to [pg 405] the Lord in order that the land be theirs; but they were required to render obedience unto Him in order that they continue in the land and enjoy the blessings in the land.
National Israel were a typical people; they were a type of spiritual Israel. As national Israel were required to render obedience unto the Lord in order that they enter the land of Canaan and enjoy the blessings of that land, even so the Lord’s Israel today— spiritual Israel— must obey the Lord, or render service unto Him, in order that they enter the church— the antitype of the land of Canaan, the gospel Canaan— and enjoy the blessings in the church. The blessings here promised were to be enjoyed only when they rendered the service unto the Lord which He required, and could not be had or enjoyed any other way. The Lord made the enjoyment of these blessings to depend upon the obedience rendered by them unto Him. As the Lord put it that way, no man could or can change it and make it some other way.
Here the Lord commanded them to choose life. It would be folly to command one to choose life who had no life. Choice is something that pertains to and belongs to life. One must have life in order to choose. Hence those people were not alien sinners, or destitute of life. They were to prolong their life in Canaan by doing what the Lord commanded. They would escape punishment, sorrow, distress, captivity, and destruction by the sword by doing what the Lord required. This belongs today to the Lord’s people.
If all would only awake to duty and each one of us be found at our post doing what the Lord requires of us, [pg 405 how much better it would be. May the Lord help us so to do.
C. H. C.
UNION OF SEPARATE
AND REGULAR BAPTISTS
August 15, 1926
We have seen that the claim has been made that in the union of the Separate and Regular Baptists in North Carolina they had regard for what some are termed to call gospel order. The Regular Baptists in Virginia and North Carolina had baptized some into their churches who were in a state of unbelief, or were unregenerate, and the Separates, for a time, urged this as an objection to a union. Finally the Regulars corrected this error and ceased the practice of administering baptism to any only those who gave evidence of regeneration. This was in the Kehukee Association in North Carolina and may be seen by reference to Hassell’s History, pp. 697, 698, 699.
But here the question comes up: Where did the Separate Baptists come from? Where did they originate? Here is the answer: In 1740, or thereabout, George Whitfield, an Episcopalian, came to New England from England and engaged in holding revival meetings. Some of the Baptists were favorable to those revivals, and some were not. The pastor of the church in Boston, Mass., opposed the revival, but some of the members of that church favored it, and they withdrew from the church in 1742. The next year they were constituted into a church and were called Separate Baptists, the old party remaining as before and began to be denominated [pg 407] Regular Baptists. From this split off faction sprang the Separate Baptists. According to the contention of some of our brethren they have no gospel baptism themselves. If the Regulars were a disorderly party on account of having some unregenerated persons among them who had been immersed, and the Separates started from this excluded faction, then none of the Baptists had gospel baptism, according to the way some brethren seem to view matters. If the Regulars did have gospel baptism, when they united with the Separates they lost all their gospel order, according to the argument some brethren make. So it makes no difference which horn of the dilemma they take, the Baptists have no gospel baptism now. Brethren, let us try to be consistent.
For our authority as to the origin of the Separate Baptists see Spencer’s History of the Kentucky Baptists, Vol. 1, pp. 104, 105.
In Kentucky the Regulars and Separates united in 1801. The two bodies appointed a committee to meet and formulate a plan and terms of agreement. They met at Howard’s Creek (Old Providence meetinghouse), in Clark County, on the second Saturday in October, 1801. “The terms of union were unanimously approved by the convention, and were recommended to the churches for their adoption. It appears to have met with no opposition from any quarter.”-Spencer, Vol. 1, p. 545. None of them were required to do their official work over.
C. H. C.
[pg 408]
WHO OWNS THE CHILD?
August 15, 1926
We have seen a number of articles from different brethren concerning the child claimed by two women when Solomon was king over Israel. It seems that each brother who has written on this holds out the idea that his faction of the Baptists has the child. We would like to call attention of the brethren to this point and to this fact: If that child represents the Primitive Baptist Church, as the brethren generally seem to present it, as the child was not divided, or any of its members severed, then the Primitive Baptist Church remains one and the same, notwithstanding the different factions— these different factions still compose the child.
Another thing we would like to kindly call attention to is this: When Solomon called for a sword to divide the child, the woman who was not the true mother was willing for the child to be divided, but the true mother was not willing. Now, if that child represented the Primitive Baptist Church today, will you please tell us who that church belongs to— those who are willing for a division or those who are pleading and working for a union? A hint to the wise is sufficient. C. H. C.
THE DALLAS MEETING
September 15, 1926
The meeting called for to be held in Dallas on August 24 and 25 met according to the call published. A large crowd assembled in the city hall on the morning of the 24th, and the meeting was held there that day. As the [pg 409] people could hardly hear what was said by the speakers on the stand, the place of meeting was changed to the Y. W. C. A. building. When the meeting had been organized by electing two moderators, one to represent what was called the Richards faction and one to represent what was called the Newman faction, and the election of two clerks, then a committee of 19 were appointed to draft a statement of principles of doctrine and practice, or discipline, to be presented to the meeting for consideration. The committee assembled in another room and worked hard, yet patiently and with brotherly love and forbearance, and finished the work and presented the following in open meeting. Every item in the following was unanimously agreed to and adopted by the committee, and when read in open meeting was unanimously adopted by the Baptists assembled on both sides. There was not a dissenting vote.
After the report was read, and adopted by the meeting, there was a general confession of wrongs by brethren on both sides; hearts were softened, brethren who had been at variance forgave each other and embraced each other; then there were songs sung and the hand of love and fellowship extended to each other amid shouts of praise to the Lord.
We believe that much and lasting good will result from this meeting. Surely the good Lord manifested His blessed and sweet presence, and it was good to be there. May His name be praised. C. H. C.
Note.-As the proceedings of this meeting were published in pamphlet form, we do not deem it necessary to insert the same here.—Editor.
[pg 410]
ANOTHER TROUBLE SETTLED
September 15, 1926
About twenty-five years ago there was a division in the Flint River Association, in South Georgia. The meeting which was held at New Hope, Grady County, Georgia, last January was for the purpose of trying to get those churches together again. When the division occurred one party went on as the Flint River Association, and some of the churches met at Trinity in 1905 and adjusted their differences and carried on their association under the name of the Original Flint River Association. Some of the churches in both factions were represented in the New Hope meeting last January and came together; but there was a division in Tired Creek Church, in the Original Flint River, resulting from the call and the holding of the New Hope meeting. We were at the New Hope meeting, and felt then that these brethren should all be together, and that they were one people. So we left on Tuesday night, July 27, and arrived in Thomasville, Ga., on Thursday to fill appointments in that section, our object being to present an article to the different churches, which we called the “Gospel Terms of Peace,” that the churches might come together upon the terms therein expressed. We visited the following named churches: Prosperity, Union (Mitchell), Live Oak, New Hope, Providence, Zion Hill, Hartsfield, Poplar Springs, Mizpah, Hopewell, Shady Grove, Union (Miller), Pisgah, Piedmont, Trinity and Tired Creek. There were some other churches which we did not have the time to visit, but a copy of the article was sent to them, and they have all endorsed and adopted the same. The [pg 411] trouble was also settled at Tired Creek, an account of which is given in another article in this paper.
We feel to hope that the Lord blessed our feeble efforts for peace among these good brethren.
The following is a copy of the article we presented to the churches and a copy of their endorsements. C. H. C.
Note.-We do not deem it necessary to take up space here to insert the article.-Editor.
ON THE WAR PATH
September 15, 1926
We see in one of our exchanges that some of the editors and writers seem to take great delight in their efforts to expose us and to say some very harsh things concerning us and the doctrine we try, in our weakness, to set forth in the columns of this paper. If such a course is any satisfaction to them, and they get any satisfaction out of it, they are welcome to all the joy they get from such.
“Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.”— Matt. 5:11-12. “Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing. For he that will love life, and see good days, let [pg 412] him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile: let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it. For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and His ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.”— 1 Pet. 3:8-12. C. H. C.
TIRED CREEK CHURCH SETTLEMENT
September 15, 1926
On our recent trip in Georgia our last appointment was at Tired Creek, which church had divided. This is in the Flint River Association. The appointment at Tired Creek was Monday, August 16. After service we presented the following to them for consideration, which was endorsed and adopted by thirty-nine of the members’ of that church, including both factions. There were forty-two present.
We trust the three who did not then accept the settlement will do so. When they thus voted to come together, we asked for a rising vote of all the Baptists present who approved of the same, and the vote of approval was almost unanimous. Then they all joined in singing and extending to each other the hand of fellowship. It was an enjoyable meeting; and the Lord’s presence was surely manifested and felt. May His name be praised. We trust those good brethren have truly buried their differences and that sweet peace may reign among them. C. H. C.
THE SETTLEMENT
Whereas, There has been discord, strife and confusion, resulting in a division of the members of Tired Creek Church, both sides or both parties claiming to be the church, and feeling and realizing that this is a sad state of affairs, having brought sorrow and distress to ourselves, as well as to our brethren and to sister churches; and
Whereas, We desire that peace and union be restored among ourselves, as well as among and between all our sister churches;
Therefore, we, the members on both sides hereby confess that we have been prompted by a wrong spirit in our contentions with each other, and desire to, and do, hereby mutually confess all our mistakes, errors and wrongs, and mutually forgive each other of all mistakes, errors and wrongs committed, and agree to bury the past in oblivion and to come together in peace, desiring to live together as brethren in the Lord, and to strive for the things that make for peace and the things wherewith one may edify another, praying the Lord to help us to live in such a way as to honor and glorify His holy name.
We are aware and all agree that efforts have been heretofore made to unite all the churches once composing the Flint River Association, and we greatly desire and humbly hope that they will all be brought together in peace, love, union and sweet fellowship.
BIG SANDY ASSOCIATION
September 15, 1926
We have just attended the session of the Big Sandy Association, which met with the church at West Plains, near Milan, Tenn. A large crowd was present each day, especially on Sunday, and the meeting closed on Sunday, September 5. The following brethren in the ministry were present during the meeting: Elders J. L. Fuller, who was chosen moderator, T. M. Hampton, who was chosen clerk, L. D. Hamilton, J. C. Ross, J. B. Halbrook, J. R.,Scott, J. H. Phillips, John Grist, J. W. Adams, T. L. Webb, M. J. Perry, A. W. DeBerry, D. Hopper, W. C. Davis, J, N. Wallace, W. A. Bishop, [pg 414] D. Neisler, T. M. Phillips, J. S. Clayton, C. F. Parker, and the writer, making twenty-one in all. It was a great meeting; the preaching was all a unit, and peace, love and fellowship abounded. Not a discordant note was sounded. All seemed to labor for the peace and union of the Lord’s children. The Lord’s presence was surely manifested, and the meeting was an enjoyable one.
On Monday following, which was yesterday, we were at New Hope, near Milan. Elder Webb is making this trip with us, and will be with us, the Lord willing, until after the third Sunday, if no longer. Elders L. D. Hamilton and J. W. Adams were with us yesterday. We tried to preach and then Brother Webb followed and preached a comforting discourse, and the meeting was enjoyed by those present, and a good crowd was there for a Monday meeting.
We are glad to have Brother Webb with us on this trip. Please remember us in your prayers.
C. H. C.
A TROUBLE MAKER
October 1, 1926
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother in Christ— I am reading with great interest the peace move that is being advocated in your paper, but at the same time with much sorrow, knowing that we cannot have peace at the present as I would like to have peace. On the second Sunday in June, 1922, the church at Bethel was organized by Elders M. D. Brann, D. E. Burris and C. L. Clark, the church being examined and found orthodox in doctrine and practice. The church remained in peace until the fall of 1923, when there arose a little difference between some of the members. At the same time a man by the name of Valentine began to visit the church and preach; teaching [pg 415] that the Scriptures teach only one salvation, and demanding that all the church work be done over, when the writer with two others objected to his doctrine and to the church work being done over. We remained in this condition until the fourth Sunday in June of this year, when they organized another church and called Valentine for their pastor. While this was taking place it pleased the Lord for us to have with us Elders J. E. Alderman and M. D. Brann. We also had two deacons from Elder Alderman’s church, Good Hope, all volunteering to come, not knowing what was expected to be done on that day. When they saw what was taking place all acted very quiet and said nothing for or against their organization. Elders Alderman and Brann are men that I consider sound in doctrine and practice. Elder Alderman has done us the favor of volunteering to be our pastor for the present, he being the moderator of the association that the members belonged to when they went into the first organization and the one who baptized some of the members. He said he felt it to be his duty to try to save them from their error. I have written this in love, seeking to know the truth as it is in Christ Jesus our Lord. At this time I have no fellowship for this teaching, because, in my judgment, it links together the chain of events in eternity, and they must come as they do. It puts the disobedient and the obedient child on equal terms, and makes a child of God as passive in obedience as in regeneration, and I do not understand this to be the teaching of the Scriptures.
If this is printed, I will be glad to hear from any who have a mind to write to me, as I am just a young man and need instruction. Brother Cayce, if it be your mind and the Lord’s will I would be glad for you to visit us. It is not so very far from Fordyce to where we live. We are about twenty miles south of Eudora, Ark., and we meet on Saturday before the third Sunday in each month. I am sure that you and Elder Alderman are one in doctrine and practice, and I have hope that you might have some influence to save some who are being carried off in this false teaching. If I am wrong I pray to be corrected. J. M. Burch.
Oak Grove, La.
REMARKS
When men pursue such a course as this man Valentine [pg 416] has, and teach such a doctrine, it is clearly evident that they are trouble makers, and the church and the Lord’s little children are better off without their visits. Such efforts to tear a church to pieces cannot be prompted by the Spirit of the Lord. It is a pity that some men will do that way. God is not the author of confusion, but of peace; and when a man brings confusion he is acting from a wrong principle. If there is only one salvation set forth in the Bible, then no man in this wide world can harmonize it. We would be glad to visit you some time, if the good Lord opens the way and we have the opportunity. C. H. C.
FLINT RIVER ASSOCIATION
October 1, 1926
For a number of years there has existed a division in the Flint River Association in South East Georgia. An effort was made to get them all together in a meeting at New Hope, Grady County, Ga., last January, but some of the churches did not represent in the meeting, and the desired object was not accomplished. Recently we made a trip in that country for the purpose of trying to get them all together. We visited most all the churches of both factions, and they all endorsed and adopted the article which we presented to them, as has been stated in our columns already, or in another place. Both sides, or the two associations, are to hold meetings this year, as they had already been appointed, the one called the Original Flint River to meet with the church at Sharon, Donaldsonville, Ga., on the first Sunday in October, the regular time; the other is to meet with the church at [pg 417] New Hope, Grady County, Ga., the first Sunday in November, their regular time. All brethren are invited to attend both meetings, and we hope that matters may then be finally adjusted so as to have but the one meeting of the association in the future— that is, for them to all meet in one body in the future. We are glad that they are all together now, and trust the Lord’s blessings may rest upon them. C. H. C.
HISTORY SUGGESTED
October 15, 1926
Brother Odell, I would like to make a suggestion, either to Elder C. H. Cayce or Elder J. S. Newman, that they have one of those old church histories re-published, so all of our younger brethren could have a chance to purchase one and read it. I would be glad if every one of my children had a good church history to read after I am gone. It is true, the Bible is the greatest of all books, but if the order of our people is according to the Scriptures, and I believe with all my heart that it is, then I think it very necessary that we keep up with our history also. If this appeals to any one else, let us have an expression from you. It would take a great many of us to buy enough of them to justify either of them to have a history of that size re-published. If we all knew more about what our forefathers did, we would have a better idea what we could do.
A. J. Webb, in Glad Tidings of Oct. 8, 1926.
REMARKS
For our part we hardly know what old history would be best to re-publish just at this time, or which one would give the most information on some points that seem to most concern our people just at this time. Burkett and Reid History of the Kehukee Association shows that two factions came together in the early day [pg 418] of that association, the two known as Regulars and Separates. Other histories show the same thing in other sections. Griffin’s History of the Mississippi Baptists is a good work, and ought to be re-published, but it does not show what Burkett and Reid show in regard to the Kehukee. The first Baptists in Mississippi were the Regulars. Owen’s Church History is also a very good work, and we would be glad to see it re-published. But we do not think it gives the information contained in the History of the Kehukee. That information is contained in Hassell’s History, but that is now out of print, and is a very large book. It would cost a lot to re-publish that work, or to publish another edition of it. The Hanks History is a very good work and contains a lot of valuable information, but it is very brief and much condensed. For a number of years we tried to gather a good library, especially church histories, and we think we met with good success along that line. We have thought that a good history of our people was much needed— one that is brief, and yet not too brief, but not too much detail, and for a long time we had that in view in gathering our library. But a few years ago we just about gave up the idea of ever trying to publish such a work. We fear that it would be done at a loss, and we are not able to bear a loss— at least not much of a loss. If we had some assurance that our people would purchase such a history we might undertake such a task, though it would require much time, labor and expense. It seems that our people generally are slow to buy books, even though the books be valuable. The book called “Fifty Years Among the Baptists,” written by David Benedict, is a very valuable work to our people. It shows very clearly when the new [pg 419] things were introduced that caused the division between our people and the Missionaries, and clearly shows their departures. That book was re-published several years ago by Elder J. S. Newman. He still has a number of them for sale, and we have several hundred that we bought from him. The book sells for one dollar and is well worth twice that amount. It ought to be in every Old Baptist home, and it would be good for every Missionary to read it, as well as for every searcher after truth. We would be glad for our people to wake up and read more good literature and inform themselves along historical lines, as well as along doctrinal and practical lines. C. H. C.
A CONFESSION
October 15, 1926
I just feel like I have said and written things about Brethren Newman, Collings and Cayce that I should not have done. If I should try to enumerate them I am sure I would fail to think of each one. So I want to ask them to forgive me of all I have said or done that may have hurt their feelings. I often act and speak on the impulse of the moment, which is the wrong time to act.— J. A. Webb, in Glad Tidings, Oct. 8, 1926.
REMARKS
Dear brother, we do not hold a single thing against you, and have not done so. If you have ever said anything or written anything that hurt our feelings we have already forgotten it. Let nothing on that line ever bother you in the least, so far as we are concerned. May the good Lord bless and keep and sustain you by His grace, is our humble prayer. If we have ever hurt [pg 420] your feelings in any way, please forgive us, and remember us in your prayers. We feel to be so poor and needy and to need the prayers of the Lord’s dear children. We do humbly pray that peace and fellowship may be restored among the dear Old Baptists before we are called hence. C. H. C.
NOT A NEW DOCTRINE
October 15, 1926
We see an article in the Lone (some) Pilgrim from the pen of one Elder C. M. Weaver in which he endeavors to show the doctrine that God absolutely and unconditionally predestinated all things that come to pass, good, bad and indifferent, and the one salvation theory were the principles held to by the Primitive Baptists in Southern Illinois when he joined them. He says he joined them in 1888, and that Elder R. Fulkerson delivered the charge when he was ordained. Elder Weaver says Elder Fulkerson told him that he (Weaver) was preaching the same doctrine that he (Fulkerson) had been preaching for fifty years.
If we are not mistaken our father, Elder S. F. Cayce, was one of the presbytery in the ordination of Elder Weaver, and we know he never advocated the one salvation theory. Proof of this is clearly shown in the files of The Primitive Baptist. Elder S. F. Cayce and Elder Richard Fulkerson were agreed in doctrine. If they ever disagreed we never heard of it, and we remember Elder Fulkerson being at father’s home. It follows, then, that if Elder Weaver was then preaching the same doctrine Elder Fulkerson had been preaching [pg 421] for fifty years, Elder Weaver was not then preaching the one salvation theory.
We have before us at this moment a copy of “A Brief History of the Regular Baptists, Principally of Southern Illinois,” by Achilles Coffey. To which an Appendix is Added by Thomas J. Carr.” This book was published in 1877— just eleven years before Elder Weaver united with the Primitive Baptists. In this book is a “Biography of Elder A. Coffey,” written by Elder R. Fulkerson, and dated January 1, 1877. Elder Fulkerson says: “Having examined his manuscript, I, with all my heart, recommend his little volume to the Regular Baptists, and to all enquirers after truth. There is no man that stands higher among the Regular Baptists than does Elder Coffey, not only among them, but he is a man of good report with them that are without. Having labored to the best of my ability in the same gospel field for the last thirty years, I know whereof I speak.” This is a plain and unvarnished endorsement of the doctrine and principles set forth in this history, and a plain statement that Elder Fulkerson advocated the same doctrine set forth in the book.
In the “Appendix” written by Thomas J. Carr, we find the contention that there is a salvation that is not eternal. We give the following extended extract from this appendix, beginning on page 170:
Paul says,”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. This is plain, positive testimony. Then if all Scripture is for the purpose of thoroughly furnishing the man of God unto all good works, where is any of it given for any other purpose? Nowhere. Then why should one search the Bible to find a Scripture to overthrow Paul’s [pg 422] testimony? He would not have written this to Timothy had it not been the truth. Paul, in writing to the Romans, says: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth.”— Rom. 1:16. Some contend that this Scripture is applicable to the unbeliever. One or two things is true of this. Either the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, or else it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that does not believe it. Well, which is it? Paul says, “to every one that believeth.” Jesus says, “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.”— John 6:47. Again Jesus says, “He that heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life.”— John 5:24. Hence “every one that believeth” is passed from death unto life, and, as a matter of course, is a “man of God,’‘ and the Scripture is for the purpose of thoroughly furnishing him unto all good works. Here, then, is a perfect harmony seen between the two quotations from Paul. But how can the gospel be the power of God unto salvation to one who is saved already? Timothy was one of the “saved already” when Paul was writing to him, yet he says, “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.”— 1 Tim. 4:16. This cannot have reference to eternal salvation from two considerations; first, Timothy was at that time a young preacher of the gospel; second, if he was to save himself and them that heard him, there would have been no necessity for Jesus Christ, since Timothy, in this case would not only be his own saviour, but the saviour of them that heard him, be they many or few.
Paul tells how Timothy and himself were saved; that is how their eternal salvation was accomplished: “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.”— 2 Tim. 1:9.
From the above quotation we see his eternal salvation did not depend upon, nor was it “according to our works.” But the salvation that Paul was writing to Timothy concerning did depend upon “in doing this.”
Paul, in giving his charge to the elders at Ephesus, says: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock,” etc.; “for I [pg 423] know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them.”— Acts 20:28-30. And again, “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 4:14. “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,” etc., “and many shall follow their pernicious ways.”— 2 Pe 2:1-2.
By Timothy taking “heed” to himself and to the doctrine he saved himself and them that heard him (the flock) from “grievous wolves;” saved from being drawn away by men speaking “perverse things;” saved from being “carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;” saved from those “damnable heresies” privily brought in by false teachers; saved from following “their pernicious ways;” in short, they were saved from every false way.
This is sufficient to show the doctrine then taught by Thomas Carr, Elders Coffey and Fulkerson. If Elder Fulkerson had been preaching the same doctrine all the time up to the time of the ordination of Elder Weaver, and if Elder Weaver was then preaching the same doctrine that Elder Fulkerson preached, then Elder Weaver is not preaching the same doctrine now that he was preaching then. He must be one of the number who has brought in some of the “damnable heresies” referred to by the apostle and quoted by Thomas Carr. If God’s people would take heed, they might save themselves from such teaching as is promulgated by some. C. H. C.
[pg 424]
THINKING OF MOTHER
November 1, 1926
Today is October 13, 1926. Two years ago today we saw our precious mother fall asleep in Jesus. She had suffered much— no mortal knows how much. She was ready and willing and anxious to go home and be with the blessed Saviour whom she loved and delighted to serve. We have been thinking today much about that dear mother, who cared for us in our infant and childhood days. We have been thinking of her great love and tender care for us, notwithstanding our many wrongs, mistakes, failures and shortcomings. Mother’s love was so great that she was always ready to forgive and to make excuses for our mistakes and wrongs. She cared for us when we could not care for ourselves. She loved her children with all the fondness of a mother’s love. When we grew up, her love was still as strong and as fond as when we were in infancy and childhood. Mother rejoiced when she knew we had received a blessed hope in Jesus. She rejoiced when we finally went to the church and asked for a home there— at Greenfield, Tenn., on the second Sunday in August, 1889. When we met with sorrows and reverses, it was mother who wept and grieved with us. When we began to try to speak in the name of the Master, mother tried to encourage us, and would assure us that the Lord would bless us and care for us and would not forsake us, and that we should be true to Him and His cause. It was mother who would often tell us how our feeble efforts to speak in the name of the Lord, and our efforts to proclaim the sweet story of salvation by grace, had [pg 425] comforted her and encouraged her along life’s rugged pathway.
Mother! Mother! How sweet is that word! We so often went to mother for counsel and advice. It was mother who would often say, when we started away from home on a preaching tour, “Son, be careful what you say, and be careful how you say it. Do not be too quick to speak. And do not say hard things.” What good advice! What a pity we do not all heed such good counsel and advice. May the good Lord help us to remember it and heed it.
We have been thinking today of our thirty-seventh birthday, June 1st, 1908. On that day we had been toiling hard until the afternoon. We were tired and worn out and so much cast down and discouraged.
Mother came into the office and sat down near us and laid a package on our desk, and said,”Here is a present for you.” We thanked her for it, and felt so glad that mother remembered us. She said, “Open it and see what it is.” We turned and unwrapped the bundle, and there we saw a beautiful old-fashioned pound cake, made by mother’s own dear and loving hands. On the cake was a little note, nicely folded and a pin stuck through it into the cake.
We took the note and unfolded it and read these words, “Thirty-seven years ago today I was the proud mother of a sweet baby boy. Today I am the proud mother of an able Primitive Baptist minister. Mother.” This was written with her own dear hand. We could not keep back the tears. They flowed freely, and we could not keep from embracing her in our arms. That sweet and tender and loving note lies before us on our desk now. We carry it with us where we go. We have been carrying it now these eighteen [pg 426] years and more. We expect to keep it as long as we live in this old world.
We feel today to thank God for such a mother. Many times she has come to our bedside in the dark hours of the night, and we could feel the tender touch of mother’s loving hands, when she had come to see if all was well with her boy, when all others were asleep; and then she would often go down on her knees and send up a prayer to a throne of God’s rich grace for her boy when she thought we were asleep. It was mother who never became weary or too tired to minister to us in our afflictions. It was mother who would sit up with us through the dark watches of the night and give us the medicine on time. It was mother’s dear hands that would soothe our aching head. It was mother who toiled on for her child as long as she was able to toil. But now she is resting from all her labors, and we are sure that in spirit she is now in the presence of the blessed Saviour. We miss her so much. God bless her memory. We hope to see her again some day, and somehow we feel that it will not be long— and it will not be long, even if we live to a ripe old age. Lord, help us to honor the name of our blessed mother!
When we were in Martin, Tenn., recently— Monday morning, September 20— we visited father’s and mother’s grave. There we silently wept and prayed the good Lord to care for us and to help us to live in such a way as to honor their memory, and never bring reproach upon the cause they so dearly loved. Lord, help us to serve Thee better and to love Thee more while we stay upon earth. Help us to rear our children in a way that father and mother would approve, that they may be an honor to their parents and [pg 427] grandparents. Help us to rear them to respect Thy church and people; and, if it be Thy will, give them a good hope in Jesus, and spare us to see some of them follow the Lord in the ordinances of His house. Lord, help us.
C. H. C.
OUR TRIP TO TENNESSEE
November 1, 1926
In our issue of September 15 we gave an account of the meeting of the Big Sandy Association, which was held at West Plains Church, near Milan, Tenn., on Friday, Saturday and first Sunday in September, and of our visit to New Hope Church on Monday following. We were at New Hope again on Tuesday and enjoyed a very pleasant meeting. On Wednesday and Thursday we were at Old Gibson Church. Only a small congregation present. On Friday, Saturday and second Sunday we were at the Forked Deer Association, which was held with Mill Creek Church, near Bells, Tenn. A good crowd was present every day. The following named ministers were in attendance: Elders J. W. Adams, W. C. Davis, John Grist, A. W. DeBerry, R. L. Perry, T. M. Hampton, L. D. Hamilton, T. L. Webb, J. A. Robinson, C. H. Cayce, Cayce Pentecost, A. B. Sides, C. F. Parker. The preaching was all harmonious, and not a discord was heard. There were several additions to the church, and the meeting was much enjoyed.
Sunday afternoon we went with Brother Perry to Union City, where there was an appointment made for that night. Had meeting there that night, Monday and Monday night, and it was a pleasant meeting with good [pg 428] congregations at each service. Brother Webb went down to Rutherford Monday evening to fill an appointment there that night. Tuesday morning we went down there and went out to Flowers Chapel, where we had meeting Tuesday and Wednesday. Thursday we filled the appointment at Rutherford Fork Church.
Friday, Saturday and third Sunday we attended the Greenfield Association, which was held with Greenfield Church, in Greenfield, Tenn. They had service every day and night, besides service at two or three other places at night. Twenty-four ministers were in attendance, whose names were: Elders J. C. Ross, A. B. Ross, Henry Ross, R. L. Perry, Z. Stallings, John Grist, Cayce Pentecost, Commodore Brann, L. D. Hamilton, S. E. Reid, T. L. Webb, T. M. Phillips, B. P. Simmons, W. L. Murray, J. B. Hardy, J. W. Hardwick, C. F. Parker, J. E. Shackleford, J. B. Halbrook, J. S. Clayton, M. D. Brann, J. S. Williams, M. J. Perry and C. H. Cayce. Large crowds were in attendance and the meeting was an enjoyable one. All was peace and harmony.
From Greenfield Brother Webb turned back toward home. He had been with us all along during the trip to this time. We were sorry to separate from him and that he could not go with us the remainder of the trip. We enjoyed traveling with him very much. He is a pleasant traveling companion. We pray the Lord to bless him in his labors at every place he may go.
From this association we filled appointments as follows: Martin, our old home, Sunday night; Blooming Grove, Monday and Tuesday. This is a church with about 140 members, and a church we served years ago. A very good crowd was present each day. Wednesday we were at Matheny Grove. A very good congregation [pg 429] was present, and we had a very pleasant meeting there. We had never been to that church before, as they were organized since we left Tennessee. On Thursday we were at Little Zion. We think this church has a membership of between sixty and seventy, and there was one male member present at the service, and a few of the sisters. Elder J. B. Halbrook was with us, and we returned to his home with him, and he conveyed us on to the next place.
Friday, Saturday and. fourth Sunday we were at the Obion Association, which was held with the church at Union, near McKenzie, Tenn. A good crowd was at this meeting on Sunday, though not a very large crowd on Friday and Saturday. The following brethren in the ministry were in attendance: Elders J. B. Hardy, J. N. Wallace, J. W. Hardwick, C. F. Parker, J. W. Lomax, J. B. Halbrook, J. S. Clayton, W. G. Davis, W. R. Rushton, J. R. Scott, H. N. Oliver, Z. Stallings and C. H. Cayce. The preaching was all harmonious, and no hobby riding was indulged in. It was a sweet meeting.
We filled the appointment Sunday night at McKenzie which had been made for us there, but having received a telephone message that day to go to Bradford Monday to attend a funeral service, the appointment for Monday was called in. Early Monday morning we took the train for Milan, where we changed cars for Bradford, Tenn. Having about two hours to wait at Milan we went to the home of Elder J. W. Adams and spent the time with him and Sister Adams. We arrived at Bradford on time and learned that we were wanted to conduct the funeral of Brother John Brasfield, whose home was in that place. We did the best we could to speak words [pg 430] of comfort to the bereaved companion and relatives, and were assisted in the service by Rev. Baker, Rev. Davis and Rev. Ralph. Rev. Davis is pastor of the Missionary Baptist Church there; Rev. Baker is the pastor of the Methodist Church, and Rev. Ralph was the former pastor of the Methodist Church there, and was a good friend to the family. A large crowd attended the service, which attested the high esteem in which Brother Brasfield was held in the community.
On Tuesday and Wednesday we were at Harmony Church, near Bradford. Only a small crowd present. Wednesday night we were with the church in Jackson. Elders A. B. Ross and S. E. Reid came in unexpectedly and were with us there. A good crowd turned out and the meeting was a very pleasant one. Thursday we were with the church at Brown’s Creek, near Brownsville, and had a very pleasant meeting with them.
Friday, Saturday and first Sunday in October we attended the Mississippi River Association, which was held with the church at Mt. Tabor, near Whiteville, Tenn. The following brethren in the ministry were present: Elders D. Hopper, James Duncan, A. B. Ross, W. A. Bishop, J. T. Davis, S. E. Reid, J. W. Adams, J. S. Gaugh, T. E. Bishop and C. H. Cayce. The preaching was all of one piece; all preaching peace by Jesus Christ. There were two additions to the church on Saturday and two on Sunday. It was a time of great rejoicing. May the Lord be praised for His wonderful mercy to the children of men.
On Monday we were with the church at Mt. Pisgah, near Somerville, Tenn. It was a very pleasant meeting, though a small crowd present. This is the home church of Elder J. T. Davis, who was with us there.
[pg 431] After service Monday we boarded the train at Somerville for home, and arrived home Tuesday morning at 4:27. Our wife and little girl and boy (Florida and Claudis, Jr.) met us at the train. We found all well at home, for which we felt to be so thankful to the good Lord, and felt glad to once more see our dear loved ones at home.
The section we visited is the section where we lived for so long, and we were glad to meet so many dear brethren and sisters with whom we once associated so much. We trust they may be enabled by the Lord’s grace to continue in the good old way, and that they may be found walking in the path of obedience and be truly devoted to the cause of the Master. May the Lord bless them for their kindness to us. If we meet no more in this world of sorrow and sadness, we hope we shall meet in that better home on high. Remember us, please, in your petitions at the throne of grace. C. H. C.
IS IT OF THE DEVIL?
November 15, 1926
In the Lone (some) Pilgrim for September, 1926, under the heading,”Close of Volume Four,” and over the signature of H. F. H., we find the following language:
Conditional time salvation is not Primitive Baptist doctrine, never has been, and never will be. It is not taught in the experience of God’s children, neither is it taught in the Bible, by the Lord or by any of His prophets. Satan preached it to our mother Eve in the garden of Eden, when he said, if you will do something right here [pg 432] in time you will better your condition, and be as wise as God. This was the origin of conditional time salvation. The above is not exact quotation but carries the meaning. Satan also preached this doctrine in Job’s day, and every time it has been preached from that day to this, it has come from the same source. Bildad preached it to poor old Job, but it was no comfort to him, and it has never been any comfort to God’s people, and never will be, because it is not the truth. Any one who can fellowship this doctrine of the devil, or those who preach it, has no business in the Old Baptist Church.
We copy the above without any correction in punctuation or language. Notice that this editor says this doctrine is not taught in the Bible by the Lord or by any of His prophets. What a wonder! “If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land; but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”— Isa. 1:19-20. Here is something promised to the Israelites on condition that they be willing and obedient, which is that they shall eat the good of the land. On the other hand, if they refuse and rebel the sentence is that they shall be devoured with the sword. Here was a blessing on condition of obedience and punishment on condition of disobedience. Isaiah was a prophet of God, and he said it. He also said that “the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” But the learned and wonderful editor of the Lone (some) Pilgrim says the Lord never taught such a doctrine, and neither did any of His prophets. If the Lord did not teach it, then Isaiah lied; and if he lied about this matter, then he was not a prophet of God. Did Isaiah tell a falsehood? No. Was he a true prophet? Yes. Then, who told the truth— Isaiah or this great modern editor?
Then this editor says that Satan preached that [pg 433] doctrine in the garden of Eden, and then claims he gave the meaning of what Satan said. Instead of giving the meaning of the conversation and the substance of what was said, he actually garbled the whole thing. Satan never said you will “be as wise as God.” He said, “Ye shall not surely die, 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.”— Gen. 3:4-5. God “had said, “For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”— Gen. 2:17. Here God in His law threatened death, punishment, on condition of disobedience, or transgression of His law. The devil said, “ye shall not surely die.” The editor of the Lone-(some) Pilgrim says there is not any such thing as punishment or joys on conditions of disobedience or obedience— the same doctrine the devil taught. Right there God promised punishment as a result of transgression of His law. The editor denies that doctrine and teaching. We kindly ask, Who is it that is teaching the doctrine of the devil— that editor, or the people he brazenly assails?
Again, he says the doctrine he assails is not taught in the experience of God’s children. We suppose he means by this expression that he has never experienced any such thing. Perhaps he has not experienced it; but we venture to say that when the Lord’s children came home to the church— those who have done so— and followed the Saviour in baptism, that they received an ease of mind and peace of conscience they never enjoyed before. They enjoyed a saving that they never enjoyed before. They left a burden that they have never had since. Thus the Lord’s children learn by experience the truth of that doctrine.
[pg 434] “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.”—1 Pet. 3:20-21. Here the inspired apostle declares that eight souls were saved in the ark by water. The editor of the Lone (some) Pilgrim denies that there is any more than one saving, and teaches that that saving is eternal. If he is right in his teaching, then Noah and his family were saved with an eternal saving by water. And the inspired apostle says baptism is a figure like that, hence, it is like that. Then if Noah and his family were saved with an eternal salvation by water, then baptism now saves with an eternal salvation. Let the great editor escape this conclusion if he can! Remember that the inspired apostle emphatically declares that baptism does now save us! Does it? It either does, or it does not. The editor says there is no such thing as a saving on condition of doing something; but the inspired apostle says we are saved by baptism. And we are saved by it as Noah and his family were saved by water. Noah was a child of God before the flood came. Hence he was not saved in eternity, or with an eternal salvation, by water. As the saving by baptism is like that, then we are not saved with an eternal salvation by baptism. But we are saved by baptism, for the apostle said so. Will the kind (?) editor please condescend to tell us what kind of saving it is?
“For if ye live after the flesh ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye [pg 435] shall live.”— Rom. 8:13. This language was addressed by the inspired apostle to the church of God at Rome. No living man on earth, who knows the meaning of simple English words, can deny that there are conditions in this text. The conditions are not to the unregenerate, as the Arminian world teaches; but they are to the children of God, those who have been born of God. This is the doctrine that Primitive Baptists have taught all along in contending against the Arminian world, and we are inclined to believe the editor knows it. Perhaps he does not. He may take either horn of the dilemma he chooses.
Note that the editor says that those who can fellowship this doctrine or those who preach it have no business in the Old Baptist Church. They were in the Old Baptist Church before he was born. But the editor here declares non-fellowship for those who do not see as he does, and would read them out of the denomination. What a pity he is not the ruler! But we would judge that if his doctrine is the truth, and there are some in the Primitive Baptist Church who do not believe his doctrine, it is because God unconditionally predestinated and decreed from all eternity that they should be there; and when he is kicking about them being there, and raising objection to it, he is only kicking against God’s predestination and objecting to it. We wonder if his objection will have such weight as to bring about a change in that predestination? We suppose not, since he says that everything that transpires is a link in the chain of events which God welded in eternity. If the spirit the editor manifests is of the Lord, and if his doctrine is the doctrine of God, the Lord did not tell us about it in His Book. Poor fellow. He is apparently [pg436] striking at everything in sight and out of sight. It reminds us of some blind reptiles in dog days. May the Lord continue to deliver His poor and afflicted people from such unreasonable men.
C. H. C.
DO NOT PAY HIM
November 16,1926
In the Lone Pilgrim for September, 1926, the editor complains that some of his brethren do not pay him what they owe him on subscription. He says, ”The majority of these people who owe us have membership in the Primitive Baptist Church, and claim to be honest. Why they will not pay we are unable to tell.”
Why, brother, if your doctrine is the truth, the problem seems to us to be one very easy of solution. It is simply this: The reason why they do not pay you is because God did, from all eternity, absolutely and unconditionally predestinate that they should not pay you. That is bound to be the solution of the matter, because you teach that God did, from all eternity, absolutely and unconditionally predestinate everything that comes to pass, and they all have to be just that way.
But, say, does it not seem as though, if his charge against his brethren be true, he has a lot of dishonest brethren? And he says he took 700 names off his list, and some of them over two years in arrears, and he sent them notices and less than 10 per cent of them paid. They must be a bad lot, according to what the editor says about them. But, according to his doctrine, they have to be that way.
C. H. C.
[pg 437]
A SOCIETY
November 15,1926
We have received a request from a sister to give our views in regard to some kind of a society being formed wherein the sisters meet once a week at some home and read the Bible and sing, and each one contributes what she is able, so they may have funds on hand when needed. The sister asks if this is Scriptural. If there is anything like this in the Bible, we do not remember it. The deacons of the church are the ones who should have in charge the financial affairs of the church. That is what they were first appointed for. The contributions should be put in the hands of the deacons, and not in the hands of some society. What is done, should be done in the name of the church, and not in the name of a number of sisters meeting at each other’s homes. There is no Scriptural example for it, and we are furnished in the Scriptures with everything we should practice religiously. It is just as much wrong to practice something not commanded as it is to leave undone what the Scriptures expressly command. There is no command in the Scriptures for any sort of society beside the church. C. H. C.
INTRODUCTION TO
VOLUME FORTY-TWO
January 1, 1927
This issue begins volume forty-two of The Primitive Baptist. We should have written an article for the last issue on the close of volume forty-one, but we were away from home on a tour in South Georgia when the manuscript was prepared for that issue of the paper, and [pg 438] we overlooked it. We beg our readers to pardon the oversight. We have been trying to make The Primitive Baptist an Old Baptist paper. As to how well we have succeeded in doing this we leave the readers to judge. We are well aware of the fact that we cannot please all.
If the brethren or churches are in trouble in some section, and they call on us to go among them to help them adjust their differences and settle their troubles, and we do not go (let the reason be what it may), then we are severely criticized and found fault with, because we do not go. If we answer the call and go to them and do the very best we can to get them together, then some find fault with us because we go among them and try to help them.
Sometimes the criticism is very severe and rough.
Sometimes we publish an article containing some sentiment that some person does not like. Perhaps he writes an article criticizing the sentiment or expression of the other brother. To publish the article would put us under obligation to give the other brother space for a reply, and that would open our columns to a controversy. These controversies over points upon which we should have forbearance, and upon which differences of opinion should be allowed, are the things that frequently cause troubles that are uncalled for. Under such circumstances we must refuse publication. When we do that we usually incur the displeasure of the writer, and sometimes we get a “good dressing up.” These are only a few of the things we have to meet with and encounter along the way.
We are sure that if the Lord spares our life and we continue the publication of The Primitive Baptist there will be trials and conflicts during the year 1927, as [pg 439] well as all along through the years we may yet live. Still, we find no place to turn back or to be a deserter. We do not wish to be a “slacker.” It is our desire to do our whole duty, as best we can, and to serve the Lord with reverence and with godly fear, and to serve His people with the ability He may see fit to give us.
These are trying times in many respects. We are living in a fast age, and all seem to be in a mad rush— no time for serious and weighty matters which should be of more concern to us than all the things of this world. The slump in the price of cotton makes us all think we must begin to curtail on our expenditures and cut down expenses at once. When we think of that, many of us begin to cut out expenditures at once toward church or religious things. Perhaps about the first thing we think of is to do without our church paper— not absolutely the first, but about the first thing we think of may be this. So we write to the editor to stop our paper. Perhaps we continue taking the newspaper, which contains much reading matter our homes would be better off without. Perhaps we spend many times more than the price of the paper for gasoline for joy riding— and perhaps our children would be much better off if the joy riding were cut out. These are just a few things some of us might do well to think about.
Many of the Lord’s dear children are in isolated places and are deprived of the blessing and privilege of hearing the gospel preached. Many of them write us that all the preaching they get is what they get through The Primitive Baptist. If the paper is supported it thus carries a blessing and a joy to so many of the Lord’s dear children who are deprived of the privilege many of us enjoy. If you are blessed with the privilege of [pg 440] attending the public service of the Lord and of meeting with His children, and you continue as a subscriber to the paper, you thus help to carry the blessing to those who are deprived of the privilege. Have you ever thought about how you are thus helping to carry such a blessing to so many of the Lord’s dear children when you pay a year’s subscription to THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST? The paper could not exist upon the subscriptions of those, only, who are in such an isolated condition. Others besides those in that condition must take the paper if it continues to exist. Are you not willing to help the small amount of the subscription price of the paper in such a work for the benefit of the Lord’s little children who are thus deprived of the blessing you enjoy?
Our readers know of the clubbing proposition which has been published in every issue of the paper for several months— to take clubs of new subscribers at a reduced rate for the purpose of trying to increase the list of subscribers to where we could get the paper out weekly instead of twice a month. Some have thought this was not fair to the old subscribers. If a sufficient number of new subscribers could have been added to the list to justify us in sending the paper out weekly, the old subscribers would get the benefit of the increase without extra cost to them. Yet some have thought we should accept renewals at the same rate we offered for new subscribers. The truth of the matter is that if we were to reduce the price of the paper to that which we offered for these clubs of new names we would soon have to go out of business, for that price to all subscribers would not pay the actual cost of sending the paper out. Since the issue of April 1st, 1926, was sent [pg 441] out there has been a net gain of just 240 names to the list. This lacks a large number of being enough to justify us in making the change to a weekly. We are now discontinuing these club offers. We appreciate what the brethren have done in getting new subscribers. Several of the brethren have done good work in that way, but not enough have taken an interest in it to increase the list to where we could make the change to a weekly. If all would put forth an extra effort for the next few months to send in new subscribers, perhaps we could make the change soon. Will you try and do your best along that line during this month? Ask the brethren and friends to try the paper one year at the regular rate.
It is our desire to continue to try to make THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST an Old Baptist paper. It is our great desire to improve, and to try to make the paper a benefit to the cause of the Master. We desire to “strive for the things that make for peace, and the things wherewith one may edify another.” We desire to conduct the paper in such a way as to promote the peace and happiness of the Lord’s dear children. We are well aware that trials and conflicts and afflictions await us along the way, “but none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.”— Acts xx. 24.
We would be glad if our corresponding editors would take a little more interest in the paper than some of them have. Some of them never even so much as write us a line. We hope they will try to help us out a little [pg 442] more this year by writing and soliciting subscribers. Brethren, will you do this? We desire an interest in the prayers of all who love the cause we are trying to promote and who love our Lord Jesus. C. H. C.
LORDSHIP AMONG THE MINISTRY
January 1, 1927
The following article was read in the meeting at Jackson, Tenn., which began on Friday before the fifth Sunday in October, 1926:
Brethren, you have assigned to me a hard subject, “The baneful effect of the spirit of lordship among the ministry,” and I have had very little time to study the subject. We need to be warned against such a spirit, and we need to watch ourselves, that we do not allow ourselves to be governed by it. I understand a spirit of lordship to be a spirit of mastery; a spirit to rule, to control, to have things our way, or not at all. The very word minister conveys a meaning that is the opposite of lordship or master. It really means to serve, a servant. Jesus said, “Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your servant; even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many!”— Matt 20:25-28.
To exercise lordship is to exercise dominion, to rule and to control, to exercise authority. Jesus says “it [pg 443] shall not be so among you.” Hence it is very clear and manifest that such a spirit is not to prevail— and should not be indulged in by the ministry of the church of Christ. This text also shows very clearly that the minister is to be a servant, and not a lord or master; that he is not to exercise authority or dominion. Jesus our Saviour came to minister, to serve. The spirit of service is of the Lord, and the spirit of lordship is from beneath; it is a bad spirit. It brings trouble, sorrow and distress to the hearts of the Lord’s dear children. It divides families, homes, neighborhoods and churches.
But here the question may be asked,”Are not ministers to be overseers of the flock, and has not the Lord appointed them as such?” Yes, that is true. “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood.”— Acts xx. 28. This is the language of the eminent Apostle Paul to the elders of the church at Ephesus when he had sent for them to show what should be done, and how it should be done. An overseer is not a master or lord; that is, from a Scriptural standpoint. And an overseer, according to Paul’s instruction here, is one that is to feed, not to rule or control, or to exercise dominion. The inspired Apostle Peter also gives us some instruction along the same line: “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.”[pg 444] — 1 Pet. 5:1-3. From this we see that for a minister to take the oversight of the flock, to be an overseer of the flock, is not for him to be a lord or a ruler over them, but to be an ensample to them. It is his work and his business to set right examples before them, so as to show by precept and example how the Lord would have His children live and walk and to conduct themselves here in this world.
“Neither as being lords over God’s heritage.” The marginal reference says, “overruling.” That is, not ruling over. The minister, or the elder, is positively forbidden to rule over God’s heritage, or His people, or His church. He is to serve them and not to rule over them. As he is to serve them, they are to have authority over him, rather than for him to have authority over them. For him to assume authority to be a ruler and to assume lordship, is akin to the sin of presumption. “But the soul that doeth aught presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.”—- Num. 15:30. For one of God’s ministers to be governed by, or to manifest, the spirit of lordship is for him to presume to be what the Lord has not made him, which is presumption, or to act presumptuously; and he who acts presumptuously reproaches the Lord, and God says that “soul shall be cut off from among his people.”
In Ezek. 34:4 the Lord tells the shepherds of Israel that “with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them.” The “them” were the children of Israel. By reading this chapter we will find that the children of Israel suffered as a result of the cruelty and the ruling of the shepherds. National Israel were a type of [pg 445] spiritual Israel. Surely no Primitive Baptist will deny this. As they were a type of spiritual Israel, and such a spirit among the shepherds in that day brought trouble, sorrow and distress, it will bring the same in this day among spiritual Israel. Perhaps it may not be amiss to call attention to the fact also that the Lord pronounced a curse upon the shepherds, and said,”Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my flock at their hand.”
This entire chapter might be good reading for us, that we may be warned and get a lesson there from that might do us some good. Let me quote at some length from this chapter, beginning with the first verse:
And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock. The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them. And they were scattered, because there is no shepherd: and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were scattered. My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and upon every high hill: yea, my flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them. Therefore, ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord; As I live, saith the Lord God, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock; therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord; Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease [pg 446] from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.”—Ezek. 34:1-10.
When the minister of the Lord is being controlled by a spirit of lordship, of master or ruler, the diseased are not strengthened, the sick are not healed, that which is broken is not bound up, that which is driven away is not brought again, and those who are lost are not found; the Lord’s little children are scattered, and they wander in the desert hungry and crying for food, and are devoured by their adversaries. What a deplorable state and condition! Language fails me to describe the sorrows, distresses, sore afflictions and heartaches resulting from such a spirit! And such a great woe pronounced against the shepherds or ministers possessing such a spirit! Brethren, have we ever been possessed of it? Have any of us been “weighed in the balance and found wanting” along this line? If so, let us humble ourselves in dust and ashes; let us humble ourselves under the mighty hand of our God; let us humbly beg Him to forgive our folly and our wrongs, and that His fierce anger may be turned away from us, and that He may restore unto us the joys of His salvation and pour out a blessing upon us; that He may bring our children and neighbors and their children into His blessed fold, and that He would help us to feed them upon the pure and sincere milk of the word. [pg 447] If we have been acting under this bad and evil spirit, let us begin now, if we have not already done so, to endeavor, the best we possibly can, to make amends for our wrongs. We need to devote our time to the service the Lord requires of us.
The minister is not to be a lord or master, but a servant. “For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.” — 2 Cor. 4:5. Let me digress long enough to say the apostle did not mean by the expression, “We preach not ourselves,’‘ that it is not us doing the preaching— that the Lord is preaching through us— but he meant that we do not preach our own power or authority, but that it is Christ Jesus the Lord, and His power, that we preach, and not ourselves; but ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.” The true minister is a servant of the Lord and a servant of the church— your servants. This fact that we are your servants is for Jesus’ sake. The Lord calls His ministers and lays the obligation upon them. They are under obligation to the Lord and to the church. A servant is under obligation to the master, and the apostle says, “ourselves your servants”— not your lords or rulers. The master is the boss. When a servant gets the idea that he is the boss, and that the business cannot be conducted without him, he is then in such a condition that the business would get along better without him than with him.
A true servant is willing to endure afflictions. “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 also instructs Timothy to be a partaker of the afflictions of the gospel. (2 Tim. 1:8). We may rest assured that if we are the Lord’s true ministers, and if we fill the place of servants to Him and His people, there are afflictions for us to endure.
The fields are white unto harvest. The harvest is great, and the laborers are few. Are we praying the Lord of the harvest to send laborers into the harvest? [pg 448] How often do you hear a prayer to the Lord to send laborers in these days? We need them. We need faithful men. We need men that are true. We need men who love the cause of the Master. We need men who desire the welfare of the Lord’s little children. May the Lord give us such men.
C. H. Cayce.
CHURCH EVIDENCE
January 15, 1927
A brother writes us as follows: “Will you please answer, through the columns of your paper, this question: What should a church do when a slanderous report is circulated on one of her members and the church believes the report, but has no church evidence to prove it?”
Of course we understand the brother desires to know what course we think a church should pursue under such circumstances. We give our opinion, though we are well aware of the fact that we may be wrong. In the first place we would say that it is detrimental to the member as well as detrimental to the church for a slanderous report to be in circulation on the member. This being true, it seems evident to us that if the member is innocent he would want an investigation to be made by the church, so that the church could exonerate him from any guilt. So, from this standpoint, for the good and benefit and welfare of her member, who may have a slanderous report circulated against him, the church should thoroughly investigate the report. If it is found to be without foundation, then the church can [pg 449] and should exonerate the member. This would be for the good of the member and for the good of the church. On the other hand, if the member is guilty, the church should know it. The way for the church to know it is by investigating the matter thoroughly. If a member is guilty of some grave charge, and the matter is in general circulation, it is detrimental to the church to not investigate the matter and deal with the member according to the seriousness of the crime.
As to the matter of church evidence, we only have to say that there may be matters which could never be proven by the testimony of a member of the church. A member of the church is not supposed to engage in many ungodly things the world engages in, or to visit many places men of the world visit. If a member of the church engages in some such practice, or visits some such places, he may do so and no other member ever be a witness to the fact.
Under such circumstances, if it is necessary to have the testimony of another church member, nothing could be done. Another member being a witness would prove that he himself had been engaged in something or been to some place, perhaps, where he had no business. Testimony of a credible witness, one who has a reputation for truth and veracity, should be accepted by the church when she has no evidence within her own borders.
Of course all the circumstances in such a case should be weighed carefully and calmly. The church should be well assured that prejudice does not weigh in the matter of the testimony, and other matters concerning the affair.
How important it is that the members of the church should live above reproach and above suspicion. They [pg 450] should live in such a way as to never bring reproach upon the cause of our blessed Master. May He help us to live in such a way as to honor and glorify His name. C. H. C.
ELDER PETTY’S NAME DROPPED
February 1, 1927
We are very sorry, indeed, that it has become necessary to drop Elder M. E. Petty’s name from our staff of corresponding editors. This will, perhaps, be a surprise to many of our readers, while many others are, no doubt, wondering already why we have not done so. We feel it is due to our readers and to Elder Petty that we here give some of our reasons for doing this.
Our readers will remember that a peace meeting was called to be held at New Hope Church, in the Flint River Association, in Georgia, the fifth Sunday in last January, and that the meeting was held according to appointment. There were two Flint River Associations, or rather the Flint River Association had been divided for a number of years. It will be remembered that several of the churches in what is known as the Original Flint River Association did not represent in that meeting. The Original Flint River Association was the home association of Elder Petty. He was moderator of it. That meeting caused a disruption and division in Tired Creek Church. At Elder Petty’s request we visited that section in the summer, or early fall, and went to as many of the churches on each side as we had the time to visit, for the purpose of making an effort to get the churches all together. We presented a proposition to [pg 451] each church which we termed “Gospel Terms of Peace,” and every church endorsed it except Elder Petty’s home church. When we got to Tired Creek we presented a proposition upon which that church could and did come together. Elder Petty stoutly refused to recognize the coming together of Tired Creek Church.
When the Original Flint River Association met at Donaldsonville, according to previous arrangement and understanding, Elder Petty’s church did not represent, though they had been in that association all the while; but it was understood that any of the churches which had endorsed the settlement might represent in either body they pleased. When the Little Flint River (we use this term only in order to designate or distinguish them from the others) met on Friday before the first Sunday in November at New Hope, Elder Petty’s church had a letter and messengers there to represent in that body. But some of the churches of the Original Flint River had a grievance against that church, and had sent messengers with complaint and were ignored. So the Little Flint River refused to receive and seat the messengers from that church, and gave as their reason that some of the churches of the Original Flint River had a grievance against them, and advised them that if they would adjust their differences they might then be received. To have received them, the way matters stood, would have been to set aside all the adjustment of the trouble that had existed so long and destroyed all the work of settlement that had been done. Elder Petty has written us some very ugly letters since that association, and we have not made any reply. He also wrote some very ugly letters to Elder Turnipseed. In a letter to Elder Turnipseed dated Nov. 29, [pg 452] 1926, Elder Petty says, “It is strange that Brother * * * who told me and wrote me letters (I have the letters yet) * * * * and later he worked around through you and Elders Cayce, Bartlett and others and got in with some of the disorderly churches that he found out that I wasn’t willing to take into the peace meeting without a correction of their disorder, and made a trade with Elders * * * that you all would swallow the whole thing with all the disorder of four churches if they would combine with you to destroy me and church.”
Remember that Elder Petty claimed that the object of the peace meeting was to unite the two associations, or the two parties of the Flint River, and to get them all together. Here he says there were four churches he was not willing should be taken into the peace meeting. Those four churches were not in what we will designate as the Davis side, for he was there from his church to represent with them, as stated above. Where, then, were those four churches? Evidently they were four churches that were in the Original Flint River Association. Now what is the necessary conclusion? It cannot be otherwise than that he was engineering a plan to divide his own association. This statement from the brother in that letter plainly discloses this fact. We are sorry this is true, but we are not responsible for it. We begged and plead with Brother Petty when we were there visiting those churches, but our pleadings did no good.
There can be no course, then, for us to pursue only to remove his name from our staff of corresponding editors. We truly hope he may see the error of his way [pg 453] and confess his wrongs and become reconciled to the brethren. C. H. C.
BACK ON THE STAFF
February 1, 1927
For several years the name of Elder H. B. Wilkinson, of Claxton, Ga., was on our staff of corresponding editors. In some way, and we do not know how, his name was dropped off the staff. While we were on our tour in South Georgia in November we were with Elder Wilkinson and talked with him in regard to this matter, and he consented for us to put his name back on the staff. We are glad to do this, for we esteem him very highly, and do not know how his name came to be left off.
On the trip mentioned we visited Brother Wilkinson’s home church, and other churches of his care, and enjoyed our stay with those good brethren. We were with a number of other brethren in the ministry for several days, and enjoyed their company, among them being Elder Bowen. We would have been glad to have written a short account of the trip, but other matters interfered so that we could not do so. We enjoyed the trip, and appreciate the kindness shown us, though we feel unworthy of it. May the Lord bless them, every one of them, we met and showed us such kindness. We hope we may meet them again some day— if not in this world of troubles and sorrows, then in a better world beyond. We ask each one of you to remember us in your prayers. C. H. C.
[pg 454]
SHOULD REPORT THEM
February 1, 1927
We are in receipt of a letter containing the following statement and question: “I live in a neighborhood where they are making and selling whisky all the time. I have young boys, and they give my boys the whisky to drink. Will it be wrong for anyone to tell the officers and let them catch them— or just let it be, and have our boys and girls ruined?” To us it seems that there can be but one answer— and that is, report them, if you know who to report. We would try, too, to teach our children the great wrong in having anything to do with such traffic, how it will bring shame and ruin upon them. But we certainly would report people who would give the stuff to our children; and we would certainly try to help the officers to catch them. And we would be much grieved to live in such a community, especially if we could find no other sort there for our children to associate with. It seems to us that our country is getting in a mighty bad way morally and otherwise. May the good Lord help us. C. H. C.
CLAIM THEY ARE NOT EXCLUDED
February 15, 1927
In our issue of January 1 is an article stating that C. Z. Hanks and others were excluded from South Fork Church in Texas. We have received an article in reply to that, in which they claim they are not excluded and that the church is divided, etc.
[pg 455] Now, there we are. One side tells us they are excluded, and the other side tells us they are not excluded, and that it is a divided church over a question of order, and so on.
Now, then, the thing that worries us is this: What do brethren want to bother us with such things for? If a church is divided why will they send an article to us for publication stating it is an act of the church, and thus involve us with other brethren when such things are published— and such things as we have no way of knowing the true status of affairs? Why send us something for the paper that lugs into our columns your local troubles? It is unjust and unfair to us and unjust to the cause.
If you love the cause more than you do your own personal ambition, keep these things at home, and do not send such things to us for publication as will call for a reply and endless trouble and confusion and disputes.
C. H. C.
THE THING IN THE WAY
February 15, 1927
If Elders Newman and Fisher will agree to give up their works the last obstacle will have been removed, and lasting peace will be had, as far as the present issue is concerned. We could receive each one of their members upon their personal acknowledgments, and the union would then be peaceably effected. Otherwise there can never be had lasting peace between us.— E. C. M., in Glad Tidings, Jan. 28, 1927.
From this it is to be clearly seen that Elder Mahurin’s contention is that all the baptisms and ordinations that have been done by Elder Newman and the people he is [pg 456] in line with since they became separated from Elder Mahurin and those in line with him must be done over in order to a union with him and his people. Not only so, but each member in line with Elder Newman must make personal acknowledgments to them— to Elder Mahurin’s churches. If that would not give somebody an endless job and an impossible task, we would like to know the reason why. It would extend from ocean to ocean and from the lakes to the gulf— that all must be baptized by the few who are in line with Elder Mahurin who have been baptized by any others except them since they separated from those in line with Elder Newman. We wonder if Elder Mahurin would like to have the job of looking up all those who have been baptized during these few years by others than those who are in line with him.
We know that Elder Newman has been in Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina and other states since the division in Texas. No doubt he has baptized some in some of these states. We have been in California and baptized some there and helped to organize some churches out there. Does Elder Mahurin want to go out there and get the consent of those people to re-organize those churches and to baptize those people again? If so, how would they know the work would be good after Elder Mahurin gets through with it?
Elder Morgan would not accept it after Elder Mahurin does the work. We have also visited churches in Georgia— all the way to the Atlantic coast. We have been in meetings with some from Florida. We have also visited and preached for churches in Alabama, and we are in line with churches from the north to the south lines [pg 457] of the state. We have also been with brethren in Tennessee, and are in line with the churches in that state from the Mississippi River on the west to North Carolina on the east. The same in Kentucky. We are in direct correspondence with the Mountain Springs Association in Arkansas. The Mountain Springs is in correspondence with the Salem. These are in correspondence with others. Are they all in disorder? And will all of them have to find all the people they have baptized since Elder Mahurin and his people were separated from us and baptize them again? No, it would not do for us to do the work again, for that would not make it good. We would have to get Elder Mahurin to do the work for us. Then Elder Morgan would not accept it. When would we ever get the work done? And how could we know, or how could the parties know, when they have valid baptism? Who shall we appoint as supreme judges over this matter who shall sit in judgment and tell us when the work has been well done, and from whose decision there can be no appeal?
According to the contention of Elder Mahurin and those who hold his view, there is not a Baptist in the South or Southwest who has orderly baptism— no not in the whole United States. There is not a church in the South or Southwest but what descended from the old Kehukee Association in North Carolina. Trace the line and see where these churches all came from, and you will find this statement true. That association was formed of Regular and Separate Baptists. The Separate Baptists started as a split off from the Baptist Church in Boston, the Separates being favorable to the revival by Whitfield, an Episcopalian from England. About a year after they split off from the Baptist Church there [pg 458] they were formed into a church, and called themselves Separate Baptists to distinguish them from the others who stood as they were before the Whitfield revival. That is where the Separates started. When the proposition was made for a union of the Regulars and Separates in North Carolina to form the Kehukee Association, the Separates objected to the union on the ground that the Regulars had baptized some in unbelief, or some who were not regenerated. If the fact that the Separates were split off in the start from the regular church in Boston made baptism administered by them invalid, then they had no valid baptism and could not administer it. If the fact that the Regulars had baptized or immersed some who were unregenerate put them in such a state of disorder that the baptism administered by them would not be good, then they could not administer valid baptism to those who had been immersed before regeneration. So those people were without valid baptism— and who could give it to them? According to the contention of some brethren now, valid baptism was ended right then and there, and none of us have it now!
But some might say that the Regulars cleaned up and put away that work. Yes; but if they did put it away, and immerse again those who had been immersed before regeneration, then the wrong work done did not make all the other work invalid. They did not re-immerse the others they had baptized during that time. Therefore, what they did in immersing people who were not regenerated did not make baptism invalid that was administered by them.
But the Regulars and Separates united and formed the Kehukee Association. Now, Elder Mahurin contends that Elder Newman and those in line with him [pg 459] are an excluded party, a split off faction, and that he (Elder Mahurin) and those in line with him are the true church and in true order, and have the only right to administer valid baptism; and he also contends that if they unite with Elder Newman’s party, then all would be in gross disorder and none of them would have the right to, or could, administer gospel baptism. If his contention be true, then when the Regulars united with the Separates and formed the Kehukee Association, they all lost their identity and all lost their right and authority to administer gospel baptism. As that is where all our churches in the South and Southwest sprang from, then none of us have any valid baptism. Now, pray tell us, how much will Elder Mahurin, or any other man, be benefitted by quarreling over something which he does not have, and which no man in the whole country has?
In Virginia and perhaps in other sections there was a division years ago, and one faction is known as Clark Baptists and another as Beebe Baptists. The Beebe Baptists are classed as Absoluters. Elder Mahurin contends that their baptism is not valid. Those Baptists designated as Beebe Baptists have frequently visited and preached in the Kehukee and other associations in North Carolina, as well as in other states. So have the brethren who are classed as Clark Baptists visited the brethren in North Carolina and other states and preached among them. The Beebe Baptists are as far north as Maine. According to Elder Mahurin’s contention they do not have valid baptism— so he cannot get valid baptism there. Then come on west through all the Northern states and you will find where those churches came from. According to the contention of [pg 460] Elder Mahurin the “gates of hell” have prevailed, and the church of God is extinct— at least in the United States-and we wonder where he will find the church of God today. Brother Mahurin, where is the church? Tell us the country where you will find it, please. When you do this, please tell us upon what ground you say such is the church. Tell us, also, please, where they got their baptism; and please show by the proof that it is valid baptism, and not contaminated with what you are claiming is gross disorder.
“Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.”— Rom. ii. 1. “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: give, and it shall be given unto you: good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.”— Luke 6:37-38. C. H. C.
THE DALLAS MEETING
March 1, 1927
We left home Monday afternoon, Feb. 21, at 6 o’clock, for Dallas, Texas, arriving there Tuesday morning at 5:42. Elder John R. Harris got on the train at Thornton, Ark., and went with us. We were met at the station by Dr. W. W. Fowler, the editor of the Glad Tidings, who conveyed us to his home, where we remained until time to go to the place of meeting. A large [pg 461] number of brethren and sisters were in attendance at the meeting, which continued two days, Tuesday and Wednesday, Feb. 22, 23, and closed Wednesday night— that is, the preaching part of it closed then, the business part having closed that afternoon. Several discourses were delivered during the meeting. We did not get to hear all the preaching, as we were appointed with other brethren to serve on a committee appointed to draw up recommendations for the divided factions to endeavor to come together on. Twelve were appointed to serve on this committee. The following was drawn up by the committee and unanimously adopted by them for recommendation to the divided brethren and churches:
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE
We, your committee, realizing and recognizing the fact that in the unholy war which brought about the present condition of affairs and division among us, both in and between churches and associations, that there were irregularities, hasty actions taken, and wrong things done and said on both sides; and in view of the fact that it has been the practice of our people all along in the past in cases of divisions, for them to mutually confess their wrongs and to come together in peace— we therefore recommend that in this present division, either in churches or associations, those of them who desire peace and union to be restored, mutually confess all errors, wrongs and mistakes, and mutually forgive each other, and agree to bury the past in oblivion, and come together in peace and fellowship, recognizing each other’s official work and endeavor to strive for the things that make for peace.
Further, we recommend that if some churches are divided and they cannot agree to come together on the foregoing recommendation without special and particular investigation of their local condition, then we recommend that the two factions agree between themselves to call for a committee of brethren from outside the state, and who are not direct parties to the division in the state, to come and hear the evidence on both sides and recommend to them how they may adjust their differences and get together.
[pg 462] We further recommend that where parties have been excluded for immoral practice and received on confession of faith, that such parties should be required to go back to the church where they were withdrawn from and make satisfaction there for restoration. But a reconciliation of our people and their coming together is necessary first in order to an adjustment of irregularities of this kind. Howbeit, nothing contained herein shall be construed as recommending the recognition of the official work of a church which has officially departed from a fundamental point of doctrine or practice and has been Scripturally dropped by orderly churches therefore.
Respectfully submitted,
Elders J. W. Herriage,
H. G. Richards,
S. B. Kuykendall,
R. E. Wilson,
J. A. Moore,
J. S. Newman,
Marion West,
L. J. McCarty,
Leon H. Clevenger,
Jno. R. Harris,
T. L. Webb,
C. H. Cayce,
Committee.
After the foregoing recommendations were unanimously voted for by the committee the same was read in open meeting and approved by all who voted. There were a few who did not vote, but not a messenger from a church voted against the approval, and no one seated in the meeting voted in opposition. Then a good old song was sung and the right hand extended amid shouts of praise to the Lord, brethren embracing each other, and tears of joy were shed. It was a wonderful meeting, and we believe much good will result. We feel that the brethren will now begin coming together and affiliating with each other. If they will visit this country we will gladly make appointments for them, and we are sure [pg 463] our churches will gladly receive them—we mean those who were at that meeting and endorse those recommendations and who will conform to the same. May the good Lord continue to work in the hearts of His dear people to labor for peace and for the union of our poor and divided people.
We do not deem it necessary to publish the minutes of the entire meeting. The whole thing, including all that was said in the meeting, is to be published in pamphlet form, as a stenographer was employed to take all that was said. If any reader feels like helping to pay some of the expense of that stenographer, send your contribution to Dr. W. W. Fowler, 503 Medical Arts Building, Dallas, Tex., or to Elder J. L. Collings, Glen Rose, Texas, or to us, and we will send it to them. Or, if you will take some of the pamphlets when they are printed, write to either of the names given and say how many you will take. It is not known yet what the price will be, but a price will be put on them to just cover the cost if all are sold. We trust our readers will get some of them and circulate them among the brethren generally. C. H. C.
WILD GOURDS
March 15,1927
Dear Brother Cayce:
I want to get your views on two verses of Scripture— Jer. 26:3; 36:3. They both reveal to my understanding the purpose of God is not predestination. I will quote it: “If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil which I purpose to do unto them, because of the evil of their doings.”— Jer 26:3. “It may be that the house of [pg 464] Judah will hear all the evil which I purpose to do unto them, that they may return every man from his evil way, that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin.”— Jer. 36:3. It was the purpose of God to destroy Nineveh in forty days (Jonah). I know it says, in Isa 14:24 “The Lord of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand.” Summing these Scriptures I have called, the purpose of God is not predestination. That word is not in the Bible. Predestinated is in there two times— Eph 1:5,11. The word predestinate is in there two times— Rom. 8:29-30. The word predestination is an English word. The predestination of God is the righteousness of God, by grace in Jesus Christ for His people. “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. “— 2 Tim. 1:9 Predestination of God has no reference to sin and wickedness whatever. Absolute predestination of all things is not Bible doctrine; but it is wild gourds from a wild vine of wickedness — not from the fruitful vine of righteousness, which is Jesus Christ. If this is not published in your paper it will not hurt my feelings, but write me your views on these Scriptures. From your unworthy brother in Christ,
Elder J. B. Johnson.
Sword’s Creek, Va.
As we understand the meaning of the words there is little difference between purpose and predestination. To purpose to do a thing is to determine to do that thing before it is done. To predestinate a thing is to pre-determine that thing, or to determine the thing beforehand. So we see but little difference. In the Scriptures cited God purposed to punish those people for their wickedness. In Jer. 26:12,15, we have this language,”The Lord sent me to prophesy against this house and against this city all the words that ye have heard. Therefore now amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God; and the Lord will repent Him of the evil that He hath [pg 465] pronounced against you.” He continues in Jer. 26:14-15, “As for me, behold, I am in your hand: do with me as seemeth good and meet unto you. But know ye for certain, that if ye put me to death, ye shall surely bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and upon the inhabitants thereof: for of a truth the Lord hath sent me unto you to speak all these words in your ears.’‘ Some of the priests and some of the Israelites did not believe what the prophet had spoken, and they threatened his life because he thus prophesied unto them. His prophecy was that the Lord had purposed to punish them for their wickedness and for their transgressions, but that if they would repent and turn from their transgressions and sins the Lord would not visit that punishment upon them. This was the teaching of the Prophet Jeremiah unto Israel, and national Israel was a type of spiritual Israel. Just as some of the priests and people of Israel then would put the prophet to death for thus prophesying, so some preachers and people today would put the Lord’s true ministers to death for preaching the same doctrine. Those blessings and punishments for national Israel were natural or temporal. To spiritual Israel those blessings and punishments are spiritual and are experienced by them here in this life, or in the gospel Canaan, which is the church.
This does not make God changeable, for it is His law. His law promises blessings in obedience and punishment for disobedience. God has so purposed, and He brings it to pass. He has purposed to chastise His children for their transgressions and disobedience. In Psa. 89:26-36 David tells something of the Lord’s promise concerning Christ and His children. He says, [pg 466] “He shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father, my God and the rock of my salvation. Also I will make Him my firstborn, higher that the kings of earth. My mercy will I keep for Him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with Him. His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and His throne as the days of heaven. 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. Nevertheless my loving kindness will I not utterly take from Him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David (which is Christ). His seed shall endure forever, and His throne as the sun before me.’‘ Here is the declaration of the purpose of God to chastise His children if, they transgress His law; yet He has sworn to His Son that they— His children— shall endure, or live, forever. As He has sworn that they shall live forever, then the chastisement or punishment is not eternal, but is to be visited upon them here in this life, or in this world, and not in the next world. In this connection read the entire eighteenth chapter of Ezekiel.
This doctrine that the Lord’s people may enjoy blessings in obedience that they do not enjoy in disobedience, and are punished and chastised here in this life for their wrong doing, is a doctrine that God Himself has set forth, no matter how much it may be despised by some of the emissaries of Satan.
C. H. C.
[pg 467]
A CORRECTION
March 15, 1927
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother in Hope—I read in your last paper, The Primitive Baptist, a piece written by Elder N. J. Hinson, telling of his tour in Virginia and North Carolina. He says they are passing through a great war with the Absoluters. He also says it is useless for anyone to claim that the trouble in that country is the result of the so-called disorder of Elder Wilson. Elder Hinson only visited five churches out of twenty-six here in the Bear Creek Association. Surely it is unreasonable for him to know the sentiment of the people in our association— I suppose twenty-one churches here that he never visited. I have been living in this association most sixteen years. I have never heard one of our members, much less our preachers, advocate such doctrine. Our people have been accused of it, but it is untrue. Our association passed an act several years ago not to allow the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things preached in our stand, and they have never departed from that act. If any man or preacher comes to our association advocating the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things, or any other new doctrine, I have no idea they would be seated. Our preachers are all sound in doctrine. We have never had any trouble in this association from our people preaching or believing any new doctrine, neither do they use any of those extreme expressions. No use for anyone to misrepresent us. Most of the brethren in our association want peace, like we once had, and are striving to that end. May the Lord continue to bless us in our efforts for peace, and may our good brethren here ever be found contending for the true principles as taught in the Bible, and that we may be careful always to tell the truth and never misrepresent any of God’s little children. Brother Cayce, pray for us, that we may have sweet union among us again, and soon get rid of so much disorder and misrepresenting one another. That is no way for God’s little children to live. Mrs. W. C. Edwards. Please publish this in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST so that the people may see that some of us here have been misrepresented.
REMARKS
If our readers will get the paper for January 1st and [pg 468] read the article again from Elder Hinson they will see very clearly that what he said about the trouble in Virginia and North Carolina was not said with direct reference to any division or trouble in the Bear Creek Association, but that he was speaking about the trouble there in a general way and what gave rise to it.
The trouble around Danville did originate over doctrine, and the Danville people said so themselves, as has already been published. In fact, they so published in a statement they sent out.
What about Elder T. M. Stanley, who was once in the Bear Creek Association? Did he not advocate the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things? Is not this same Elder Stanley now in line with the party of Danville Church who claim they excluded Elder Wilson? Are they not all in line with the Lone Pilgrim and the doctrine advocated in that paper? If some of the Bear Creek Association do not believe that doctrine, will they line up with it? Will you stand with such a doctrine, when you do not believe it? We are sure there are good Baptists in the Bear Creek Association who do not believe that doctrine, and we hope they will not line up with it.
C. H. C.
PAYING THE PREACHER
May 1, 1927
It seems to us that Sister Hester fails to understand one point mentioned in her letter above— in regard to paying the preacher, “then who shall pay the members who go a distance?” Whether the members are near to the church or far from it, they call the preacher to [pg 469] serve them. They desire the preacher “to go a warfare” for them. They want him to fight for the truth for them; to fight for the principles of doctrine they hold to. The apostle asks the question,”Who goeth a warfare at his own charges?” When our boys went across the waters to fight the German army, they had to forsake all they had and go. But they did not go at their own charges. The government furnished them food and clothing, and some provisions have been made for those dependent upon them. The apostle uses this to show us how we should care for our soldiers who fight for us under the banner of Prince Immanuel. It was God’s way under the law that the Israelites should care for, take care of, the prophets whom the Lord sent to them and for them. They did not always do it. At one time Elijah had to flee for his life; but God sent him food by the ravens. If the prophet had been cared for as God commanded, the food would have been supplied by Israel instead of the ravens. We need men in the ministry who are willing to make sacrifices and who are willing to endure hardness; and then we need members in the church who are willing to care for them as the Lord directs. May the Lord help us all to discharge our every duty. C. H. C.
JOHN’S BAPTISM
AND THE COMMUNION
June 15, 1927
We received from Friend Tom Dyer, Dresden, Tenn., a request for our views on a question put this way by him: “When John was baptizing before Christ came, what was that baptizing for? The reason I ask is that [pg 470] John baptized before Christ came, and we baptize after we have received the gift of God.” He also asks for Bible reason for close communion.
John baptized to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. John did not prepare the people, but made them ready. He baptized none only those who gave evidence of a true repentance. Some demanded baptism of him who did not give such evidence and he refused to baptize them. He made the people ready by baptizing them. They were ready for the gospel kingdom, or the church. The Lord established His church after He had also been baptized by John. He established the church of persons John had baptized. John baptized people who had been born of God, and so do we. The church is composed of baptized believers, and that is the kind of material the Lord used in establishing His church.
As to the communion. That is an ordinance in the church— not out of it. To have a right at the Lord’s table in His kingdom, one must first come into that kingdom. He must first become a member of the church and first be baptized, in order to have a right to the Lord’s table. For the baptism to be true baptism it must be administered by the authority of a true gospel church, for the ordinances were delivered to the church by the apostles for her keeping. Those who had been baptized were the ones who broke bread, in the days of the apostles. See Acts 2:42. If the Primitive Baptist Church is the church of Christ (and it is) then other orders do not have the authority to administer baptism. As those people have not been baptized, then they have no right to the Lord’s table, which is in [pg 471] His kingdom— the Old Baptist Church— and we have no right to take it outside and give it to them.
We make these few brief remarks trusting they may be some benefit to the brother making the request. C. H. C.
MISSIONARIES DO HARM IN CHINA
June 15, 1927
Those who are engaging so much in the foreign missionary enterprise, claiming that if they only had money enough they would soon be able to take the world for Christ, have put out a lot of glowing reports of the great work they have accomplished in China. They have also occasionally made great reports of wonderful accomplishments in other countries.
If we were to judge from some of the things they have written we would think that China was ready to come bodily over from their heathen doctrines and to embrace Christianity, or right on the verge of doing so. Somebody gets a good fat “rake-off” in this mission business, and deludes the people, and thereby gets gain.
Occasionally some person tells the truth about these missionary operations. Such persons are those who have no ax to grind and no financial loss to sustain by telling the truth— and so they “let the cat out of the bag.” In Martin, Tenn., the town where we formerly lived, is published a newspaper called the Weakley County Press. We get the paper. In the issue of that paper of May 6, 1927, is a letter from Lieutenant John Ford Luten, a former Martin boy, and whom we knew in his boyhood days. He is with the Medical Corps of [pg 472] the U. S. Marines, and is on active duty in the war zone in China. On March 23 he wrote a letter to his grandfather and grandmother, Mr. and Mrs. J. W. Hutcherson, of Martin. This letter is published in the Press. Lieutenant Luten says that the missionaries actually do harm in China instead of good. For the benefit of our readers we copy the letter from the Press in full. Read it, and get some of the missionary fanatics to read it too, if you can. It may do some of the poor deluded people some good. C. H. C.
THE ARTICLE AND LETTER
The following letter was written by Lieutenant John Ford Luten, a former Martin boy, to his grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. J. W. Hutcherson, of Martin. Lieutenant Luten is connected with the Medical Corps of the Marines and is on active duty in the Chinese war zone. The letter will give an insight to real conditions as they now exist in China:
Ichang, China, March 23, 1927.
Dear Grandpa and Grandma:
I am sorry to hear that you have not been receiving any communication from me, but I have been writing more or less consistently. You must stop and realize that I am over one thousand miles inland on the Yangtze River, that a state of war exists, and that most of our mail is brought by gunboats, which are few and far between. People in America cannot fully appreciate the terrible state of affairs at the present time, and cannot understand the insults and abuses the white race are forced to endure from these Chinese swine. They are the most dirty, filthy, contemptible, lying form of animal ever put in the form of man. I cannot understand why an intelligent and educated race would spend their money and exhaust their efforts in trying to convert Chinese to our way of thinking, when the money could far better be spent at home for moral uplift and welfare of our own nation. The missionaries out here have not reported the truth to the American public, which is laboring under the greatest of all delusions. They have not accomplished one bit of good; in fact, have made matters [pg 473] worse. An oriental mind works exactly opposite from the occidental mind. They take what they can gain by western ideas and use it for their own gain, then they turn like a rattlesnake and strike the helping hand. A Chinaman is the most unappreciative person in the world. He thinks that kindness merely shows weakness, and he takes advantage of it. I will refer you to two books which will give you an insight into conditions in China and Chinese character, one by Rodney Gilbert, “What’s Wrong With China,” the other by Jay Denby, “Letters of a Shanghai Griffin.” It’s high time that the American public should be accurately and truthfully informed about existing conditions in China, and retaliate for the insults to American citizens and our flag. We should be feared and respected, rather than looked upon as a weak and cringing race, as the Chinese see us. Enough for the China question, but get these two books and tell your friends the truth as I have told you.
My wife could hardly write, as she has been forced to evacuate Ichang and is at present in Shanghai, which is over one thousand miles away. We are forced to live aboard ship and cannot get down river until the water rises, as our ship draws too much water. We are expecting the balloon to go up any minute and will eventually have to fight our way down. Only a few weeks ago I was on my way to the hospital ashore to treat some of these down-trodden Chinese (down-trodden-hell!) and I was attacked by a mob of Chinese coolies just for the simple reason that I was a foreigner. I stood my ground and fought, but little chance did I have. It ended by an armed guard from the ship attacking and driving back the mob with bayonets after my uniform had been almost completely torn off and I was bruised and cut. After the commanding officer threatened to shell the city an official apology was sent over by the Chinese authorities with regret. Anyone can write apologies every day. This is only one of the numerous incidents that have occurred and always followed by an apology, the officials themselves instigating and ordering the coolies to make open attacks on foreigners. If the people in the United States could only know the truth of the whole situation.
Lieut. Jno. Ford Luten,
M. C. U. S. S. El Cano.
[pg 474]
JESUS AND HIS FRIENDS
August 1, 1927
We received a copy of a Sunday school leaflet, “Beginners’ Bible Stories,” published by the Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, the title of the story in this leaflet being “Jesus and His Friends.” In order that the reader may see for himself just what these money-hunters and proselyters will resort to we copy the story in full:
Jesus and some of His friends were going to eat supper together. Two of His friends, Peter and John, had gone ahead of the others to see that everything was ready. The supper was to be in a large room upstairs. Everything was just as it ought to be— a large table with seats all around it. There was nice, cool water for bathing their feet, for the streets were so dusty. They always liked to take off their sandals and bathe their tired feet before eating.
Peter and John heard the others coming up the stairs, step-step-step-step. When they entered the room, Jesus looked around. No one offered to bathe their feet, and there was no servant there to do it. Jesus’ feet were so tired, and He wanted the dust washed off of them. He was sorry His friends had not thought of showing their love by doing it. They had the nicest seat of all for Jesus. Jesus sat down, but His friends all wanted the seats next to Him. They quarreled about it. One said: “I’m older than you, and I think I ought to sit next to Jesus.”
Another one said: “Well, I’ve known Jesus longer than you have, so I think I ought to sit by Him.”
Jesus was so sorry they were quarreling about sitting next to Him at the table. He wanted to teach them the best way to show their love.
He got up, took off His coat, and put a towel around His waist. Then He poured some cool water in a basin and commenced bathing the feet of His friends.
They looked at each other— they were so sorry they had not thought to wash each other’s feet.
How they wished they had bathed Jesus’ tired feet, instead of trying to sit by Him!
[pg 475] Peter felt ashamed, und said: “Jesus, you must not do this for me.” But Jesus looked at him and said, “It is because I love you, that I want to show you how to help.”
So Jesus went around the table, and bathed their feet, and wiped them with the towel He had put around Him.
When He had finished, He put away the basin of water and the towel, and put on His coat and sat down at the table. Then He looked at His friends and said, “The way to show your love is by helping people.”
Jesus’ friends never forgot how He showed them how to help, and after that they tried to show their love to people by helping them.
We confess that we do not remember to have ever read more falsehood and a more glaring, bold, bald-faced misrepresentation of facts than is contained in the foregoing. And that, too, under the pretext of teaching the children how to be Christians, how to follow the Lord, and how to attain to the glory world.
This Sunday school leaflet of falsehoods sets forth the idea that Jesus washed the feet of His friends before the eating of the supper, and John plainly says that “supper being ended.” The leaflet says that seats were all around the table. How do they know that? How do they know Peter and John heard the others coming up the stairs? How do they know the disciples quarreled about who should sit next to Jesus? Not a word that we remember about that in the Book. It is only a falsehood of the whole cloth of their own making. And what they say some of the disciples said, “I am older than you,” and “I have known Him longer than you have.” This is simply manufactured by these bigots and drawn from their own vain imagination.
And “they were so sorry they had not thought to wash each other’s feet.” How did the writer find that [pg 476] out? Peter did not know what the Lord was doing— did not know why He washed their feet; did not know the meaning of it. If it had been because their feet were dusty and they usually washed their feet before eating supper, Peter would have known— or else he was an idiot. Was he an idiot? No. Hence it was not as this set of humbugs teach in this little Sunday school leaflet. “Peter felt ashamed, and said: ‘Jesus, you must not do this for me.’” No such thing was said, and these publishers and the writers knew better. None of the things these folks say were said can be found in the Book. It is simply a plain case of garbling, misrepresenting, and telling of falsehoods in order to get the lesson they propose to teach, and to evade and deny what is plainly put down in God’s word. And such as this carried on in the name of Christianity and under the hypocritical pretext of helping to save souls. May the good Lord deliver us from such a blasphemous set of pretenders. C. H. C.
WHALE SWALLOWED JONAH
August 15, 1927
The idea which men have advanced that a whale could not swallow a man is a mistake. Perhaps many of them could not. But when we were in California we saw the skeleton of a whale at Long Beach, which we are sure could have swallowed a man. That whale came ashore at the foot of Almatos Ave., May 20, 1897, and was captured there. It was a species of the Giant Blue, and was sixty-four feet long and weighed sixty tons— 120,000 pounds. Its collar bone was nearly four [pg 477] feet across, and the swallow was between six and eight inches in diameter, without stretching. There is still another species of whale that has a still larger swallow than this, and yet this one had a swallow large enough to take a man in. Yet, it is true the Bible says,”The Lord prepared a great fish.” Jonah learned a lesson in that whale which many of the Lord’s people have to learn— especially those the Lord puts in the ministry. Many of them take a course in “whale college,” and learn the lesson Jonah learned. Then sometimes they go back to that college and take a “post graduate” course. It seems they have to learn the lesson over and over, sometimes. C. H. C.
PUBLISHED BY REQUEST
August 15, 1927
Dear Brother Cayce:
I think that your mind to refrain from strife and contention so far as in you lieth is good, for it is not contending earnestly for the faith delivered once to the saints. So you are right in suppressing all matters which in your judgment lack the word “earnestly.’‘ I appreciate the good brotherly spirit in which you have written, although some of it has not as yet been shown me in what I hope is a Christian experience, as you present it. However, if we can enjoy the same spirit, I hope we may not fall out over the diversity of operations. I do not believe that the children of God while here in the flesh on earth will, any two of them or more, ever see wholly or entirely eye to eye, for to such charity or forbearance would mean nothing. I had such a severe trial being rid of the law and my own works, which I once trusted in as good enough to secure salvation for me, that I may have gone to an extreme in crying “grace, grace unto it.” I feel like your letter is worth a place in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST and return it for your disposal. I am, I [pg 478] hope, yours in the things that make for peace and the things wherewith one may edify another. Yours in hope of eternal life, Everett R. Kinney.
THE LETTER
E. R. Kinney:
Dear Brother— Pressure of important letters, preparing manuscript for the paper, filling appointments, and such things have kept me from answering your appreciated letter of March 16 until now. I would be glad to see you and talk with you face to face, or that I had time to write a long letter, but will content myself as best I can with what little I may have the time to write hurriedly just now.
I presume the debates you mention reading— at least one of them— is a debate which I was engaged in. Permit me to say, though, that I have quit debating, and may never have another. But I never engaged in one except by request of an Old Baptist Church, such requests having been made by the church in conference. It is not the expectation to reach or to benefit the man we debate with, but some hearer who may be an honest seeker after truth. He hears the truth preached that way, in comparison with the error, and thus the truth shines the brighter. I have seen persons come to the church and ask for a home who said they were convinced by hearing debates. It is true, though, that men sometimes do not conduct such debates in the right spirit.
But there is one thing in which I think you do not rightly understand our people who hold to what is termed by some as conditional or time salvation. I gather from your letter you think they have an idea that they direct [pg 479] their own steps. I think you do not understand them on this. They do not think it is in them to direct their own steps. “It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.” The parent directs the steps of the child, but the child does not always follow the direction. The Lord directs the steps of His children, but His children sometimes rebel and do not walk as the Lord directs. Apply this to your own experience, and I am sure that you will confess that you have sometimes felt remorse of conscience that you did not do what you felt the Lord had directed you to do. In fact, you have said just that much in telling me you had said things unkindly, or about that— retaliating in kind, following the fleshly inclinations. It is the man that does the walking. If he walks as God directs, he walks right, does right. If he walks after the flesh, the fleshly lusts, he walks wrong.
When those churches “fit and fit until they fit themselves out,” it was on account of their wrong doing that they went out— the result of their own wrongs. Of course if they had not “fit and fit” they would not have “fit themselves out,” and would have continued to exist and to enjoy the smiles of the Lord. Their destruction was the result of their own wrongs; as you rightly say, too, this is always the case, whether “absoluters” or “limited predestinarians.”
Strife among brethren results in death and desolation in the church.’ What a pity that brethren will engage in such. For myself I would that they would cease.
I prefer that these unholy discussions be kept out of my paper. It is hard to do that. If I allow something to slip in that favors what some do not like, it is likely to bring a reply, and some will think hard of me if I do [pg 480] not allow the reply in the paper, and if I do allow it, then some on the other side think I have not treated them right-and so there it goes. After calling this fact to mind, and carefully thinking over the matter, and I trust, trying to pray over it, I have thought it might not be best for the cause to publish the letters I wrote to ask your permission to publish, which Brother Parker sent to me. I feel sure that the unholy war they are having now in Virginia and North Carolina is wrong, and I believe the time will come when the brethren will be sorry for it— perhaps after many who are leaders in it are gone. The coming generation will see the evil of it and the devastation wrought by it. They may have some of the kind of meetings we have been having in some portions of the south and west called peace meetings, in which the brethren are trying to get together who were divided years ago. In some of those wars I was a helper, and I am sorry of it now. I want to try to get out of such work if possible and do nothing to help in a strife. Have I come to the right conclusion that it is best to publish no more than what seems absolutely necessary in regard to the war they are having over in Virginia and North Carolina? Be candid with me. (Yes, indeed I think so.— Kinney.)
Now in regard to visiting this country. We have a little church in North Little Rock. They hold the unworthy writer as pastor. When I am not away on a tour I try to be with them on the third Sunday in the month and Saturday afternoon before. They are few in number, but they love the truth as we understand the Bible to teach, and they rejoice in and love the glorious doctrine of salvation by grace, and that we should honor the Lord by a godly walk and pious [pg 481] conversation—that we should honor Him who has called us out of darkness into light. We also have a little band here in Fordyce. The regular meeting time is the second Sunday and Saturday before in each month. My humble little home is on an adjoining lot to the church. We would gladly welcome you to our home and at our church here in Fordyce or at Little Rock. Assuring you of the fact that you have my Christian love and fellowship, and asking an interest in your prayers, I remain, Yours in humble hope,
C. H. Cayce.
WINE USED IN SACRAMENT
August 15, 1927
Brother Thomas J. Braswell, Winter Garden, Fla., asks us if the Lord used wine in the institution of the sacramental supper, or did He use grape juice. When the element that is used to represent the blood of the Saviour is mentioned in the New Testament it is called the fruit of the vine. It should be remembered that the Lord instituted the sacramental supper at the time of the eating of the last Passover supper with His disciples. Grape juice was not used in the passover supper. Wine was used in that supper. Wine is the fermented juice of the grape. Grape juice has to be adulterated to keep it from fermenting. It is a flagrant violation to use adulterated things in any service of God. Unfermented juice cannot, in any way, typify the agony of the Lord. Fermented juice would fittingly typify His agony.
In the Passover unleavened bread and wine were used. These things were the substance of the Passover. [pg 482] Without them the passover supper was worthless. Other articles might be omitted from that supper without question, but if the bread or the wine were omitted, the supper was valueless. The Lord took the substance of the supper— the unleavened bread and the wine-and instituted the sacramental supper. As these things were the articles He used, it would be the height of presumption to substitute something else. We simply would not administer the communion when grape juice is used instead of wine, nor would we engage in that service when such substitute is used. C. H. C.
ROMANS 9:13
August 15, 1927
Brother H. D. S. Helton, Valeria, Ky., requests our views of Rom. 9:13, which reads, “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” In order to see what led up to this statement by the apostle in quoting from the language of prophecy it is necessary to read a few verses, beginning with verse 7, “Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise. At this time will I come and Sarah shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even, by our father Isaac; (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 [pg 483] said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” We find in Gen. 25:23 that before Jacob and Esau were born the Lord said to Rebecca concerning them, “The elder shall serve the younger.” This only shows God’s choice of them before they were born, and the choice could not, therefore, have been made because of any good done by Jacob or evil done by Esau. God’s choice manifests His love.
Hence, God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they were born, and made choice of one (Jacob) and bestowed the blessing upon him, and passed Esau by. Paul explains this in verse 11, “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.” For this reason it was said unto Rebecca, “The elder shall serve the younger.” Why should the elder serve the younger? Because God had made choice of Jacob. Why did God make choice of Jacob? Because He loved him. God’s choice of a poor sinner is a manifestation of His everlasting love. His love is everlasting. It is unchangeable. It is always the same. Nothing can separate one from it. There is much in this, but we do not have time now to write more. May the Lord bless this to the good of the readers. C. H. C.
TRIP IN ALABAMA
September 15, 1927
May 26th we (Elder Cayce, the children and I) started to Alabama in our car. We arrived at Vina, Ala., Friday night at eight thirty. We went to the home of Sister Josie Duckett. She did not know we were coming, but made us feel welcome. We enjoyed being in her home. Saturday we went to Brownsboro, Ala., to my parents, B. B. Lawler’s. Monday night Elder J. J J. Turnipseed came to go with us. Monday night Elder H. P. Houk and daughter came over. Before they left, papa called us around the family altar, and after singing and prayer, Brother Turnipseed talked a few minutes. ‘Twas good to be at dear old home. Papa, mama, many of my sisters, brothers and their families were around the family altar one more time. I thank God for such noble, dear Old Baptist parents.
Tuesday, we left the children with mama, and Elder Turnipseed, Claudis, the baby (William Hartsel), and I went to Decatur, Ala. Had services there Tuesday and Wednesday nights. One dear sister joined by experience Wednesday night. Thursday morning we went to Birmingham to the home of Elder Turnipseed. Many Baptists came in and we had an enjoyable evening. Friday morning Elder and Sister Turnipseed went with us to Ozark, Ala., to the home of Brother Byrd, a good Old Baptist home. We spent two weeks among the Baptists in that section. I failed to keep a record of the homes we visited, and do not remember the names of all. I am still feasting on the good time I had while with those dear people. They were all strangers to me [pg 485] when I left home, but when I met them I felt that we belonged to the same family. Elder Turnipseed and Claudis did some wonderful preaching. I felt that it was indeed good to be there.
We left Ozark June 12th for Montgomery. Spent Sunday night with Brother Turnipseed’s son in town. Monday we went to Birmingham to the home of Brother Turnipseed. Tuesday morning Brother Turnipseed was called to the bedside of Brother Harden. We were with Sister Turnipseed until Thursday evening. Thursday night we stayed with Elder Parker. Friday morning Elder Parker went with us into the Mount Zion Association. We visited in this association until June 22nd. Elder Yancey’s daughter joined while we were there. Claudis baptized her the first Sunday in July. From here we went to Woodville, Ala., and were at old Union Church June 23rd and 24th. Then we went back to Brownsboro to mama’s and to our children.
Words fail to express my feelings. If I could only tell what I felt and how I felt on this trip, I would. I shall never forget the heavenly feasts and the noble Baptists that we met. Sister Turnipseed is a fine traveling companion and a wonderful Baptist. I enjoyed being with her so much. Many asked that I write them when I got home. You see from this that I can’t, but I trust that you will cast the mantle of charity over my many imperfections, and that each one will take this as a personal note to you. I desire to be remembered in your prayers. I feel to need the prayers of the righteous. May the good Lord graciously bless each one, is my prayer. Yours in hope, Mrs. C. H. Cayce.
[pg 486]
OUR TRIP IN TEXAS
October 15, 1927
We left home on Wednesday afternoon at 6 o’clock, August 3, to fill the appointments which had been arranged for us in Texas by Elders J. H. Fisher, L. J. McCarty and others. We arrived in Abilene Thursday afternoon at 4, and filled the first appointment there that night. Several brethren met us at the train, one of them being Elder Fisher. From there we went to the West Providence Association, which convened on Friday about sixteen miles from Abilene. It was a great meeting. The home ministers of the association are Elders J. F. Richardson, Robert Lee, Texas, who is the good and highly esteemed moderator; J. W. West, J. B. Owens, W. L. Barrett, R. B. Hester and J. J. Edwards. They were all present. Brother J. W. Hendrickson, McCauley, Texas, is the efficient clerk. The following visiting ministers were present: Elders J. H. Fisher, Newcastle; J. N. Hudson, Houston; C. J. L. Bolinger, Cone; Joe Meece, Kirkland; L. N. Barrow, Houston; O. Strickland, Munday; J. H. Alldridge, Lubbock; J. G. Grant, Hico; J. L. Collings, Glen Rose; L. J. McCarty, Hart; J. C. Foster, Atwell; Licentiate W. L. Jackson, Burkett; all of Texas; and C. H. Cayce, of Fordyce, Ark. There were eighteen additions to the church during the meeting, and we think sixteen of them were by experience and baptism. We could not find language to express the sweetness and the joy of the meeting. It will be long remembered by many who were there.
From the West Providence Association filled appointments at the following places: Anson, Sunday night; White Pond, Monday night; Roby, Tuesday; Snyder, [pg 487] Wednesday and Thursday; Crosbyton, Saturday and Sunday; Lakeview, Monday; Cottonwood, Tuesday; Grow, Tuesday night; Little Flock, near Munday, Wednesday; Mt. Zion, near Graham, Thursday. Good congregations were present at each place, and the meetings were all pleasant, and good interest seemed to be manifested at every meeting. From Mt. Zion Church we went to Dublin, in company with Elder Fisher and Elder McCarty and wife, to attend the Duffau Association, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The following named ministers were present: Elders L. J. McCarty, J. R. Richardson, W. R. Blackmon, Martin Stone, J. H. Fisher, W. F. Baker, J. S. Newman, J. N. Hudson, C. J. Holcomb, J. L. Collings, J. M. Dowell, M. Hardwick, J. G. Grant, B. J. Driver, A. B. Chambers, W. J. Chambers, J. E. Senter, J. J. Edwards, J. E. Roberts, J. F. Perkins, W. Y. Norman, J. C. Foster and the writer. If we remember correctly, Elder J. J. Edwards is the able moderator and A. H. Roden is the efficient clerk. There were five additions to the church during this meeting. This was another enjoyable association, and a large crowd in attendance. It will be long remembered by many who were there. At this meeting we met some brethren and sisters whom we knew in old Mississippi when we were just a boy. It was a great pleasure to us to meet them once more.
After the Duffau Association we filled appointments at Tuscola, Loraine and Coahoma. There were good, congregations and good interest at each place. Then we went to the West Texas Association at Tahoka, Friday, Saturday and fourth Sunday in August. The following ministers were present: Elders J. S. Newman, [pg 488] J. H. Fisher, O. Strickland, J. B. Owens, J. W. West, L. N. Barrow, J. C. Lewis, J. N. Hudson, Franklin Baker, L. J. McCarty, J. C. Foster, F. M. Griffin, J. I Colwell, R. B. Hester, C. H. Cayce, C. J. L. Bolinger; Licentiates W. L. Jackson, G. C. Miller, S. J. Ellis, Harrell Boyce, Oscar Moyers, W. C. Cleveland, Otis Richardson, W. L. Bolinger and J. W. Huey. During this meeting there were twenty-six additions to the church, twenty-two of them by experience and baptism. To say that it was a good meeting does not fittingly describe it. It was all of that, and more. We cannot find words to describe the joy of it. We do not think we shall forget it while memory lasts.
On Monday and Tuesday following we filled appointments at Tulia, where we had another sweet meeting. There were three additions to this church by experience and baptism. Elder L. J. McCarty is the able pastor of this church, as well as at Tahoka, and he is loved and held in high esteem by his brethren. He is also the moderator of the association, and Elder Bolinger is the clerk. Elder McCarty was with us from the Duffau Association, and conveyed us all the way around. It was delightful to us to be in company with him. The more we were with him the more we loved him, and we so much hated to part when the time came for us to leave Tulia. We left there Tuesday evening and went to Amarillo, where we had to lie over until 4:30 Wednesday morning. We left there at about that time and arrived in Little Rock Thursday morning at 2:35, where we were met by our wife and children, who drove up there Wednesday afternoon. We went to the home of Mr. and Sister Rewis and got a little rest. Elder Jacob Sandage met us there Thursday morning, and we all [pg 489] drove to Rushing and attended the Mountain Springs Association. We failed to get a list of the ministers present. It was a good meeting, and the good Lord surely was in the place.
After the Mountain Springs Association closed on Sunday we drove back to Little Rock and Elder Sandage preached there that night. Monday we returned home, with our family. We were sure glad to meet them on Thursday morning at Little Rock, having been gone from them so long, and we were all glad to get home once more on Monday evening.
Then on Thursday evening before the second Sunday in September we drove over to Donaldson with our family and spent part of the night with Brother W. H. Fuller, and on Friday morning early we drove from there to the Salem Association, about eighteen miles west of Danville, Ark., in company with Brother and Sister Fuller and Sister Ragan, of Donaldson. We failed to get a list of the ministers in attendance at this meeting; but there we had the pleasure of once more meeting the following aged ministers who have been in the service from forty to fifty years: Elders W. A. Barham, R. L. Piles and M. J. Ryan. These are able ministers of the New Testament and dearly loved by their brethren in their section, as well as by the brethren elsewhere who know them. Brother Joe Loyd, of Blue Mountain, is the efficient clerk of this association, and is highly esteemed by the brethren. This was another great meeting.
After the meeting closed Sunday we drove home that night, arriving home at 11:25, tired and worn out. We were glad to get home and to be here a few days, [pg 490] though we do not get much rest, as work has “piled up” while we were away. But it is a change, and that gives us a little rest.
The brethren were all good and kind to us— far better than we feel to deserve, from the first of the trip in Texas on, all the way through until our home coming. We shall never forget their great kindness to us. May the good Lord shower down His richest blessings upon them.
The Lord is surely blessing His people in Texas now, and where they have come together and quit their warring with each other, they are a happy people, and fellowship abounds and love flows freely from breast to breast, and the Lord’s little children are coming home. May the good work go on. The few who are opposing the coming together of the Lord’s people cannot stop it. The Lord’s time has come to favor Zion, and He is bringing His people together. To Him be praise forever more.
We ask an interest in the prayers of the Lord’s children. Pray Him to help us to strive for the things that make for peace, and the things wherewith we may edify one another. C. H. C.
ELDER PETTY GONE PROGRESSIVE
October 15, 1927
We have received the information that Elder M. E. Petty, who has been worrying the brethren so much for the past year or more in Southeast Georgia, has gone to the Progressives. Our information is that his church had him under a charge and that on Friday or Friday night before the meeting time of his church on Saturday he joined the Progressives, which was Friday before the first Sunday in September. As a number of brethren have asked us as to what Elder Petty is doing we make this statement as a matter of information for them. We are sorry Elder Petty has pursued such a course as he has. “God is not mocked. Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” We trust that he may yet some day see the error of his way and be brought to repentance. C. H. C.
END OF VOLUME FOUR
INDEX
NOTE: The original page numbers are bolded and bracketed and embedded in the body of the text such as [pg 207]. It is those bolded and bracketed numbers that correspond to the numbers in this index.
Absoluters Cannot Harmonize 2 Tim. i. 9 and 1 Tim. iv. 16, 291
Absolute Not in Bible, 128
A Call for Prayer and for Peace, 113
Accept Our Gratitude, 202
Acts viii. 26-40, 295
Acts xv. 7, 296
Acts xix. 1-3 and 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35, 161
Acts vii. 51, 52; Mark xii. 22-32; Mark iii. 22-30; Luke xii. 10; 1 John V. 16, 17, 74
Acts x. 36 39, 307
Acts xx. 28, 442
Acts xx. 23, 24, 362
Acts ii. 42, 469
A Debate Near Lebanon, Mo., 48
Adultery the Cause of the Trouble, 77
A Good Meeting at Little Rock, 243
Alabama and Tennessee, Trip in, 224
Alabama, Tour in, 82
Alabama, Trip in, 484
Almost Ready to Despair, 389
Always Dying, 368
Ananias and Sapphira, 76
Anderson, Dr. J. E., Answer to, on John xiii. 8, 73
An Old Circular Letter, 26
Another Editor Added, 294
Another False Report, 195
Another Move for Peace, 314
Another Name on Our Staff— Elder J. H, Fisher, 289
Another Trouble Settled—Flint River, 410
Another Unprofitable and Deplorable Strife of Words, 333
Answers to Questions by W. B. Howard, 357
Answer to A. Dodson on Isa. v. 8, 320
Answer to A. H. Middleton on Matt. viii. 11, 12, 282
Answer to E. A. Wyatt on 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2, 267
Answer to Elder J. B. Johnson on Purpose and Predestination, 463
Answer to Elder Simms’ Reply, 228
Answer to Elder Wm. L. Phillips on Insurance, 61
Answer to H. D. S. Helton on Rom. ix. 13, 482
Answer to H. T. Tucker on Deut. xi. 6 and xxx. 15, 403
Answer to J. A. Jackson About Dancing, 358
Answer to J. I. Caneer About Infants, 310
Answer to J. I. Caneer on Immortality of the Soul, 368
Answer to J. L. Harbour on 1 Tim. iv. 10, 401
Answer to Melvin Hall About the Rich Man, 392
Answer to Noah Ellis, 74
Answer to Questions From C. M. Baldwin, 18
Anthony, G. W., Endorsement, 70
Antioch, near Corinth, Meeting at, 57
Apology and Explanation, 132
Appeals Through the Paper, 365
Appendix in Fulton Meeting, 90
Appointments Called in, 299
Appointments Called in—Made by Elder Petty, 337
Appointments Filled in Buffalo River Association, 326
Article Copied from Gospel Advocate, 302
Article Read at Jackson, Tenn., 442
Articles Crowded Out, 253
Articles of Faith on Eternal Punishment, 27
A Servant is Worthy of His Hire, 188
A Society, 437 Association Rule, 171
A Suggestion, 39
Atonement Denied, 153
Away From Home, 242
Back on the Staff, 141
Back on the Staff Elder H. B. Wilkinson, 453
Bad Fight, 244
Baldwin, C. M., Asks Questions, 18
Ball, Elder H. G., Misrepresents Elder Newman, 348
Ball, H. G., Makes Acknowledgment, 359
Baneful Effect of Spirit of Lordship, 442
Baptism in the Name of the Lord, 23
Baptism, Law of God on, 295
Baptist and Commoner Account of Debate, 178
Baptized Unto John’s Baptism, 23
Barren Springs, Meeting at, 57
Bars of Fellowship Set up, 220
Bear Creek Association, 294
Be Careful How We Compromise, 148
Begged and Plead With Elder Petty, 450
Believe the Same Principles, 322
Bethel (Nashville, Tenn.), Visit to, 82
Bible Conference a New Thing, 162
Bible Conference at Palmersville, 162
Big Sandy Association, 413
Birthday, Thirty-seventh, 424
Bishop, Elder W. A., on the Staff, 325
Blasingame, W. R., Remarks to, 148
Blessed Hope, 37
Bogard, Ben M., Debate With, 132, 152
Bogard’s False Charge, 178
Bogard’s Special Heresy Issue, 196
Both Sides, 166
Boyett, Anderson B., Remarks to, 13
Bozarth, Elder S. C, From Kentucky, 41
Bradley, I. B., Debate With, at Woodville, 224
Bradley, I. B., Time Changed for Debate With, 218
Braswell, Thomas J., Asks About the Supper, 481
Briar Fork One Hundred Years Old, 10
Broom, Elder W. S., 313
Brown, Mrs. C. N., Remarks to, 268
Brush, Elder W. E., Back on the Staff, 141
Buck’s Theological Dictionary on the Soul, 27
Buffalo River, Peace Restored in, 326
Burch, J. M., Concerning Church at Oak Grove, 414
California, Going to, 212
California, Trip in, 216
Call for a Peace Meeting, 236
Call for Meeting at Greenfield, 111
Canady, Irvin, 76
Caneer, J. I., Asks About Infants, 310
Caneer, J. I., on Hot Shot and Immortality of the Soul, 368
Caneer, J. I., Reply to, 27
Can They Disobey? 393
Careless and Neglectful, 286
Carey the Father of Modern Missions, 205
Carr, Thomas J., Says a Salvation not Eternal, 420
Carson, Mrs. W. G., on the Word Shall, 342
Cayce A Disappointment, 178
Cayce-Bogard Debate, 178
Cayce, Mrs. C. H., Account of Trip, 484
Cheerful Giver, 188
China, Missionaries do Harm in, 471
Choctawhatchie Association, Visit in, 139
Christ Did Not Contradict Himself, 54
Christian Conflicts, 13
Church Act—Dallas, 388
Church Discipline, 286
Church Evidence, 448
Church may Ask Preacher to Desist, 89
Church no Reformatory, 7
Church not a Reformatory, 125
Church Should Investigate, 448
Church Should Keep Herself in Order, 54
Circular Letter, An Old, 26
Claim They Are Not Excluded, 454
Clark, Elder C. L., Desires Peace, 352
Cleansing Needed, 52
Clipping From Atlanta Constitution, 67
Close of Volume Thirty-eight, 184
Close of Volume Thirty-nine, 248
Coffey’s History, Quotation From, 420
Colossians ii. 20-23, 205
Commanded to Choose Life, 403
Commandments, Who Can Keep the? 283
Committee, Report of, at Dallas Meeting, 460
Communion, the, and John’s Baptism, 469
Conditional Sentences in the Bible, 333
Conditions in Rom. viii. 13, 431
Confession, A, 419
Confession, Elder Wilson’s, 260
Constitution of Church not Invalidated, 54
Conversation During the Passover Supper, 339
Conwill, Curtice, Questions From, 283
Cook, Parson, 20
Correction, A, by Mrs. W. C. Edwards, 467
Costs Money to Prepare for Debates, 201
Council, Remarks on a, 88
Criticism Either Way, 437
Crouse’s Book an Able Defense, 348
Crowded Out, 253
Cumberland Association, Tour in, 142
Dallas Church Act, 388
Dallas Meeting, The, 408, 460
Dancing and Such Like Things, 358
Daniel, Last Chapter, 23
Danville Rejected All Labor, 304
Danville, Va., Notice From,. 166
Danville Would Not Forgive\ 276
David and Uriah, 342
Deacon Staying at Home, 209
Debate at Leedy, Miss., 152
Debate at Parrish, Ala., 88
Debate at Parrish Came off, 127
Debate at Watertown, 128
Debate Held Near McEwen, 210
Debate Near Lebanon, Mo., 48
Debate Near Lebanon, Mo., With Mr. Clark, 63
Debate Near McEwen, Tenn., 200
Debate With A. U. Nunnery, 224
Debate With Ben M. Bogard, 132
Dedication, 3
Deuteronomy xi. 6 and xxx. 15, 403
Did Not All See Alike, 385
Did Not Please God, 155
Discipline, Church, 125, 286
Disobey, Can They? 393
Disorder to Receive an Excluded Person, 270
Division Will be Regretted, 173
Doctrine at the Root of the Trouble, 276
Doctrine of Elder J. T. Jackson not Heresy, 171
Dodd, Olive, Remarks to, 82
Dodson, A., Asks About Isa. v. 8, 320
Do Non-elect Die in Infancy? 284
Do Not Care to Publish, 166
Do Not Pay Him, 436
Do Not Want Peace, 299
Don’t Want the Paper, 305
Drifting, Where Are We? 7
Dropped, Elder Petty’s Name, 450
Duffau Association, Attended, 486
Duplicate Letter Authorized by Antioch Church, 41
Dyer, Tom, Asks About John’s Baptizing, 469
Editor, Another, Added, 294
Editorial Help, More, 325
Edwards, Mrs. W. C, Makes a Correction, 467
Effort Made for Peace, 299
Elder O’Neal’s Proposition, 193
Elder Wilson’s Confession, 260
Endorsement, An, by Elder J. W. Gardner, 383
Endorsement, An, of Elder J. T. Davis, 22
Endorsement by Elder R. L. Perry, 49
Enoch Translated, 204
Eternal Punishment, 153
“Everything is Fixed,” 393
Evidence, Good, 258
Evils of the Day, 358
Excluded for False Swearing, but Restored, 25
Excuse, An, for Not Taking the Paper, 196
Experience, Lesson Learned by, 153
Explanation and Apology, 132
Explanation Wanted, by Noah Ellis, 74
Extracts Published, 198
Ezekiel xxxiv. 1-20, 442
Ezekiel xxxvi. 25-28, 295
False Report, Another, 195
False Swearer Restored, 49
Fellowship For, No, 11
Filling Appointments, in Tennessee and Virginia, 284
Fined for Drunkenness at Hopkinsville, Ky., 178
First Baptist Church in America, 354
First Cor. xiv. 34, 35 and Acts xix. 1-3, 151
First Cor. xvi. 1, 2, 267
First Cor. x. 5, 155
First John v. 16, 17; Acts vii. 51, 52; Mark xii. 22-32; Mark iii. 22-30; Luke xii. 10, 74
First Peter v. 1-3, 442
First Peter iii. 8-12, 411
First Peter iii. 20, 21, 431
First Timothy iv. 16, 155
First Timothy iv. 10, 401
Fisher, Elder J. H., on Our Staff, 289
Fisher, Elder J. H., Remarks to, 190
Five Mile, Statement From, 270
Flint River Association (Ala.), Tour in, 82
Flint River Church, Oldest in Alabama, 82
Flint River (Ga.) Trouble Settled, 410, 416
Flood, God’s People in the, 268
Flowers, James C, Questions by, 46
Forked Deer Association, 427
From One Who Loves Babies, 213
Fullerite Lost His Pants, 214
Galatians v. 15, 244
Galatians v. 19-21, 315
Gallagher, Sidney, Makes False Statement, 178
Gardner, Elder J. W., Endorsement by, 383
Genesis v. 24 and Heb. xi. 5, 204
Genesis iii. 4 and ii. 17, 431 Genesis ii. 16, 17, 342
Gill, John, on the Soul, 27
Glad Tidings on the Warpath, 257
God and Space, 27
God is the Teacher, 255
God not Meaner than We Are, 393;
God’s Determinate Counsel, 389
God’s People in the Flood, 268
God’s Work not Man’s Work, 155
Going to California, 212
Golden, H. B., Asks About Matt. xxiv., 199
Golden Rule, 250
Golston, Elder H. L., Commends, 362
Gone Progressive, Elder Petty, 490
Good Evidence, 258
Good Meeting at Little Rock, 243
Good Meetings, Some, 366
Gospel Advocate, Article Copied from, 302
Gospel Messenger, Call for Prayer, 113
Gospel Messenger Sold, 141
Got Pinched— A. Nunnery, 219
Grant, Elder J. G., on How to Get Peace, 77
Grant, Elder J. G., to Elders Webb and Newman, 39
Grape Juice not Used, 481
Gravel Hill, Meeting at, 57
Greathouse, Oren P., 22
Green, Elder B. M., Desires Peace, 244
Greenfield Association, 427
Greenfield Association Endorsed old Circular Letter, 26
Greenfield, Call for Meeting at, 111
Greenfield Meeting, Proceedings of, 135
Greenfield, Peace Meeting at, 133
Grimes, J. H., Statement by, 354
Hall, Melvin, Asks About the Rich Man, 392
Hanks, Elder Lee, on Our Staff Again, 150
Hanks, Elder Lee, Remarks to, ; 338
Hanks, C. Z., and Others, 454
Hank Tangled, 41
Harbour, J. L., Asks About 1 Tim. iv. 10, 401
Hardshells Ignorant, Says Bogard, 178
Hardy, Elder J. B., Been in Kentucky, 41
Hardy, Elder J. B., Identified With Absoluters, 41
Hardy, Elder J. B., not Agreed With J. S. Newman, 90
Hardy, Elder J. B., not in Line, 41
Hardy, Elder J. B., an Absoluter, 130
Hardy, Elder J. B., Causing Trouble, 215
Hardy, Elder J. B., Endorses Article by Elder Hassell, 333
Hardy, Elder J. B., Joined at Jackson, 326
Hardy, Elder J. B., Replies to “Where Are We At?” 90
Hardy, Elder J. B., Trouble Adjusted, 326
Harris, V. R., Says Hardy an Unlimited Predestinarian, 130
Hassell, Elder S., Article by, 333
Havens, John R., Reply to, 315
Hebrews xi. 5 and Genesis v. 24, 204
He Got Pinched, 219
Helton, H. D. S., Asks Aboutj Rom. ix. 13, 482
Heresy and Heretics, Reply to I John R. Havens, 315
Heresy Issue, Special, 196
Hester, Mrs., Remarks to, 468
Highland Association Recognizing Absoluters in Arkansas, 90
Hillabee Association, Visit in, 139
History Suggested, 417
Hobby Riding Causes Trouble, 315
Hoping for Perfection Hereafter, 186
Hoppes, Elder J. W., Remarks to, 206
Hopson, Mrs. W. M., Jr., Remarks to, 269
Hot Shot Objected to, 27
Howard, W. B., Questions by, 357
How to Get Peace, 77
Huddleston, E. E., Asks About Enoch, 204
Hull, Elder W. J., Restored, 178
Hull, Z. C, and A. V. Simms Join in Call, 113
Hurricane Church, Meeting at, 57
Hurt, Rev. John, Says Carey the Father, 205
Hutchens, H. F., Says Devil Preached Conditional Time Salvation, 431
Ifs in the Bible, 333
Ilene, Present for, 213
Illinois Baptist on Regeneration of Infants, 56
Immorality in the Church, 7
Immoral Preachers, Woe Because of, 302
Immortality of the Soul, 368
Immortal Soul, 27
Imposed Upon, 365
In a Mad Rush, 191
Infant Question, The, 310
Infants Regenerated After Death. 66
In Louisiana and Texas, 242
Instrumental Music in the Church, 220
Insurance Query by Elder Wm. L. Phillips, 61
Introduction to Volume Forty, 25
Introduction to Volume Forty-one 322
Introduction to Volume Forty- two, 437
Introduction to Volume Thirty- nine, 186
Isaiah Iviii. 1, 155
Isaiah v. 8, 320
Isaiah xlv. 7, 342
Isaiah i. 19, 20, 431
Is it Lawful? 209
Is it of the Devil? 431
Is J. B. Hardy an Absoluter? 130
Isolated Places, Many in, 437
Jackson, J. A., Asks About Dancing, 358
Jackson, J. T., Remarks to, 153
Jackson, Tenn., Article Read at, 442
Jacob and Esau, 482
Jamestown, Peace Meeting Called at, 281
Jeremiah ix. 1, 244 Jeremiah xix. 5, 90
Jeremiah vii. 8-10, 90
Lesson Learned by Experience, 153
Letter from D. V. Spangler, 291
Letter, Remarks to a, 148
Letters, Private, Cannot Write, 281
Letter to Elder A. V. Simms, 220
Letter to E. R. Kinney, Published by Request, 477
Letters to Mrs. S. D. Poore, 119
Lindsey, Elder T. W., Remarks to, 206
Little, Elder T. B., Letter From, on Cause of Trouble, 90
Little Flock Church Move for Peace, 314
Lomax, Elder J. W., Asks About Acts x. 36-39, 307
London Confession on the Soul, 27
London Confession Quoted by J. B. Hardy, 90
Lone Pilgrim Subscribers Do Not Pay, 436
Lord Directs the Steps, 477
Lordship Among the Ministry, 442
Lost Creek Association, Visit in, 139
Lost in the Flood—Remarks, 298 Luke xviii. 17, 310
Luke xvi. 19-23, 392 I Luke xii. 10; Mark xii. 22-32; Mark iii. 22-30; Acts vii. 51, 52; 1 John v. 16, 17, 74
Luten, Lieutenant John Ford, in China, 471
Mahurin, E. C, in Glad Tidings, 455
Makes Acknowledgment—H. G. Ball, 359
Man Not the Life, 27
Mark x. 15, 310
Mark iii. 22-30;
Mark xii. 22-32;
Luke xii. 10; Acts vii. 51, 52; 1 John v. 16, 17, 74
Mark xii. 22 32;
Mark iii. 22 30; Luke xii. 10; Acts vii. 51, 52; 1 John v. 16, 17, 74
Marlboro Church Wins Against Progressives, 207
Massey, C. B., Lost His Pants, 214
Matters of Expediency, 228
Matthew xviii. 8, 9, 15-17, 125
Matthew viii. 11, 12, 282
Matthew xviii. 19, 20, 155
Matthew xviii. 16, 270
Matthew v. 11, 12, 411
Matthew xix. 9, 54
Matthew x. 28, 27
Matthew xx. 25-28, 442
Matthew xxv. 46, 27
Matthew xxiv., 199
Matthew xx. 16 and xxii. 14, 283
Mayer, James M., Remarks to, 196
May, John A., on Baptism, 295
McChnton, A., Imposing, 365
McMillon, Elder Samuel, Name Dropped, 173
McRae, J. T., Remarks Concerning, 289
Meetings at Churches in New Hope Association, in Mississippi, 57
Meetings, Some Good, 366
Meeting, The, at New Hope, 356
[Meeting, The Dallas, 408
Membership at a Distance, 286
Member Who Never Attends, 286
Messenger of Zion, Article From, 41
Micah vi. 7, 368
Michie, Meeting at, 57
Middleton, A. H., Asks About Matt. viii. 11, 12, 282
Ministers not Lords, 442
Ministers Are Overseers, 442
Missionaries do Harm in China, 471
Mississippi River Association, 427
Mistake, The, That Was Made, 228
Moderating in Conference, 209
Modern Missions Fathered by Carey, 205
Monsees, Elder W. M., Name Dropped, 173
Moore, Spencer F., Old Letter to Elder S. F. Cayce, 385
Moral, Parental and Physical Law, 276
More Editorial Help, 325
More Expected of God’s Children, 393
Morgan, Elder J. C, on Prayer, 191
Mother, Our, Gone, 237
Mother, Thinking of, 424
Mountain Springs Association, 65
Mountain Springs Association, Attended, 312, 486
Mount Olive Association, The, 177
Mount Zion Association Called in Question, 261
Mount Zion Association, Tour in, I 82
Move for Peace, Another, 314
Mud Creek Association, Tour in, 82
Munday, Call for Meeting at, 236
Murder Will Out, 276
Murrie, .Mrs. T. S., Asks for Views, 151
Name Dropped, Elder Petty’s, 450
Nashville, Meeting in, 142
National Israel a Type, 403
New Hope, The Meeting at, 356
Newman, Elder J. S., Approves Call, 111
Newman, Elder, What He Said, 348
New Ramah, at Mt. Pisgah, Made Effort for Peace, 299
New Thing Under the Sun, A, 270
No Bible for a Society, 437
No Business in the Old Baptist. Church, 431
No Need of Admonition, 393
North Carolina and Virginia, Trip” in, 290
No Other Text Needed, 228
No Power but of God, 155
No Salvation Without Predestination, 383
Not a New Doctrine, 420
Not God’s Will for His People to Sin, 393
Not in Disorder by Affiliation, 54
Numbers xv. 30, 442
Numbers xvi., 211
Numbers xvi. 23, 34, 342
Nunnery, A., Got Pinched, 219
Nunnery, A. U., Debate With, 224
Obedience and Disobedience, 393
Obion Association, 427
Oklahoma, Appointments in, 212
Old-fashioned Church Service to be Presented, 67
One Hundred Years Old—Briar Fork Church, 10
One In The Woods, To, 20
Oneness for Twenty-four Years, 362
One Suffers on Account of Others, 211
One Wrong Does not Justify Another, 54
On Our Staff Again, 150
On the Warpath, 257
On the Warpath (Again), 411
Order, A Question of, 261
Ordered Name Dropped, 341
Our Comments on Article by Hull and Simms, 113
Our Desire, 437
Our Mother Gone, 235
Our Mother Gone—Second Notice, 237
Our Trip in Texas, 486
Our Trip in Virginia and North Carolina, 290
Our Trip to Tennessee, 427
Owen, C. B., Ordered Name Dropped, 341
Palmersville, Tenn., Bible Conference, 162
Pamphlet by Elder A. V. Simms, 220
Parental, Physical and Moral Law, 276
Park City News, Statement in, 280
Parrish, Debate Held at, 127
Parson Cook (ed) Again, 20
Pastor Should Quit, 89
Paying the Preacher, 468
Peace Agreement Signed, then Contradicted Himself, 77
Peace Desired, by Elder C. L. Clark, 352
Peace is Desired, 244
Peace Meeting at Greenfield, 133
Peace Meeting Called, at Jamestown, 281
Peace Meeting, Call for, at Munday, 236 Peace Move, 49
Peace Move, That, 11
Peace Restored in Buffalo River Association, 326
Penick Did Not Know, 56
Perry, Elder R. L., 49
Perry, Mrs. S. J., 37
Pettus, W. T., Remarks to, 149
Petty, Elder, Gone Progressive, 490
Petty’s Name, Elder, Dropped, 450
Philip Baptized the Eunuch, 295
Philippians ii. 13, 155
Phillips, Elder Wm. L., Query on Insurance, 61
Phillips-West Debate, 57
Physical, Parental and Moral Law, 276
Pig River Association, 171
Pittman, Elder R. H., 166
Playing Cards, Dancing and Getting Drunk, 22
Poore, Mrs. S. D., Letter From, 119
Poore, Mrs. S. D., Remarks to, 211
Pope, Elder W. C, Writes About Hardy, 215
Position Endorsed by G. W. I Anthony, 70
Pray for Zion, 191
Pray the Lord of the Harvest, 442
Preachers and Wildcat Whisky, 69
Preacher Should not Persist, 89
Preachers, Immoral, Woe Because of. 302
Preaching the Truth Causes no Trouble, 90
Preaching With Other Orders, 18
Predestination, 351
Predestination in the Old Testament, 128
Predestination, Questions on, 128
Preface, 5
Present for Baby, 213
Primitive Baptists Preach Repentance, 76
Principles Never Change, 322
Private Letters, Cannot Write, 281
Proceedings of Greenfield Meeting, 135
Progressive, Elder Petty Gone, 490
Progressives Having Trouble on Regeneration, 208
Progressives Lose Suit, 207
Prophecy All True, 128
Prophecy Not Predestination, 128
Proposition by Elder O’Neal, 193
Remarks to Elder J. C. Morgan on Prayer, 191
Remarks to Elder J. G. Grant, 39
Remarks to Elder J. G. Grant, Again, 77
Remarks to Elder J. H. Fisher,190
Remarks to Elder J. W. Gardner, 383
Remarks to Elder J. W. Hoppes, 206
Remarks to Elder J. W. Lomax on Acts x. 36-39, 307
Remarks to Elder Lee Hanks, 338
Remarks to Elder R. L. Perry, 49
Remarks to Elder R. O. Raulston, 201
Remarks to Elder T. W. Lindsey, 206
Remarks to G. W. Anthony, 70
Remarks to H. B. Golden on Matt. xxiv., 199
Remarks to H. G. Ball, 359
Remarks to James M. Mayer, 196
Remarks to J. A. Webb’s Confession, 419
Remarks to J. M. Burch, 414
Remarks to J. T. Jackson, 153
Remarks to Letter, 148
Remarks to Mrs. C. N. Brown, 268
Remarks to Mrs. Lora E. Smith, 52
Remarks to Mrs. S. D. Poore, 211
Remarks to Mrs. S. J. Perry, 37
Remarks to Mrs. W. G. Carson, 342
Remarks to Mrs. W. M. Hopson, Jr., 269
Remarks to Mrs. W. W. Terrell, 305
Remarks to Olive Dodd, 82
Remarks to Oren P. Greathouse, 22
Remarks to Statement From Five Mile, 270
Remarks to W. R. Blasingame, 148
Remarks to W. T. Pettus, 1.49
Repentance, 76
Replies to “Where Are We At?” 90
Reply From Elder Simms, 228
Reply to D. F. Siria and J. B. Hardy, 90
Reported as a Progressive, 195
Report of Committee at Dallas Meeting, 460
Report of Committee in Buffalo River Association, 326
Request Granted—Mrs. S. D. Poore, 119
Resolutions by Little Flock Church, 314
Responsible for Division, 220
Rewis, Mrs. R. D., Baptized, 243
Roger Williams, 354
Romanism, Rise of, 7
Romans viii. 8, 9, 155
Romans viii. 10, 368
Romans viii. 13, 155
Romans ix. 13, 482
Romans vi. 4, 295
Romans xiii. 1, 155
Romans ii. 1, 455
Ross, Elder A. B., in Messenger of Zion, 188
Ross, Elder J. C, Back on the Staff, 141
Ross, Elder J. C, on Call for Meeting, 111
Round Lick Association, Tour in, 142
Rowe, Elder Joshua T., Article From, 351
Rules of Decorum, 286
Safe Thing to Do, 228
Salem Association, Attended, 486
Salvation Without Works, 155
Sand Mountain Association, Tour in, 82
Saved by Baptism, 268
Saved by Doing Something, 155
Scriptural Right to Divorce, 54
Second Corinthians iv. 18, 368
Second Corinthians iv. 5, 442
Second Timothy iii. 1-6, 7
Second Timothy ii. 10, 442
Secret Order Insurance, 46
Separate and Regular Baptists, 406
Separate Baptists, 455
Sequachee Valley Association, Tour in, 142
Servant, A, is Worthy of His Hire, 188
Shady Transaction, 39
Shall, The Word, 342
Should be Excluded, 7
Should be Law-abiding, 155
Should be Separate, 52
Should Labor for Peace, 315
Should Live Above Suspicion, 448
Should Make Acknowledgment, 18
Should not Affiliate, 88
Should Report Them—Whisky Makers, 454
Tennessee and Alabama, Trip in, 224
Tennessee and Virginia, Filling Appointments in, 284
Tennessee, Our Trip to, 427
Terrell, Mrs. W. W., 305
Texas, Our Trip in, 486
The Thing in the Way, 455
The Word Shall, 342
Things not Mentioned in the Bible, 228
Thinking of Mother, 424
Those Born Again are Living Characters, 393
Throgmorton, Elder W. P., on Regeneration of Infants, 56
Time Changed, Debate With Bradley, 218
Timothy to Save Himself, 276
Tired Creek Church Settlement, 412
Titus iii. 5, 155
Titus iii. 1, 2, 155
To “One in The Woods,” 20
Tour in Alabama, After Debate at Parrish, 139
Tour in Tennessee and Mississippi, 57
Trials and Conflicts, 437
Trip in Alabama, 484
Trip in California, 216
Trip in Tennessee, 142
Trip in Tennessee and Alabama 224
Trip in Texas, Our, 486
Trip in Virginia and North Carolina, 290
Trip to Tennessee, Our, 427
Trouble Among the Progressives, 208
Trouble Maker, A, 414
Trouble Settled, Another, 410
Trouble Settled in Southeast Mississippi, 352
Trying Times, 437
Tucker, H. T., Asks About Deut. xi. 6 and xxx. 15, 403
Turman’s Creek, Meeting at, 57
Two Natures, 13
Ungodly Practice Will Destroy the Church, 150
Unholy War is Wrong, 477
Union of Separate and Regular Baptists, 406
Union of Separates and Regulars, 455
Unleavened Bread and Wine Used, 481
Unregenerate Can Live a Moral Life, 393
Valentine a Trouble Maker, 414
Views Given to Mrs. T. S. Murrie, 151
Virginia and North Carolina, Trip in, 290
Virginia and Tennessee, Filling Appointments in, 284
Volume Forty, Introduction to, 250
Volume Forty-one, Introduction to, 322
Volume Forty-two, Introduction to, 437
Volume Thirty-eight, Close of, 184
Volume Thirty-nine, Close of, 248
Volume Thirty-nine, Introduction to, 186
Warpath, On the, 257
Watertown, Debate at, 128
Weaver, C. M., Not Preaching Same Doctrine, 420
Webb, A. J., Suggests Re-publishing Old History, 417
Webb, Elder T. L., Added. 294
Webb, J. A., Confession, 419
We Feel so Thankful, 202
Welsh Tract Church, 354
West Providence Association, Attended, 486
West Texas Association, Attended, 486
Wetumpka Association, Visit in, 139
Whale Swallowed Jonah, 476
What Elder Newman Said, 348
Whatever is Baptistic is Scriptural, 27
What Do You Say? 25
What Elder S. F. Moore Endorsed, 385
What is the Church’s Duty? 393
What They are Divided Over, 190
What They Desire, 280
“Where Are We At?” 41
Where Are We Drifting? 7 .
Where is Vour Holy Church Communion? 90
Whisky Makers Should be Reported, 454
Whitfield Revival, 455
Who Can Keep the Commandments? 283
Who Has Orderly Baptism? 455
“Who Is He in Line With?” 244
Who Owns the Child? 408
Why Turn Our Back, 128
Wife’s Brother Killed by Auto, 242
Wildcat Whisky, 69
Wild Gourds, 463
Wilkinson, Elder H. B.,
Back on the Staff, 453
Will be Destroyed, 253
Will be Sorry of the War, 477
Williams, D. E., Asks About Moderating Conference, 209
Willis, C. D., Remarks to, 155
Will not Fellowship, 22
Wilson, Elder J. R., Letter from, 166
Wilson, Elder J. R., Name Dropped, 173
Wine Used in Sacrament, 481
Woe Because of Immoral Preachers, 302
Woe Unto Them that Join House to House, 320
Womack, W. A., Says Hardy is an Absoluter, 130
Women Forbidden to Speak in Church, 151
Words not in the Bible, 128
Words of Encouragement, 385
Work Legal—Committee at Danville, 304
Worldly Religionists, 67
Would not Hear Them, 299
Wyatt, E. A., Asks About 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2, 267
Zion’s Landmark, Article Copied from, 351
Zone of Ignorance, 280
THE END