EDITORIAL WRITINGS
FROM
THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST
Beginning with 1935
By Elder C. H. Cayce
Volume 6
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 Dear Children
who are so attentive to their poor old father, 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 have received many words of indorsement of the previous volumes of our Editorial Writings. We have also had some words of criticism. Every reader has not indorsed everything that each volume contained. We could hardly expect that they should. But we are trying to faithfully reproduce what we said in our editorial writings in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST during the years since we began the work of trying to edit the paper. Our dear companion insisted for several years that we undertake this work, before we could “muster up the courage” to undertake it. Her opinion was that it would be of benefit to the cause of the Master.
This volume, with the previous volumes, will show that our people—the Primitive Baptists—are still standing where they have always stood. They will also show, conclusively, that we have occupied the same ground during all our public life. Some things herein will be of value, from a historical standpoint, in the years to come.
THE AUTHOR
Thornton, Arkansas,
August 16, 1939
INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME L.
January 3, 1935
We now begin the publication of the fiftieth volume of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. Forty-nine volumes have been completed, and this issue is the first of the fiftieth volume. We are beginning the labors of the new volume and the new year relying alone on the good Lord for strength and courage to perform the tasks and labors as we come to them. We do not know what the year has in store for us. We have never known what was in store for us in the beginning of any of the many years in which we have been engaged in the editing and publishing of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST; but by the grace and mercy of God we have come thus far.
Through many dangers, toils and snares,
I have already come;
‘Tis grace has brought me. safe thus far,
And grace will lead me home.
The Lord has promised good to me.
His word my hope secures;
He will my shield and portion be
As long as life endures.
Since the Lord has been so wonderfully good to us during these past years, why should we not trust Him and confide in Him? The way may often seem dark and gloomy, and our way may seem to be all “hedged in,” but it is not our business to open up the way to go. The Lord has told us in His word what is well pleasing in His sight, and has directed us as to what He would have us do. His children are under law to Christ (1 Cor. ix. 21), and God’s will concerning what we should do is expressed in His law. It is our bounden duty to put [pg 8] forth every effort to do what He has commanded in His word, as His children, and rely upon Him for strength and ability to do the same, and then leave the result with Him.
The Lord God promised His chosen people Israel that when they walked in His commandments and did those things which were pleasing in His sight. He would go before them, and would fight all their battles for them. It was necessary for them to often go in obedience to God when the “odds” all seemed to be against them, and when it seemed to be impossible for them to do what was commanded or required. To refuse or fail to make the effort would have been rebellion. This would result in their destruction and overthrow, for God had said, “if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword. “—Isa. i. 20. To go forward they had to walk by faith. They could not see how they could ever accomplish that which was required or commanded of them. They could not see the way. It was their business to press forward, and to do their best to go on in the way the Lord had marked out for them to go, and it was the Lord’s business to open up the way and to pre- serve and keep them.
What was true concerning the Israelites in the prophetic age is also true with us today, if we are the Lord’s children. In Paul’s day he said, “For we walk by faith, not by sight.”—2 Cor. v. 7. It is just as true now as it was then, and as it was in the prophetic day. If we get anywhere in the service of God we have to walk by faith. Israel’s God is the same today that He was in Abraham’s day. Abraham walked by faith. He went out from his own kindred and from his own country, not knowing whither he went. God told him to go, [pg 9] and he went by faith, trusting the Lord to care for him and to care for the consequences and the result. May we not thus rely upon God today? He has not changed. He is the same “I AM” that He has ever been.
We enter the new year and begin the task and the labors of editing and publishing this fiftieth volume of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, feeling to put all our trust and confidence in the Lord, that He will take care of us and our loved ones. Let us all look unto Him for protection and preservation, and strive to do the things that are pleasing in His sight; let us all “strive for the things that make for peace, and the things wherewith we may edify one another.” Let us be satisfied with the good- ness of God’s house. Let us leave all the things of the world and the inventions of men in the affairs of religion severely alone. Let us try to use all forbearance the Lord requires. This does not require that we should indorse departures from His word or should fellowship the works or inventions of men in the church. Let us try to lay aside the things that bring disturbance and distress among the Lord’s dear children and in His church. If we will live this way, the Lord will bless and prosper us. He has promised, and is faithful. May the Lord help us thus to do. C. H. C.
CRIME INCREASING
January 17, 1935
A brother has sent us a copy of the Gospel Advocate of March 8, 1934, published in Nashville, Tenn. In that paper is an article concerning a report of the United States Senate commitee appointed to [pg 10] investigate crime in our country. It seems that the committee put the blame for the enormous increase in crime on our schools, in part, at least. The writer in the Gospel Advocate seems to put much of the blame there. He also puts much blame on the moving picture shows, and the churches, or denominations, as well as on the home.
There is little doubt in our mind that some of the blame may be rightly placed upon each of these different agencies. It is a serious fact that the home life of the average family is not what it once was. There has gradually developed a great looseness in discipline in the homes of our land. Years ago the young people, as a rule, were not gallivanting around all over the country in cars, day and night, as many of them are in these days. In our youthful days, it was a very seldom thing that a young man and a girl would go over the country at night alone. How is it now? If you travel much on our highways at night, how often do you find a car parked along the roadside and some young man and girl sitting in the car with their arms around each other? It is a common occurrence. Is it any wonder there are so few virtuous girls to be found? Is it any wonder so many young girls are ruined?
Who is to blame for this? No one but the fathers and mothers. Do you allow your daughters to car ride at night? Do you know where your daughters are when they are not under your own roof at night? Are you teaching “the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed” (Titus ii. 4, 5) ? Are you teaching the young men as the apostle directs in that chapter?
[pg 11] It is true, and we are glad it is true, that there are some families yet where this teaching is observed and enforced. And these few are the “salt of the earth” in a moral point of view. Were it not for the few who yet stand for the principles of righteousness in the moral realm, it would be so bad in truth that decent people could not stay here. It is bad enough as it is. Right here we find much of the reason for the sad state of morals, or lack of morals, as we know they are today all over the land.
Then there are the movies. These things constitute one of the greatest curses in the nation today. They are a curse from a financial standpoint. Many people who claim that they are unable to pay the debts they owe will go to the picture show and spend money which rightly belongs to their creditors. Perhaps they owe the money for food and clothing. But when they have thus spent the money, what do they get in return? Anything of benefit? It is certain they get no financial gain. Are they benefitted from a mental standpoint? Not in the least. Are they any better off from a moral point of view? Far from it. Seldom it is that a picture is put on the screen which teaches a good moral lesson. We are sure that fully ninety per cent (if not more) have a degrading influence. They cater to the sensual and to the baser instincts. Of what moral benefit can it be, for instance, to put on the screen the life of the base criminals, which all decent people know are a menace to our country? Such pictures can do nothing else than to excite in the young, especially, a craving for excitement and romance of the vulgar and base sort. It would be a God-send to our country if every picture show in the whole Union were forced to [pg 12] close their doors today. They are a menace to the good morals of the country. If you want your boys and girls to grow up in good morals and right living, for your own sake, for their sake, and for the sake of all that is good, keep them away from the movies. They may think you are too hard on them now, but in later years they will thank you and thank God that you kept them away from such influences.
Next, as to our educational system. That is wrong from start to finish. The rule has been to start wrong. The first thing is to instill in the mind of the child the idea of obtaining an education in order to live without work— without producing anything. Then, the idea is to educate for the professions. The idea is to educate the girls and boys all along the same line. Both boys and girls are required to pursue the same course of studies, from the lowest to the hightest grades. In order to graduate from the high schools the boys and girls are both required to complete practically the same course of studies. Either boy or girl may omit a study—there is no difference. In order to graduate from college, they are both required to go through the same course of study. No matter what they may follow through life— it is the same course. In order to graduate, and get a diploma, the boy and girl must have completed the same course. Remember, too, that the course required is to educate the pupil for some of the professions.
When the girl has finished her course of study in the schools, has she been educated to make a home? Has she been educated to be a wife and companion for a husband? Ten thousand times, no. In few instances does she know the first principles of home making. If [pg 13] she knows, even the first principles, it is in spite of the schooling and not because of it.
It is an indisputable and incontrovertible fact, which all sensible people know, that deep down in the heart of every normal girl, in her young womanhood, is a desire to have a home of her own some day, and to be mistress and “queen” of that home. She hopes that some day she will meet her “ideal” of a man, and that they can be united in one, and have a little home of their own, in which she will be “mistress and queen.” All right. She finishes her education, according to the requirements; she starts out in life in some of the professions —just any place where she may find a position. But in the course of time she meets with her “ideal.” She and the young man “fall in love,” if they have not imbibed too deeply of much of the modernistic idea of “free love,” and they become united in the holy bonds of matrimony, in which they are to forsake all others and cleave to each other and live in the holy state of matrimony until death. They start out to make their home. But the girl has not been educated for that. Instead of having been educated to stay at home and to be a home maker, she has been educated away from home. Both are disappointed. Their lives are blighted. They separate. The courts are filled with divorce cases. They feel that the whole system of home and morals are a myth.
Why should a man who is to be a farmer be required to study foreign languages in order to complete the course of study which he will need during life? Why should a man who is going to be a physician be required to take the course required in all the studies laid down in the curriculum of the school? Why not pursue the [pg 14] course of study and finish in the branches which will be of service and use to him, and not require him to spend the time and money now required? Some of us would fail to get the money we now get. “The love of money is the root of all evil.”
Another thing wrong with our schools is the introduction and teaching of “modernism.” The young and rising generation are taught to sneer at and to disrespect the faith of our fathers. It is true that in the lower grades this teaching is veiled, and approached lightly. The teaching is such that the Bible account of creation is set aside, and evolution is taught in its beginnings. Thus they begin to instill infidelity in the minds of our children. Then in the higher schools the same thing is more clearly and more strongly instilled. Thus many of the “educated” of the younger generation are infidels and atheists. Many of them are that at heart, and yet do not openly deny the Bible as being the word of God. Yet they do not accept it unqualifiedly. They profess Christianity, and at the same time deny the fundamental fact of Christianity. They are generally free to deny the miraculous conception and birth of our Saviour. Thus they deny that He is “God manifest in the flesh.” If Jesus was not “God manifest in the flesh,” then the Bible is not the truth; and if the Bible is not true, then there is no God; we do not know where we came from, nor where we are going. Hence, they usually deny any such thing as future existence, and claim that when a man dies that is the last of him.
But this idea of evolution did not originate, really, in or with the literary schools. Preachers advocated that idea before it was introduced in our text books in the [pg 15] schools. They advocated the idea that the sinner of Adam’s race could be cultivated and trained up into the higher order of life—the spiritual or divine—and that this could be brought about by teaching; by selection or choice on the part of the sinner. This is nothing short of the doctrine of evolution—the sinner just “evolutes” up into the higher order of life. After a time the educators, who believed this teaching of the preachers, applied the same principle to the realm of nature. They began to teach that men “evoluted” up from the lower animal; that the lower animal “evoluted” up from something still lower. Thus they embraced the teaching of the preachers, and applied the principles to the preachers, and began to teach that the preacher “evoluted” up from the monkey. When this was done, and was pressed pretty strongly, and was made plain, then some of the preachers began to raise objections. No use to “kick” and raise objections, unless you repudiate your whole theory, and come over to the principles of truth as taught by the Primitive Baptists, which have been taught by them all along the line—that life is given by a direct implantation of life; that the higher order acts sovereignly of its own will upon the lower; that the lower is passive in being raised up into the higher order; that eternal life is the direct and immediate and sovereign gift of the eternal God, who is the great and all wise Creator of all worlds.
The truth needs to be preached. Then we need to practice the same and in harmony with it. We need to reduce to practice in our lives what God has taught in His blessed Book. Our people as a nation need this in the home life. Churches need it. The schools need to be conducted in harmony with the same, and the [pg 16] teaching in the schools needs to be according to the teachings of the Book from a moral point of view. We need a sentiment created among the people against crime and immorality, and for the principles of truth and honesty and honorable living and dealing with each other, both in the church and in the home. God only knows how much we need.
C. H. C.
GOOD ARTICLES LEFT OUT
January 17, 1935
We trust that all who have written articles for THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST which have not been published will please bear with us. Our readers all know that every issue of the paper is full—all the space is filled. Yet we have many good articles on hand which have not been published. We would be glad to publish more of them, if we had the space. If we could get the paper out weekly, as we once did, of course we would have space for much more reading matter. But this is impossible, under existing circumstances. The code authority says how many hours we may work an employee each week, as well as how much we shall pay. We have not signed the code, but the law makes it apply to us in this respect, whether we sign it or not. This being true, we had to dispense with much of the help we had, and the editor and wife do much of the work we once employed others to do. In order to do this, and keep the paper going at all, we could get it out only twice a month. This is the very best we can do. The subscription list, seemingly, continues to drop off, and [pg 17] we see no prospect as yet of being able to get the paper out every week again soon.
As matters stand, we are giving all the reading matter possible, and publishing all the articles we possibly can. As stated above, we have many good articles we would publish if we had space for them. If you have written an article (one or more) for the paper which has not been published, you need not conclude that it is because we find fault with the article that it is not published. We do the best we can to select what we think is best of what we have on hand—best for the cause, and best under all the circumstances for publication. We may make mistakes along this line, but we try to do what seems at the time to be for the best. We ask that you keep on writing—do not quit because we have not published an article you may have sent already. The more we have on hand, the more we will have to select from. We try to give as much variety as possible, and still try to select what seems to us to be good. We need and relish a variety of natural food, and the same is true spiritually. Bear with us, please, and help us what you can. C. H. C.
BROTHERLY ADVICE
February 7, 1935
In another column in this paper is an article under the above heading copied from the Banner-Herald for January, 1935, from the pen of Elder Wm. H. Grouse, the editor. It is a splendid article, and we unqualifiedly indorse the sentiment contained therein, with a very [pg 18] little exception. We have written Brother Grouse a private letter indorsing the article.
One expression we might modify is in the following: “I have prayed and hoped that I might live to see all our people united. I have given up that hope and am convinced that a union cannot be effected and am of the opinion that further agitation along that line is unprofitable.” If it is right that all true Primitive Baptists be together, or if all true Primitive Baptists should be together, then it is not unprofitable to agitate such a matter. It is right to lend all encouragement to that end. It is right to labor for peace, and to strive for the things that make for peace. It is right to teach the brotherhood, as Paul taught in 1 Cor. i. 10, “that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” True, we may labor long and not see any benefit or good result of our labor; but “let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.”—Gal. vi. 9. See also 2 Thess. iii. 13.
In the warfare for the principles of truth and righteousness there is no place to quit. A soldier enlisted in the Lord’s army, under the banner of King Jesus, is enlisted for life. If we are not traitors or deserters we must keep contending for the principles of truth and righteousness. But we should do this in the right way. No doubt many of us have contended for the principles of truth and righteousness in the wrong way. When we “lose our temper,” and manifest a spirit of madness and revenge, we may be contending for the right thing, but we are doing so in the wrong way. We should not forget that “the servant of the Lord [pg 19] should not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth: and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.”—2 Tim. ii. 24-26.
Perhaps it is true that in the war with the Progressives, against the measures which those brethren introduced, extreme and harsh expressions were sometimes used. Perhaps some things were said which should not have been said. In some cases is it not possible that extreme steps were taken, and perhaps sometimes some steps taken hastily? We do not mean to intimate that the principles the “Old-liners” contended for were not right. Our readers know very well that we stand unalterably and unequivocally against the introduction of new measures among the Primitive Baptists, and against all so-called progressive measures. Yet it is possible for us to manifest the wrong spirit in contend- ing for the “old paths.”
We fully agree with Brother Crouse that it is “sinful to introduce anything among our brethren, not commanded in the word of God, which will disturb and divide our people.” It is not what the Bible teaches that divides the Primitive Baptists; it is what the Bible does not teach. Then why should we not be willing to lay aside those things which we may have that are not expressly commanded, and which divide our people, and come together and live together on the things the Bible does teach? Why can’t true Primitive Baptists do this and leave severely alone all things and every- thing the Bible does not teach, which may be calculated [pg 20] to bring trouble among us? Surely this would be commendable in the sight of God; and if we would do so, surely the Lord’s rich blessings would rest upon us. May the good Lord give us all the spirit of true repentance and forgiveness, and help us to have the cause of the Master uppermost in our hearts and lives, and lay aside all selfish interest and selfish motives, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
THE ARTICLE
For twenty-eight years I have been identified with the so-called “Progressives” of the South. All this time I have been either editor or associate editor of their paper. I have pastored quite a number of their churches and have traveled extensively among them. I was pastor at Graymont-Summit for twenty years, Statesboro twenty years, Metter sixteen years and Tifton sixteen years. I am now pastor of four good churches. They have honored me far above anything I have deserved and I love them.
They are a fine body of Primitive Baptists. They have a number of ministers as able and as sound in faith as any in the United States— ministers of whom the world is not worthy. My companion is a member with me and into this body of Primitive Baptists I have received and baptized all of my six children. During all these years I have labored to bring about a union of the “Progressives” and the “Old-line” brethren of the United States. I have prayed and hoped that I might live to see all our people united. I have given up that hope and am convinced that a union cannot be effected and am of the opinion that further agitation along that line is unprofitable.
Nearly all the churches identified with the Progressives now use an instrument in their song service. To remove them is impossible. To get the great body of our Old-line brethren to fellowship those who use them is equally impossible. I think there are some among the Old-line brethren who would be willing to fellowship those who use them, while at the same time protesting their use, but such a basis of union would divide the Old-line brethren throughout the entire United States and thus make bad matters worse. I love the Progressives, but I love our denomination
[pg 21] throughout the Union and I would rather see the great body of our people united than to see such a union effected as would bring wide-spread division among the brotherhood and churches now united.
I have never felt, and do not now feel, that the use of an organ in the song service is any sin within itself. But it has always been my judgment, and is now, that our brethren made a serious mistake when they introduced them and brought about a division of our forces. I urge our brethren everywhere who do not have them to leave them alone. My observation has been that they are unnecessary. Any help which they may have been in places has been more than over-balanced by the evil efl:ects which have followed their use. Our people have become so accustomed to the instru- ment that it is difficult to have singing when there is no one present to play for us. In many instances, congregational singing has been destroyed and only a select few sing. Certainly spirituality has not been increased by their use. The condition of our churches prove that their use does not insure union, peace and prosperity. It is not worth while to argue the question as to the unscripturalness of their use. I hold that it is sinful to introduce anything among our brethren, not commanded in the Word of God, which will disturb and divide our people. It is not worth what it costs. I am sorry I have not followed this course.
It is of much greater importance that the great body of Primitive Baptists throughout the Union be united than that they should affiliate with the Progressives. The Progressives have chosen their course. By the introduction of the organ and their continued use, they raised the barrier. Let brethren everywhere treat them kindly and leave the future to the good Lord, but let the Primitive Baptists everywhere get together and stand united leaving severely alone those things which have so sadly disrupted the brethren of Georgia and Florida. This is my advice to my brethren everywhere.
I would not cast any reflection upon the able and godly men among our ministry or the many sound and faithful ministers and brethren identified with the Progressives, nor am I ungrateful of the extreme kindness shown me by these people. I cannot, however, forget the battles I have had to wage against an attempt from certain sources to remodel our faith. The “bedbug” theory of election, the “power-plant” illustration of atonement, the [pg 22] “Means” doctrine, so boldly advocated by tongue and pen, we uncompromisingly opposed, and received all too little support, and the advocates of these false doctrines are still represented in the high councils of the Progressives. Whether or not they will be able to put these theories over on our people in the years to come remains to be seen. Just now our people are carried away with the movement to do a “big” thing in combing the denomination clean to take care of old women of other denominations and of the world while our own cause suffers and the clouds thicken for another battle sure to eventually come. Many of us oppose these things but the only consideration we have received has been the charge of “jealousy” and a desire to lead.
I am not in any sense a Progressive. My heart and soul is with all those who are satisfied to be old-time Primitive Baptists, true ever to our faith, and who regard the fellowship and union of our people as worth vastly more than all that the world can give or promise. Primitive Baptists would do well to stop and consider and get together on that faith and practice which through all the centuries has been the glory of our denomination ere the judgments of the Lord utterly consume them.—W. H. C, in Banner-Herald, January, 1935.
CHURCH RIGHTS
February 7, 1935
We have recently been asked these questions: Is a church a sovereign?—has it the right to discipline its own members? Does the church have a right to receive excluded members?
It has been a principle of Primitive Baptist teaching all along the line that each church has the sovereign and God-given right to discipline her own members. Each church has the right to say who shall not have membership in her body. Of course she may make mistakes in that, and refuse membership to some who may [pg 23] really and Scripturally be entitled to membership. But no other church has any authority or right to say the church shall receive or hold one in membership which she does not esteem to be entitled to the same. The church is not such a sovereign that she has a Scriptural right to hold one in membership whose life is such as to bring shame and disgrace on the cause. If a church does so, the sister churches have a right to complain, because they are injured thereby. If the church still persists in the course, the sister churches have a right to cease affiliation with her until she corrects the wrong, or until she ceases holding such member in her body. This, however, does not unchurch her. The Lord is the only one who can remove the candlestick.
To the next question we would say that no church has the right to receive a member into her fellowship who has been excluded by a sister church. The only place in the world to get an account squared is where the charge is made, or on record. This thing of receiving a person into one church when they have been excluded from a sister church without satisfaction and reconciliation being made where the party was excluded has been the cause of no little trouble among our people. They should quit it. It is wrong, and there is absolutely no authority for it in the word of God that we know anything about. As long as a church exists as a gospel church where one has been excluded, that long should that excluded person not be received by another church until that excluded person has made satisfaction where he was excluded. This is our view of the matter. C. H. C.
[pg 24]
ANOTHER HELPER
February 21, 1935
At our earnest request Elder A. D. West, of Wayne, Okla., has allowed us to put his name on our editorial staff as one of our corresponding editors. We are glad to have Elder West associated with us. We have heard him preach, and esteem him as an able minister of the gospel. We understand that he is highly esteemed among the churches and his brethren at home, as well as “those that are without.” We are glad to have such men associated with us. We are glad to have the association and the fellowship of such faithful servants of the Lord. We trust that he will write for the paper, and that his writings may be blessed to the comfort and benefit of our readers. And we pray the Lord to continue to bless his labors in the Master’s vineyard as he proclaims the riches of God’s grace. C. H. C.
TRACT SALVATION
February 21, 1935
In the Baptist and Commoner, of Little Rock, for February 5, 1935, is a little ad offering some tracts for sale. The ad says they put 75 tracts in an envelope and sell the whole bunch for 25 cents. The ad says that a tract may save a soul. Let’s see—75 tracts for 25 cents, and one tract may save a soul. These fellows are advertising salvation pretty cheap these days. The operation of the code has raised the price on most commodities; but it seems that these fellows are peddling salvation at a lower price than it has been advertised in recent [pg 25] years. Wonder what’s the matter with their goods, seeing the price is so low these days. Let’s see; 75 tracts for 25 cents; that would be one-third of a cent for one tract; and one tract may save a soul. If so, that would be a soul saved at the low cost of one-third of a cent!
Blowhard’s paper has these tracts for sale. There certainly must be a wonderful power in these tracts. In ancient times it took the work of the Holy Spirit to regenerate a sinner. In olden times the Holy Spirit made the application of the blood of Christ to the heart of the sinner; and in those days nothing short of that would save a soul. But these modern fellows have invented something the Lord knew nothing about, which saves souls at the low price of one-third of a cent each! In Paul’s day sinners were redeemed by the precious blood of Christ. The Lord said in ancient times that His people should be redeemed without money. Well, these fellows have their system down pretty cheap— only one-third of a cent for the price of a little tract that may save a soul. God’s people were redeemed long ago, and the price was paid in full; and the Holy Spirit does not forget to do His work in making the application of the blood. This tract salvation is unknown to the Book of books, and is nothing but the invention of a disordered mind—men making merchandise of the people—selling tracts under the pretense that souls may reach heaven by reading them which might otherwise suffer the torments of an eternal hell. They simply sell the tracts under a false claim when they make such pretentions. May the Lord pity them.
C. H. C.
[pg 26]
HYMN BOOK
February 21, 1935
By the time this reaches our readers we expect to have the Good Old Songs Hymn Book ready to mail out. Of course it is possible for some unforeseen circumstance to intervene to hinder the work; but if no unforeseen trouble comes up, we will have some of them ready to mail out by the time this reaches our readers. It is in order now for you to send us your orders, if you want a good hymn book which we think contains nothing but sound sentiment. Of course some unsound sentiment may have escaped our notice, but we have tried hard to eliminate all unsound sentiment. The book contains 764 songs; 649 pages. It has the same songs as the Good Old Songs, the large size hymn and tune book we have been publishing for years. It is on the same order as the Lloyd hymn book. The print is good and clear, from new plates, which we have just had made. The price is only $1 for a single book, or $10.20 for a dozen. Postage paid. Your order will have prompt attention. We feel sure you will be pleased with this book, if you prefer a hymn book—a book without notes. The binding is an imitation of leather— stronger than sheep binding. C. H. C.
IT IS FUNNY
February 21, 1935
We had a name on our list which was marked paid to May, 1930. We marked the subscription paid free up to December, 1930. Then about December, 1930, somebody requested us to send the paper on; so it was sent on to [pg 27] the brother until January 1, 1932—a year on time. We sent two or three letters about that time, but had no response. A short time ago we wrote him a letter pro- posing that we forget the old subscription and offering to send him the paper another year if he would send us one dollar. Well, we got a good letter from him, which is funny. He says, “I never wrote you a line in my life. Take your paper and go to thunder and let me alone.” Nice letter, that! We have had orders to go to a place, and we do not know which way to start, nor where thunder is to go to, unless we go to that brother, where he is. Thanks, brother; we will try to let you alone. Pardon us; we had been taking for granted he loved the truth. If we have judged him wrongfully, we are sorry, and beg his pardon, and we will try to “do so no more.” C. H. C.
CHURCH HARBORS CRIME
Minister won’t reveal name of “confessed” kidnaper.
February 21, 1935
Fort Lee, N. J., Feb. 13 (AP).—To the Rev. Vincent G. Burns his dramatic outburst during the Hauptmann trial yesterday was but an episode—he has resumed life in his peaceful parsonage as if nothing had happened.
Fort Lee and neighboring communities are abuzz, however. They heard reports that he would name the man who, he told the court at Flemington, had confessed the Lindbergh killing to him.
“No,” said Mr. Burns, “I will not make the name public. The man came to my church for protection.”
[pg 28] Told that he had been quoted as saying the man resembled Hauptmann, the clergyman expressed surprise. “I went to Flemington to help Hauptmann,” he said.
The above Associated Press dispatch of February 13 is copied from the Arkansas Gazette of February 14. In the report of the trial of Hauptmann as given in the papers of February 13 may be seen some account of this minister speaking out in the court room, saying the man who kidnaped the Lindbergh baby had confessed to him, and the preacher was put out of the court room.
The Rev. Mr. Burns says he “will not make the name public. The man came to my church for protection.” The reports of the affair given in the papers of the 13th as well as those of the 14th do not give the name of the denomination of which the Rev. Mr. Burns is a member, or with what church he is affiliated. It seems from what was reported in the paper on the 13th that he is a minister at some kind of mission; but the report does say what denomination the mission is of.
It is clear to us that the statement of the Rev. Mr. Burns reveals at least one startling fact. That fact is this: Here is an institution posing as a church, a Christian society, a church of God, a church of Christ—or whatever name it may go by-—it is posing as a Christian institution; yet it harbors criminals of the lowest and basest sort. This preacher says the kidnaper of the Lindbergh baby confessed to him. But he would not make known the name of the criminal because the guilty wretch—if he confessed the truth, and if the preacher told the truth—went to his church for protection. Here is a public avowal that his church will and does protect criminals. Protecting a man who confessed to him that he kidnaped the Lindbergh baby! What can such a [pg 29] church be but a body of “hoodlums;” a band of robbers; a band of kidnapers; a band of hijackers; a band of whoremongers; a band of murderers; a band of highwaymen; all sailing under the protection of a society posing as a body of Christians—a church! Good Lord, what may we expect next!
Here is another fact revealed: All you kidnapers; you bootleggers; you murderers; you devils clothed as men and women—just come and enlist with us! You are assured of protection under the cloak of Christianity with us! Here is a city of refuge, where you may hide and be protected from the civil laws, so you may be guilty of all the dastardly deeds the devil may be able to invent, and yet be shielded from the punishment due under the laws of the land!
This reveals another fact: The foregoing being true, then here is a society of anarchists, defying civil law. This under the name of the church!
Good Lord, we again exclaim! Have the whole people of the nation gone to sleep ? Are we dead—utterly dead to all that is good and right, even from a moral standpoint—to say nothing of Christianity? Wake up, ye sleeping, slumbering, sluggards! Wake up to the peril by which we are surrounded!
With all this, state legislatures considering the legalizing of gambling on races, the legalizing of liquor, and some even suggesting that the states go into the manufacturing of such hell-brew and selling so cheap that the bootlegger will be put out of business! Thus the state go into the business of making drunkards, manufacturing the stuff and selling it so cheap that more folks can buy it; thus putting more drunken drivers on the road; thus more automobile accidents; more orphans; more [pg 30] broken-hearted wives; more crimes; more prisoners; make more liquor; make more crimes! Yet such men in our law-making departments posing as moralists! Such is enough to make the devil blush! Is it any wonder crime is on the increase?
C. H. C.
THE MAN OF SORROWS
March 21, 1935
We have before us a book bearing the above title, by Rev. Henry Beets, published by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Mich. We have read the same with interest. We find much in it that is worth while. It contains many sublime and beautiful thoughts and sentiments; many precious gems of truth. Yet, we have found some thoughts expressed therein which are incorrect, we think, and which are really contradictory to the truth the book contains in other parts. From page 30 we quote the following paragraph:
Let us notice now the four-fold lesson our text contains. In the first place let us guard against abusing God’s house, as Israel did. And it seems there is reason to remind ourselves of this. The devil is always going about trying to desecrate the holy things of God. In our days he is endeavoring to do it. I think if our Saviour were on earth at present, and would enter many a Protestant church building and see some of the things carried on in them, He might make a scourge and in indignation drive from the places of worship, solemnly dedicated to the service of the triune God, persons who endeavor to carry on practices which cannot stand the test of the Word of God.
How true this is. How many things are now engaged [pg 31] in under the cloak and pretense of Christianity that are unknown to the Book! How many things are engaged in, making the house which is supposed to be God’s house, erected for the professed object of meeting together to engage in the worship and service of God, a house of merchandise. Such as this is enough to cause alarm, and should be a matter of shame.
On pages 59 and 60, concerning the thief on the cross, who cried unto the Lord to “remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom,” we read:
But this we know, that man to the right of Jesus became a glorious example of redeeming mercy and sovereign grace; a wonderful example of the power of God’s Holy Spirit working unto salvation.
When that criminal to the right of Jesus was first nailed to the cross, he was evidently just as bad as the one at our Lord’s left hand, for we read in another gospel. Matt, xxvii. 44, that both the thieves cast words of taunting challenging to come from His cross, in the teeth of Christ, thus mocking the blessed One. But while he was hanging there, the Spirit of God took hold of that one man’s soul, and in the twinkling of an eye, gave him a new heart. The impenitent wretch became a penitent sinner, and the unsaved criminal became redeemed, a child of God. Oh, friends, if you want to see a triumph of the grace of God, if you desire to see a proof that God’s Spirit is able to save unto the uttermost, then think of that man at the right of the Saviour, saved in such a short time and transformed in such a wonderful way.
On page 67, referring to the same thing, the author says:
Doesn’t it show the sovereignty of God’s grace also? One man left, the other taken; and both criminals?
In the foregoing we find especially two glorious truths of the gospel set forth in words which it seems to us should appeal to every child of grace, and cause his heart to glow with love to our blessed and holy [32] Redeemer. One of these thoughts is God’s great and everlasting and omnipotent power to SAVE. Surely the Lord’s arm is not shortened, that He cannot save. He not only had the power to save the criminal, the thief on the cross, but He had power to save a persecut- ing Saul, and to make him a praying Paul. He had power to save the saints at Ephesus—He saved them and made them to be saints. Read Eph. ii. 1-6 and see what the Ephesians were, and what they were doing, until the Lord saved them. Thank God, He has power to save.
The next precious thought is God’s sovereign grace and electing love. The Lord, in His boundless love and sovereign grace and mercy, made choice of the poor wicked wretch at His side, and by the work and power of His Holy Spirit, quickened him into a higher order of life—regenerated him, and gave him to see, to realize, and to know his own depravity; and thus caused him to cry out, “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” God’s grace in the heart, the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart, always makes the poor sinner cry, because that work, when performed, makes the sinner alive from the dead. God chooses to do that work, and has made choice of the sinners in whose hearts He performs the work. Hence, God’s sovereign grace. His choice. His electing love, His power to save. Wonderful and blessed truths. But in the next paragraph on page 67 the author says:
Notice also the wonderful riches of God’s mercy, to hear a man as quickly as he cries, and to offer him Paradise with all of its beauty and glories.
Here we think the author has missed it. Why, in the face of what has gone before, and in the face of what [pg 33] follows, which we do not deem necessary to quote here —why say the Lord offered the poor thief Paradise? Brother, it was not an OFFER of Paradise. It was a plain and positive and unequivocal PROMISE of Paradise. God had regenerated the poor criminal; He made atonement for his sins; God had made choice of him; and now, in harmony with all this, and to finally carry out all that this embraces. He makes a sure and ever- lasting and a blessed promise of Paradise with all its beauties and glories. This same promise of Paradise, this same promise of heaven, with all that heaven means, reaches to every heir of promise, to every redeemed sinner, to every sinner embraced in God’s electing love and mercy, to every regenerated soul in all the wide world. Thanks and glory be to His matchless name, now and for ever.
There are a few other inconsistent statements in the book, to us; but we forbear. It is a neat book, good clear print, on good paper, 131 pages, and the price is only one dollar. It can be had from the publishers at the address given above. C. H. C
THE LORD IS FAITHFUL
March 21, 1935
God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord.—1 Cor. i. 9.
The Lord is not only faithful, but He is not slack concerning His promise. He is sure to do everything He has promised. He will keep every promise He has made. Many times we fail to do what the Lord requires of us, and what He has commanded us to do, because [pg 34] our faith is weak, and we are afraid to risk it. We may be impressed with a duty to perform, which would require some sacrifice on our part. We may fail to do what we are impressed to do, for fear that we cannot afford to make the sacrifice.
If we have membership in the church we have covenanted with the same that we will not forsake the assembly of the church, especially in the regular conference meetings, which meetings are usually held on Saturdays. We may feel when those days come around that we cannot afford to lose the time. We may be behind with our work, and we see so much which it seems to us needs to be done, so we try to excuse ourselves and fail to keep our promise, as we have covenanted. We feel that we cannot afford to make the sacrifice. It would involve a loss, and we think we cannot afford to take the loss. Thus, when we fail to do what we have covenanted to do in the service of God, we make a sacrifice of that service for the sake of worldly gain. We make the service of God a secondary matter. We are not seeking “first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness.” We seemingly forget that all our labors for worldly gain will amount to nothing, unless the Lord blesses our labors, and gives the increase.
We may feel an impression of mind, and there may be a case where someone needs our help in a financial way. But we may feel that we, ourselves, are poor and “hard run,” and it is hard for us to “make ends meet.” So we may fail to lend the helping hand to the one in need. We are afraid if we contribute to that cause, the Lord will let us suffer need; and that He will not supply our needs. We are afraid to risk what God has [pg 35] promised. We are afraid to make the sacrifice which we must make in the case in order to do what we really should do. We try to excuse ourselves on the ground of our own poverty.
We have just been reading some in the life of William Gadsby, an able minister in his day, and for a long time editor of the Gospel Standard, of England. He was born in January, 1773, and died January 27, 1844. On page 25 we find the following circumstance related:
One day, in the year 1800, he was going to Nuneaton to purchase provisions for the family. All the money he had in the world was 2s, 6d [about 62 cents in our money]. He had left nothing at home with his wife. As he was going along, he was joined by a man, who began to tell him a pitiful tale of distress. He walked with his hand in his pocket, and, to give his own words, “I first took up sixpence, and I thought I would give him that; then I took up a shilling, and thought I would give him that; but the devil told me it was too much; I could not afford it; but at last I gave him the whole 2s, 6d [two shillings sixpence]. Then the devil set at me with passages of Scripture, that I was worse than an infidel, for I had neglected my family. But I kept walking on towards the town (Nuneaton), just as if I had the money still in my pocket. When I got there, I met a man that I had not seen for some years. We entered into conversation, and when he went away, he shook hands with me, and left half-a-guinea in my hand [about $2.50]. Then it was my turn; and I set to, and gave it to the devil well.” This he used to call being a match for covetousness.
Here was a verification of the certainty of a promise of God. The Lord has said, “He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord; and that which he hath given will He pay him again.”—Prov. xix. 17. Why can’t we take God at what He says, and do what little He requires of us? Brother, are you afraid to risk it? “0 ye of little faith.” —Matt. vi. 30. “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.”—Mark ix. 24. May the good [pg 36] Lord help us to trust Him, and to rely upon Him for all He has promised, and help us to be more faithful and true to Him and to His delightful service. C. H. C.
CHRISTIANITY TO EXPORT
March 21. 1935
To our everlasting shame as a nation it must be recorded that 5,068 persons have been lynched in the United States during the last 52 years. Asked once what he thought of Christian Missions, Sir Rabindranath Tagore of India replied: “So long as such things go on in your country, do you think you have any Christianity to export?”
The above is taken from Our Dumb Animals, of March, 1935. This shows what the so-called heathen think of our great so-called Christian nation. Here we are posing as a Christian nation, the modern religionists “compassing sea and land to make proselytes,” and yet crime more rampant, probably, in this country than in any heathen nation on earth. The missionary fanatics leave no stone unturned to get money for foreign missions, telling us that the heathen, poor benighted human beings, are going down to eternal perdition in their ignorance, and yet in our own country there have been a little more than an average of ninety-seven lynchings every year for the past fifty-two years.
In the name of reason, in the name of all that is holy, if their theory, their doctrine, their claim, is true, why do they not go to work more zealously, more earnestly, on our own people here at home, and first make the United States a safe place in which to live? Talk about saving the heathen! And here we are going into the
[pg 37] business of legalizing gambling, encouraging the making and selling of intoxicating liquors, encouraging more drunkenness, more crimes, more lynchings— more of everything that is contrary to Christianity or morality!
The plea is that people will gamble and drink liquor, then why not the state get some revenue from it? Yes, and people will carry pistols; they will run and visit houses of ill fame; some will be guilty of public swearing; some will be guilty of stealing; some will engage in the “white slave traffic.” Why not, upon the same parity of reasoning, put a tax on these things, and let the state get some revenue from the emissaries of the devil who engage in all the diabolical crimes? For heaven’s sake, we would be ashamed to advocate the idea of legalizing any of the inventions and practices of the devil and his hell-crew. To do so, is to simply advocate the idea of “playing into the hands of the devil.” But this is only the production of devil-taught and devil-instigated doctrine, which these modern fanatics are teaching, and yet sailing under a cloak of Christianity.
We were told years ago that if they could get money enough they could take the world for Christ. The so-called “Laymen’s Movement” was inaugurated for that purpose. Yet crime is on the increase. The so-called Christianity is a failure—from every stand- point. It does not even promote morality, much less Christianity. The doctrines they teach and promulgate are no kin to the doctrine of God, the doctrine of the Bible. Their teaching is that the sinner can quit his devilment when he gets ready—just repent, by turning from it and quitting it, and that he will then sail right [pg 38] into heaven and enter eternal joys and heavenly felicity at death. The doctrine is that God has done His part, and that now it is left up to the sinner; it is just optional with him. This doctrine is precisely suitable to the depraved nature of humanity. The unregenerate sinner loves sin. He does not love God, nor holiness and righteousness. Hence, he is encouraged to go on in the commission of murder, theft, robbery, rape, drunkenness, white slavery, hijacking, and every other diabolical crime that the devil and his cohorts can invent. But just before he leaves this world he decides to repent, turn away from, quit, his devilment, and sail right on into glory. Witness the case of Mark H. Shank, who wilfully and deliberately killed four members of the Alvin Colley family in the summer of 1933. He was sentenced to the electric chair, to be executed at the Tucker farm, Arkansas, the date set for March 8, 1935, early in the morning. At the last, when his lawyers gave up, and acknowledged they could do no more to save him from execution, just about two days ago he called for a priest. What for, we wonder? Of course, to make his good confession; repent, accept the Lord, and his spirit sail right into glory, leaving his body in the electric chair! There you are!
“Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”— Matt. vii. 20. Such persons as this man Shank, and others of like ilk, have given absolutely no evidence of anything else but an evil and wicked and devilish disposition by their fruits. If they are transported into glory upon the principle of the so-called Christianity of the day, hell is a misnomer—there is no such thing; there is no such place. If there is such a place, it will be empty, and will be for rent finally.
[pg 39] Export Christianity! Good Lord; you fanatics better get to work to mend the morals of our own country, and quit so much of this devil doctrine and making merchandise of the people. C. H. C.
ROMANS IX. 13
AND FUTURE IDENTITY
March 21, 1935
Dear Brother Cayce: Please give your views on Romans ix. 13 in regard to God’s love and His hatred; and also your views on future identity.
Subscriber.
REMARKS
The text referred to reads as follows: “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” By reading the connection you will see that this was before they were born, “the children having done neither good nor evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.” Then comes the language of the text: “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” The primary meaning of the word here translated hated means to hate, regard with ill-will, to detest, abhor. That is the sense in which the word is here used. Sometimes the word, by extension, means to regard with less affection, love less, esteem less. The word is used in that extended sense where the Saviour says, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”— uke xiv. 26. This last text is the one Arminians run to with the plea that God only loved Esau less than He loved Jacob, [pg 40] just as a man must love father and mother less than he loves the Lord in order to be a disciple of Jesus. But that is not the sense in which the word is used in Romans ix. 13. God loved Jacob and did not love Esau is the sense in which the word is used; hence God loved Jacob and bestowed the blessing upon him and passed Esau by. Why? Because He did not love Esau.
As to future identity, brethren have differed on that question. Some few have held the idea that we will know each other in heaven just as we know them here. But we hardly think so. Earthly ties and relationships will be done away there. I do not think I will know S. F. Cayce there as my father. It will be one family there. God is the Father; Jerusalem (the covenant) is the mother; the redeemed are the children; Jesus is the Elder Brother. It will be a spiritual and heavenly relationship, and spiritual and heavenly knowledge. Yet we will know that we have been redeemed from sin and its ruinous consequences to God, out of every nation, and kindred, and tongue and people. That will be enough. What’s the use of fussing here about what and how much we will know in heaven, if we are so fortunate as to be there? We cannot know here as much as we will know there. We have to walk by faith here; over there faith will be swallowed up in knowledge. No use trying to find out here how much we will know there—it can’t be done.
C. H. C.
SUNDAY SCHOOLS
April 4, 1935
On page 57 of Time, a weekly magazine, of March 11, 1935, we find the following:
In 1780 a pious Gloucester man named Robert Raikes formed the first Sunday school. His purpose was to keep the children off the streets while teaching them their letters, “the truths of the gospel” and “moral restraint.” As time passed a further objective appeared—to lead children into church membership.
This tells a historical fact—that Robert Raikes founded the first Sunday school in the world in 1780. Jesus never established a Sunday school. Paul did not establish one. The Apostle Peter did not establish one. Not one of the Lord’s apostles ever established one. When Paul left instruction to Titus to set in order the things that are wanting (Titus i. 5), he gave no instructions for the organizing of a Sunday school, a Ladies’ Aid Society, a Y. M. C. A., Y. W. C. A., a B. Y. P. U., a Junior League, a Senior League, a Ladies Auxiliary, a Mite. Society, or any other society, such as the worldly churches have today.
Robert Raikes organized the first one. The Lord did not do it, nor did He authorize it. If His church had needed it then, or would ever need such an invention, He would have organized it, or gave instruction for it. The devil may need all those things for his churches, but the Lord does not need them for His church.
Robert Raikes did not organize the first Sunday school as a church matter at all. In those days there were no free schools. No child had any schooling only those whose parents were financially able to pay tuition, buy books, etc. The consequence of this was that the [pg 42] children of the poor factory workers of the town roamed the streets, without any opportunity of schooling. To help that class of people, Robert Raikes organized his school for Sunday and employed and paid the teachers. The object was to teach the children to read and write. The object was a worthy one; and if the Sunday school had been let alone and allowed to stay where the originator put it at first, it would have been a blessing to humanity. But not so. Later it was adopted as an adjunct to the church, and, as stated above, used to lead children into church membership.
Does the Lord’s church need such as that to lead children into church membership? If so, the Lord did not tell us about it. Was He ignorant of what would be needed? If He knew, did He care so little that He would fail to tell us of a thing that is so much needed— as the world today thinks? Worldly churches may need that, as well as the “thousand and one” other things they have; but the Lord’s church does not need any of the inventions of men. What the Lord’s church needs to lead people into its membership is for the Lord to regenerate poor sinners by the direct work of His Spirit in their hearts, and then for them to hear the truth of the gospel proclaimed by true and faithful men, who will not shun to declare any part of God’s blessed and eternal truth; men who will not court the world for pop- ularity; men who will not try to be like the world; but who will have the courage of their convictions, and who will “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints.” If that will not lead people into the church for membership, God knows the church does not need them. Here is one great reason for the disrepute into which the church has been brought and [pg 43] the disrespect toward the church today—a catering to the world—efforts to bring the world up to the church. The world cannot be raised up to a level with the church. Such efforts only tend to lower the church in the esteem and respect of reasonable minded people, and brings the church into disrepute. God give us men who will dare to stand against every false way, and against every innovation of men.
On page 58 of the same magazine the article quotes from a Mrs. Bro, “mother of four, lecturer, onetime Disciples of Christ missionary,” “Parents pack their children off to Sunday school, feel no further responsibility. And most children who go to Sunday school do not go to church afterward.” On page 57 she says the Sunday school has fallen short of its aims. Here you have it from one who should be in a position to know that the Sunday school is a failure—it has fallen short of its aims. But an even worse thing—”Parents pack” their children off to Sunday school” and “feel no further responsibility.” The eternal God has put the responsibility of the proper training of the child upon the parents. But these Sunday school parents shift the responsibility off on the Sunday school. Thus they disobey God’s moral requirement, and do irreparable injury to their own offspring. The children are deprived of the training and care they are entitled to from their parents; they do not get it. What is the result? The deplorable condition the world is in today is partly the result. God pity us. Christianity seems to be at a low ebb. Thousands of sober minded people are turning away from the organized societies, called churches, in disgust. They are no more in attendance. They see nothing but commercialism, a cloak to wear to gain [pg 44] standing in the world, a thing to “profess” in order to get worldly gain and popularity.
“Those who attend Sunday school do not attend church afterward.” What is the tendency then? Evidently, instead of increasing church attendance, it detracts therefrom. Better “junk” the thing, and return to the original simplicity in the service of God, and leave off the sideshows and inventions of men.
Say, you Old Baptists who “bring up” your children to go to Sunday school, do you not think it is high time you were taking back on your own shoulders the responsibility God has placed upon you, when He gave you your children, and keep them away from such things as the foregoing? Remember that “God is not mocked; whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” When you bring your children up to go to Sunday school, you bring them up to attend a thing, the avowed object of which, as above, is to lead them to church membership. What church membership? Membership of the church of said school, of course. Do you want your children thus taught, thus led, and thus brought up— away from you; away from God’s church; away from God’s blessed truth? If not, for the love you have for your own flesh and blood, for the love of your heavenly King, train them away from the Sunday school, instead of “bringing them up” to attend it. C. H. C.
COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING
April 4, 1935
The Supreme Court has decided that any university known as a “landgrant institution” can compel every student to take military training whatever his religion or conscientious convictions may be. So the two young men, Hamilton and Reynolds of the University of California, will have to give up their college course or their ideals of what duty demands of them. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has gone on record as affirming that military service is obligatory upon every citizen, man or woman, and each must resort to force of arms to defend the government when called upon. This liability to military service decision appears far more extreme than anything “ever established by Congress.”
Doubtless the Court’s decision is in keeping with the Constitution, but let the Government get into another war and it will be surprised to find the number of citizens who will refuse to obey its mandate. Constitution or no Constitution. Wars, some day, will not be made without the consent of the people who will have to do the fighting, if fighting is to be done. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow Dana is, we are confident, no false prophet when he says,
“In the first World War which we like to think was the last World War, the common people were forced to listen to the voices of the politicians, the war makers, the munition makers, the bankers. Before the next World War the bankers, the munition makers, the politicians will have to listen to the voices of the common people, to the voices of the workers, to the voices of the younger generation. They will find that those whom they would use as cannon fodder will no longer be willing to make arms, to transport arms, or to bear arms that are going to be used against their fellow workers in other countries.”
The above article is copied from Our Dumb Animals, for March, 1935. The heading in that magazine was “Compulsory Military Training in America.” As to military training this clearly and unmistakably shows the trend of things at the present time. When the universities all adopt this measure, then it will be extended to the colleges, and then to the high schools, and one [pg 46] will be compelled to take military training in order to attend any of our schools. It is surely a bad omen. It looks bad to us. How does it look to you?
But even, worse than that is the fact that “the Supreme Court has gone on record as affirming that military service is obligatory upon every citizen, man or woman, and each must resort to force of arms to defend the government when called upon.” Here we have it that military service is obligatory upon our women. Brother, sister, how does that “taste” to you? Are we to come to the pass that our women folk are to be drafted to go to the front and fight on the bloody battlefields at the call of the government, when that government is brought into war as the result of agitation and propaganda put out by the war lords, the munition makers, the profiteers—as most every war is? If our representatives in Congress would have had to go to the front, and their wives and daughters would have had to go to the front in France, as our boys had to do in the World War, we are confident they would have been much slower in declaring war than they were. It is usual that the “brunt” is borne by the “common people” in such as that.
Well, if the signs of the times do not change, the world is getting ready fast to plunge into another conflict. When that day comes it will be much worse—far worse—than the last. All nations are appropriating billions for war preparation— battleships, submarines, airships for bombing and other fighting. The so-called world court is doing nothing—not functioning. The powerful League of Nations is no longer “leaguing.” Our own country is in the race, appropriating more, perhaps, than any other nation; and the Supreme Court [pg 47] has already said that our women as well as men should answer the call to arms. What do you say?
We believe it is right for every man who is physically able to do so to be ready to take up arms and go to the battle in defense of our country. We believe it right for us to be ready to defend what has been handed down to us by our forefathers, who laid down their hves on the bloody battlefields that we might have the form of government and the freedom they fought for. But we do most solemnly and sincerely protest against our women being called upon to bear arms. Now is the time to speak out on this question. Now is the time for our churches to speak. We, as citizens and as members of the kingdom our Lord left for us here on earth, should speak out on this all-important matter. It will be too late after the fire comes. It will be too late after the call has been made. We sincerely believe every Primitive Baptist Church—as well as every other church, who oppose the sending of the women to the battlefield —should right now pass resolutions declaring their position on this momentous question. We would suggest a resolution similar to this:
Whereas, It has been published that the Supreme Court has gone on record as affirming that military service is obligatory upon every citizen, man or woman, and each must resort to force of arms to defend the government when called upon; and
Whereas, We do highly prize and esteem and love the principles of the government which have been handed down to us by our fore- fathers, and for which many of them laid down their lives on the bloody battlefields; and
Whereas, We do deem it to be our bounden duty, as well as a great privilege, for us to maintain and defend those unspeakable blessings and privileges thus handed down to us; and we here declare our allegiance and loyalty to these principles; but we do [pg 48]
hereby protest against the idea that our women, our wives and daughters, should answer a call to arms.
Therefore, be it Resolved, That we enter this solemn protest against such a measure; and declare that it is contrary to our understanding of our Lord’s requirements, as given in His Book, the Holy Scriptures; and further, be it Resolved, That we hereby state that such a thing is a violation of and contrary to our conscientious religious views; and we therefore could not sanction such a course, on account of such conscientious scruples. Be it further
Resolved, That we have sent to our representatives in Congress a copy of this protest and these resolutions.
Please do not censure us for calling attention to this serious matter. Our people in the past ages have spoken out on such matters as concerned the welfare of the people as a people and as a nation. Now is the time to let it be known that we conscientiously oppose our women being called upon to bear arms and go to the bloody battlefields. May the good Lord help us in these dark and trying times.
C. H. C.
JOHN NEWTON
April 4, 1935
Somewhere, some time, last year we heard some brother say that John Newton, who wrote Amazing Grace, was a Methodist. We thought the brother was mistaken, so we made a note in our memorandum book to look the matter up, which we have just done. We find the following information in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, ninth edition:
“John Newton was born in London July 24, 1725, and died Dec. 31, 1807. He was a prominent evangelical [pg 49] clergyman of the Church of England. He was ordained priest at Olney in June, 1765. About three and one-half years later Cowper, the poet, settled in the parish. An intimate friendship sprung up between them, and they published together the Olney Hymns in 1779. In that year Newton left Olney to become rector of St. Mary Woolnoth, London, where he labored with unremitting diligence in visiting and preaching till his death. He held strongly Calvinistic views, although his evangelical fervor allied him closely with the sentiments of Wesley and the Methodists. His enduring fame rests on certain of the Olney Hymns, remarkable for vigor, simplicity, and directness of devotional utterance, which have passed into almost universal currency throughout the Reformed churches of English speech.”
This is sufficient to show that Newton, as well as the Church of England in his day, as well as other Reformers, held to fundamental principles of doctrine very much the same as the fundamental principles of the doctrine the Primitive Baptists still hold to until this day.
C. H. C.
THANKS, BROTHER
April 18, 1935
Brother Cayce:
Am enclosing the $1. Please let my subscription begin Nov. 1st, 1934, as I want to get all of the articles that have appeared. I don’t want to miss any of the FUSS. You know the Lord wants us to keep up our fussing, if we have to leave off some of our peace.
REMARKS
Yes, thanks, brother, for calling our attention to [pg 50] what the Lord wants. Of course He wants some folks to continue to advocate the introduction of new means and measures into His church, into His kingdom, into His service. But of course He does not want anyone to say a word against that. Of course He wants all and each and every one to “keep mum” and never utter a word against any departure from what He has given in His word. The reason we know He does not want anyone to sound a note of warning against any departure or against any approaching danger is because He has said, Ezekiel iii. 4, 11:
Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them. And go, get thee to them of the captivity, unto the children of thy people, and speak unto them. Thus saith the Lord God; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear.
It is very clear here that the Lord’s ministers are required to warn the people of God of any approaching danger, and against departing from the teachings of His word. Of course it is also true that many will not be pleased with the warning. They were not pleased with such in Isaiah’s day.
Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: that this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the Lord: which say to the seers. See not; and to the prophets. Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits.—Isaiah xxx. 8, 9, 10.
Then as many, or some, of the children of Israel will object to the truth, of course the Lord wants no FUSS about the matter; hence the Lord excuses His ministers under such circumstances, and they should, for these reasons, keep quiet and utter no protest against any [pg 51] new measures that may be introduced among the followers of the Lord!
We have tried to warn against any departures from the plain and simple commands which the good Lord has given us in His blessed word. It seems that this brother thinks the one who raises an objection against a departure is raising a “fuss.” Brother, let us kindly suggest to you that if any person brings anything into the Old Baptist Church which has not been clearly recognized as their usual practice, and which is not authorized by the good Book, that person is responsible for the “fuss.” If you have been advocating something, publicly or privately, for which you do not find a thus saith the Lord, just quit it, if you think the Lord does not want the Primitive Baptists to fuss. The man who advocates something the Book does not authorize is the mian who is a disturber of the peace.
We repeat, we have tried to warn against the introduction of progressive measures into the old church. If no one has tried to introduce such, then there is no one for us to “fuss” with. When a man warns against such as that it does not disturb us. It does not cause us any alarm, and— we have no fear that he will raise a “fuss” or a disturbance with us on that score. It does not make us think there will be a disturbance on that account, or because of his contending against such things. Perhaps if we were a little guilty we might be disturbed and fear that there will be a “fuss,” and that we might forget about peace, unless he would leave off opposition to our proposed departures.
If we want peace in the old church, let us quit our departures, and contend faithfully for the things the Lord commanded, leaving all else alone, and then we will [pg 52] have peace. As long as some will introduce new measures into the church of God, just that long will God have somebody in the world to raise a cry against those departures. May the Lord help us all to stand in the good old way and walk therein, and then we shall find rest to our souls. C. H. C.
WORK APPRECIATED
May 16, 1935
During the past two months, while we had on a special effort to add new names to our list, and were offering the paper at one dollar a year, several brethren sent us a lot of new subscribers, as well as renewals. Brother S. E. Copeland, Guntersville, Ala., sent us over a hundred names, some new and some renewals. Several other brethren sent a goodly number. We appreciate their efforts and the work they did. They helped us to add quite a number of new subscribers to the list. If a hundred others had taken hold and had done as well as some of those who did work, we could have had many more names on the list now than we do have, no doubt. We know that a great many are so situated that they cannot do much, if anything, in the way of procuring subscribers for the paper, being isolated from the brotherhood; but perhaps several could have helped if they had only picked up the courage to try, and were not too easily discouraged. But we sincerely thank each one who did lend a helping hand, and again we say we appreciate it. May the good Lord bless you, is our prayer. Your work was an encouragement to us. It stimulated us to keep on [pg 53] trying to press forward. Perhaps the Lord is in the matter of our labors. He has blessed us much. To Him be praise and honor. We still desire to serve Him, and to contend for His truth. C. H. C.
FAIRCHILD, HARDY, TODD,
AND BISHOP
June 20, 1935
Several days ago—in May—we received a letter from Elder W. C. McMillon, of Newport, Tenn., in which he enclosed a letter he had received from Elder J. W. Fairchild, and asking us if we could give him any information as to his state or standing among the Old Baptists. We wrote Brother McMillon under date of May 8 and told him the last we knew of Elder Fairchild that he had caused trouble in Mississippi and went to the Mis- sionaries. We told Elder McMillon we thought the letter from Elder Fairchild should be published, that we felt like the cause demanded it. We received a letter from Elder G. W. Lewis, Auburn, Miss., dated May 18, in which he told us that Elder Fairchild had asked for restoration at Providence Church, where he had caused the trouble. He wrote a letter to that church asking for restoration, stating that the Baptists of Tennessee wanted him to be with them. Brother Lewis asked for our counsel and advice regarding the matter, stating that the church rejected him. We have written him that our advice would be to let him alone and to let him stay out. The letter he wrote to Elder McMillon will [pg 54] show for itself what kind of movement and effort is on foot among a few, at least. The following is the letter:
Whitesburg, KY., Apr. 14, 1935.
Dear Brother McMillon: Seven years have passed since I enjoyed the hospitality of your home, the fellowship of your churches and the companionship of your ministry. Those were blessed days and my mind often reverts to them with pleasure. But many changes have come since those days. The work of strife and division continued, the wounds of Zion were not healed but opened wider. It looked like all was lost. I gave up the struggle to unite and harmonize Baptists, for every effort was but sewing new cloth on an old garment. It seemed the Lord had cast off Primitive Baptists as He did the Jews and for the same reason.
But I have hope the “seven thousand” have been reserved. Some of us ministers are getting together with the determination to go on, preach the truth in love, try to strengthen the churches that will work with us, and organize new churches where possible. The field is limitless, God’s children are everywhere, starving for spiritual food, yearning for the simphcity of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and ready to be gathered into the fold. They are tired of trying to fill themselves with husks, and when the truth is brought to them in love they are ready to receive it as a thirsty man to drink cold water. They are in all denominations and no denominations.
I know how deep most of them are in tradition, but the Spirit of Jesus will reach them. I tried to get Baptists to stop fussing over non- essentials and gather in these scattered sheep, but most of them seem to want them measured on their own bedstead. I could do nothing.
But now a few of us ministers, including Elders J. B. Hardy, H. A. Todd, and a number of others have agreed to go into this work, work with all who will work with us, and those who will not, we will simply leave alone. We will love them, if they fight us we will not fight but turn the other cheek. We have no fuss with them, but love for them.
We are getting—or trying to get a nucleus in Tennessee. Elder Hardy is at Hohenwald, Elder W. A. Bishop at Jackson. Elder [pg 66]
Todd is going to do a lot of work in Chattanooga, and may locate there. My mind is leading me toward Knoxville. I would like to locate in Knoxville and work with the Primitive Baptists in that section. Knoxville is large enough for two Primitive churches if the work is properly done. And the territory around Knoxville is unlimited for our work.
I hope you can find it agreeable to work with us. You know what I preached when I was with you. I have not changed in doctrine. And while the others who work with me would probably not agree with me on everything—I know of no two persons who do—we are all agreed on fundamentals and do not make a brother an offender for a word. We have no bars up against those who are in harmony with the fundamentals held by all true Primitive Baptists.
Please let me hear from you. I want you to give me the names of some of the leading Primitive Baptists in Knoxville. I remember some of the ministers, but not initials and address. If you can send me a minute of their association I will highly appreciate it. I have been down with flu for two months and not able to work yet. I hope you and yours are well.
Primitive Baptists here are beyond recognition by doctrine and preaching. One side is rank Arminian, the others are such extreme Predestinarians accountability is lost. No, they are not Predestinarians at all for they do not know what predestination is. They claim to be Absoluters, but they are skeptics. No reality about anything. Jesus Christ, according to some, never was a human being.
With highest regards to you. Sister McMillon and children, I am, in love, J. W. Fairchild.
Now, there you have the matter in a nutshell. Elders Fairchild, Bishop, Todd, Hardy and some others are banding together, thus forming a nucleus to begin the labors along the line that seemeth good to them— regardless of whether it suits the time-honored principles of the church or not. No matter how our fathers have stood. Elder Bishop is excluded from the Primitive Baptists [pg 56] in Jackson, Tenn. He has formed a church of his own, with a Sunday school, and using Campbellite song books. We do not know what else. Elder H. A. Todd was excluded years ago from a Primitive Baptist Church, we think at Rushville, Ind., for joining the Missionaries. He was received by South College Street, Nashville, Tenn., without his going back to the church that excluded him for restoration there. We think we have received the information that South College Street has rescinded the act of receiving him. In our issue of May 3, 1934, is an article from Elder Earl Daily stating that Elder Todd had located at Indianapolis and had organized a church, mostly from Progressives, who have had no affiliation with regular Primitive Baptists for years, and that those people have no standing with the regular Primitive Baptists whatever.
Now Elder Fairchild says Elder Todd is going to do a lot of work in Chattanooga. We wonder who will work with him there. Elder Raulston, can you tell us who? Elder H. P. Houk, who lives at Gurley, Ala., is pastor of the Chattanooga Church (or was). Brother Houk, can you tell us who will work with Elder Todd? Elder W. J. Harwood, Dunlap, Tenn., preaches at Chattanooga. Brother Harwood, can you tell us who will work there with Elder Todd? We think Brother D. M. Raulston is clerk of the church. Brother Raulston, can you tell us who will work with the elder? Perhaps he can get some of the Progressives in that country to work with him; but we do not believe any of the regular Primitive Baptists, who stand on the old principles, in that country will work with him.
What about Knoxville? Elder Hurst is pastor there. [pg 57] Brother Hurst, do any of our brethren in that section wish to have anything to do with such measures? Perhaps Elder Fairchild can have some workers with those in that country who left the old line practices years ago, about the time the Kirklands, Todd, Hackleman, and others left the old landmarks. What about any of you brethren in West Tennessee working with Elder Bishop? Are there some of you who will do that? Will any of the brethren in the Predestinarian Association do so? Will any in the Forked Deer do so? Will any in the Big.Sandy do so? Will any in the Greenfield do so? Will any in the Obion do so? Wonder if Elder Fairchild would be willing to tell what other preachers are expected to work with those he named? He said there are others, but did not give their names.
Elder Fairchild says, “The work of strife and division continued, the wounds of Zion were not healed, but opened wider.” Remember that the preaching of the truth and practicing what the Lord has taught in His Book has never brought strife or division in the Old Baptist Church. What does cause that? No one can deny that it is the teaching and practicing of things not authorized in the Book. Then who has been causing the strife and division to continue? No one only those who have been teaching and practicing the things that caused the trouble. If you brethren are sincere when you say you want peace in Zion why do you not leave off the things that cause the trouble? He says farther that “very effort was but sewing new cloth on an old garment.” What do you want to be trying to patch up the old garment the Lord gave for His church with your new cloth (new things) for? Are you not satisfied with the old garment? Are you fellows afraid the old garment [pg 58] will wear out? The clothing the Israelites wore in the wilderness did not wear out; their shoes did not wear out. The Lord has told us the result of sewing new cloth to the old garment; and He has furnished everything His people need in His church and in His service. Leave your new things alone and let them stay out in the world where they belong, and then the trouble in the church would cease.
Yes, there is “at this present time also a remnant according to the election of grace.” There may not be seven thousand, but there is a remnant who will not yet have anything to do with your sewing of new cloth, your new measures. We are still satisfied with the “good old way,” and we still have the courage to raise our voice against the bringing in of any of the new ways and means and measures. What the Lord has given in His word for us to teach and practice in His kingdom is enough. That is the only way to have peace—leave off everything else. There is no use to cry peace, peace, when there is no peace. Quit your ungodly departures, and then we will have peace.
“Most of them seem to want them measured on their own bedstead.” It seems that one of the Lord’s old prophets had some idea of the right sort of bed, too. “And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it. From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report. For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.” [pg 59] —Isa. xxviii. 18-20. Elder Fairchild says some of them are getting together and trying to get a nucleus—some of them covenanting together. They are going to work along their own lines—not the old lines the church has traveled. But the old prophet says your “covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand.” When men agree to stand together in the church in things the church has not always practiced, and in things the Lord has not authorized, it is an agreement with hell—according to Isaiah—and he says it shall not stand. The Lord will take care of His church. He will have enough faithful and true witnesses reserved for His church and truth to be maintained. Yes, we want things measured by the bed we rest on; for the Lord has prepared and furnished the resting place for His children; and the covering thereof is wide enough for the hungry-hearted and wayworn pilgrim to wrap himself in it. Thus, and thus only, he may rest and find protection from the things of the world. Your bed and covering may be too short and too narrow. Yes, some of us still desire the Lord’s way. You may go on with yours, if you desire; but for God’s sake, if you desire those things, stay out of the Old Baptist Church and let the Old Baptists alone. That would be the commendable thing to do.
If the things the Baptists fuss over are non- essentials, then leave those things off. If they are not essential then one can afford to let them alone. If one cannot afford to let them alone, then he should stay away from the Old Baptists and go where he can advocate them without causing trouble. It does not cause trouble so much among the Missionaries to advocate new things among them. Why do you not stay with [pg 61] them where you can advocate your “new cloth” without causing them so much trouble?
One other point right here. This will inform you brethren in Middle Tennessee very plainly as to where Elder Hardy stands. It will also give the brethren elsewhere that information.
We are not publishing this to injure anyone, but for the protection of the cause. We think the cause demands that the brethren generally be informed as to what this letter contains, and as to the movement on foot, and who the promoters are. Our kind advice would be to just let such promoters severely alone. May the Lord help us to “stand in the ways, and see; and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein.” C. H. C.
MINISTERIAL QUALIFICATIONS
June 20, 1935
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous, one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.—1 Tim. iii. 1-7.
It seems to us that the above language is as plain and clear and positive as it is possible for language to be. [pg 61] The apostle here tells what a bishop MUST BE. That is, a man is to have the qualifications here laid down, or else he is not to be put into that office. He MUST have these qualifications. He must meet these requirements.
He must be blameless. That is the first thing the apostle puts down in the catalog. To be blameless is to be free from blame or fault. Not to be blameless is to be guilty of that which is worthy of blame, or deserving of censure or disapprobation; culpability; fault; crime. His life must be above reproach. Unless his life is above reproach, and yet he is ordained to the work of the ministry, the church utterly disregards the plain requirements of God’s inspired word.
It is true that every man who makes anything makes mistakes. No man reaches a state of sinless perfection here in this life. There has never been but one who lived a life of sinless perfection here, and that was Jesus, the God-man, the anointed Saviour. But He was God as well as man; He was God manifest in the flesh. While it is true that no man can or does reach a state of sinless perfection here in -the flesh, yet God’s children can and should “through the Spirit mortify the deeds of the body.” They should keep the body under sub- jection, and thus live a life above reproach; and unless one does this he is not to be ordained or set apart to the office of an elder or bishop, or to the work of the ministry. To go contrary to this is a flagrant violation of the word of God.
“The husband of one wife.” This does not necessarily mean that he must be married. The Apostle Paul, who wrote this letter to Timothy, was not married. But he must be the husband of one wife only—or the husband of only one wife. That is, he may have a wife; [pg 62] but he must not have more than one wife. This does not mean that if he has a wife and the wife dies he must not marry again. If the wife dies, then he does not have a wife. He did have a wife, but the wife died and then he has no wife. There is no law of God forbidding a man having a wife, so he may marry again, since he has no wife after the death of the one who was his wife.
There is another point here which we shall not discuss at length in this place, as it has been “threshed out” heretofore; and that is in the case of fornication or adultery. If a wife commits adultery or fornication she breaks the marriage bond and thereby becomes dead to her husband. Being dead to him, he is left without a wife. As there is no law of God forbidding a man having a wife, but the marriage state being honorable in the sight of God, the man, in such a case, is free to marry again, and is no adulterer—no more so than if the first wife should die and be put under the ground and he then marry again. But no man is to be set apart to the work of the ministry who has more than one wife. He must not be an adulterer. He must not be living in adultery. This is God’s law, and we cannot disregard it without bringing trouble and distress upon ourselves and upon the church.
He must be vigilant. To be vigilant is to be alertly watchful as one keeping vigil; circumspect; alert; attentive to discover and avoid danger, or to provide for safety. See Webster. The true minister—the one the Lord has made—is a watchman. “Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warn- ing from me.”—Ezek. iii. 17 and xxxiii. 7. As a [pg 63] watchman he must be vigilant. He must be alert in watching. He is not to be “asleep on the job.” He must be attentive to discover and avoid danger, and he must give the alarm when he sees danger approaching. If there is some departure from the principles of truth in doctrine or practice making any sign of approach, it is the business of the watchman, the minister, to detect it, and he must give the cry and warn the house of Israel of the threatened danger. It is dangerous to the Lord’s house to depart from what God has authorized. If one does not possess this qualification he has no business being set apart to the work of the ministry. He must be vigilant; he must be watchful. This does not mean that he must be watching for an opportunity to find fault with his brethren, but he must be watchful to warn the brethren against every false way.
He must be sober. Sober means, 1. Not so influenced by alcoholic liquors as to have one’s faculties materially impaired; not drunk; also, habitually temperate in the use of liquor. 2. Temperate or moderate in thought or action; exercising cool, dispassionate reason; self-controlled. 3. Characterized by dispas- sioned reason or judgment; rational; as sober judgment. 4. Serious or subdued in demeanor, habit, appearance, color, etc.; solemn; grave; sedate. See Webster. How important this requirement is. How disgusting for a man professing to be a gospel minister to be under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Even if he is not so drunk but what his legs will walk straight, yet it is disgusting in the extreme, to us, for his breath to be smelling like an old rotten whisky barrel. The filthy smell of whisky on the breath of any professed follower of the Lord is bad enough, and much worse on the [pg 64] breath of one professing to occupy the sacred desk as a minister of the gospel of the grace of God. It is enough to “turn the stomach” of any decent person on earth, much less a poor hungering child of grace, who longs for the way to glorify God. Lord, deliver thy kingdom and thy poor saints from such professed leaders! But there is more than one way for one to be drunk. “They are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink.”—Isa. xxix. 9. When one staggers he does not walk straight; he is drunk; he is not sober. But the minister must be sober. He should be sober in his demeanor—that is, in the way he conducts himself. If he is not living that way, to begin with, he should not be set apart to the work. If he has already been set apart, and ceases to be sober, gets drunk, and begins to stagger, or walk crooked, he should be deposed from the office by the church. The church should remember, and not forget, that the minister MUST BE SOBER. And they should act accordingly. Thus much serious trouble in the church may be averted. Let us be faithful and true to our Lord, and not have the favor of men to control our actions. But what we do in the service of God should be in love and tenderness and humility, having the good of the cause at heart and in view. Do nothing in the spirit of malice, hatred or revenge.
He must be of good behaviour. “These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”—1 Tim. iii. 14, 15. The apostle wrote Timothy that he might know how he ought to behave himself in [pg 65] the house of God, which is the church of the living God. He was given proper instruction. We find that instruc- tion in the Book. If we follow the teaching, or instruction, given therein, we will behave ourselves in the church of God. If one does not behave it is because he is not observing the instruction given. But the apostle tells us the minister must be of good behaviour. He must behave himself. If he does not, he needs to be “taken to task,” if he has already been set apart to the office. If he does not behave before being set apart, the church has no Scriptural right to set him apart.
How careful the church should be in this matter of ordaining men to the work of the ministry. We feel satisfied that much of the trouble that has come in the church has been on account of the failure to observe and take heed to the plain and positive instruction the Lord has given concerning this all-important matter. We have just begun to hint at some of the things concerning this subject, but our space is taken up for this time, and we will have to continue the subject, and will try to write more for the next issue. C. H. C.
IN A SAD PLIGHT
June 20, 1936
Everywhere there are souls “drifting helplessly” toward eternity without any prospects of a heavenly anchorage. Shall we stand back and ignore those who do not know their own awful plight? Or turn deaf ears to those who recognize their peril and desire to know how to be saved? Let us be up and doing. There are souls being lost because of our lack of concern. It is vital [pg 66] concern of all who belong to the Lord Jesus Christ and who rejoice in His great salvation.
The above is copied from the Baptist and Commoner of May 28, 1935, and appears under the name of E. E. McMurry, under the heading, “Hear Ye!” That sure does put all those who belong to the Lord Jesus Christ and who rejoice in His great salvation in a sad plight. He says, “there are souls being lost because of our lack of concern.” Then he tells us that “it is vital concern of all who belong to the Lord Jesus Christ,” etc. If it is vital concern of all who belong to the Lord Jesus Christ to tell the people how to be saved, and they are being lost in an eternal hell because of a lack of concern on the part of those who belong to the Lord Jesus Christ, then pray tell us what will become of those who belong to the Lord Jesus Christ? The writer would have us believe that it is the business of those who belong to the Lord to tell the people who are not saved how to be saved, and that they are lost in an eternal hell because we do not tell them how to be saved.
“When I say unto the wicked, 0 wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.”— Ezek. xxxiii. 8. If God requires their blood at your hands, and they are eternally lost on account of your neglect, then what will become of you? Will you not meet the same fate as those you fail to warn? If you do not meet the same fate as those you fail to warn, and they go to an eternal hell on account of your failure, then God does not require their blood at your hands, does He?
Here is a dilemma for you. If your doctrine is the [pg 67] truth, and people go to an eternal hell on account of your neglect, then so will you go to an eternal hell. On the other hand, if you do not go to an eternal hell on account of your neglect to warn them, then your doctrine is not the truth. Which horn of the dilemma will you take? Verily “the legs of the lame are not equal.” C. H. C.
WORDS OF APPROVAL
June 20, 1935
Dear Brother Cayce:
Enclosed is my renewal to THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST for another year. I am glad to do this for two reasons—for the enjoyment and instruction I get out of it and also as an expression of my well wishes for your encouragement and continued successful operation of the work you are in. I would be glad that you should lose no subscriptions, but that they should increase. You have other pub- lications that are my desire to order sometime. I do not suppose I am any busier than anybody else, but I find it hard to get around to things I would like to do, such as reading, writing and visiting, except at the expense of needed rest. It has been my desire to write you personally and to contribute an article to your paper, if it was worth while. You have heard from our admired and loved pastor here (Brother Duncan), and you may remember the remarks made in appreciation at the close of your sermon here last summer. I may be classed as the younger generation, but you can expect no new things out of me. I want to avoid even the appearance of them, much less have them exist. I think if you do not have the appearance of them you will not be troubled with their creeping in. This appearance in my opinion should be avoided, both in remarks and practice. I joined the Old Baptists and the church, and realize the Old Baptists and the church did not join me. But I have no desire to live with them except as I found them. I will defend them as they stand, and not try to make them more acceptable by catering.
[pg 69] I appreciate the information you have given to the Baptists through the columns of your paper, and feel that all should who wish to keep their house in order. The course you have pursued does not constitute tale bearing or strife making, and in my opinion has been entirely ethical. I would not consider the publication of a quarrel as ethical, but it is right for God’s servants to give the warning, as shown in one of your previous articles, so they can “choose this day whom you will serve.” I refer to the unadulterated cause, not men. By being warned they can be saved from destruction in happiness if they are disposed to obey.
We are a unit in Memphis. We want everyone whom a cloud is over to stay at home, and we don’t propose to go a visiting under clouds. Our church here has responded nobly to leadership and counsel, and we have had some good preachers come and say fine things for our good. I feel that if it is possible for something to pass by and disappear it is not wisdom to mention it, as it kindles and adds fuel to fire and if it persists, it is prudent to give the warning, but distasteful to engage in quarreling. I am heartily for your paper and the way you have managed it. It has not been vague in any way. I believe it is worthy of outspoken encouragement and I want to see it prosper, read and circulated, as advocated by Brother J. H. Fisher, Newcastle, Texas.
Wife and I visited with Brother Duncan after supper last week and sat up until late talking over interesting and enjoyable things. Among the things that were said that interested me was the prospects of your coming to visit and preach to us. Was sorry of the conflict that existed at the time you thought of coming, but hope you will include us at another time, and early at that. It has been my plans to invite you, and I am glad that you have also thought of coming. We would love to hear you more than once or twice, and would be glad to have you and your family in our homes. Come and preach to us on Friday and Saturday nights before some Sunday and then on Sunday.
Brother Claud, I just wanted to let you know where I stood and to speak for my church, and to write words of encouragement to you. If I should try to contribute an article to your paper it would be along the trend of thought as outlined in this letter. I don’t think warning and protesting is trouble making. Remember me [pg 69] and wife in your prayers, and I pray God’s blessings upon you and yours. Your brother in hope, S. W. Dearing.
996 Galloway, Memphis, Tenn.
REMARKS
Dear brother, we are taking the liberty of publishing the above letter, and trust you will not think hard of us for doing so. Write again, and especially for the paper, if you feel so impressed. We appreciate the above letter more than we have words to tell. Brother Dearing is a son of Brother W. P. Dearing, Covington, Tenn., and a grandson of the late Elder B. 0. Dearing. He is an efficient and faithful deacon of the church in Memphis, and his dear father is a faithful and true deacon at Indian Creek, near Covington. His grandfather was a faithful and true minister. If all the Old Baptists were like these dear men there would be no departures, and no trouble in the old church. May the Lord continue His blessings with you and your dear companion, and continue to give you grace to sustain you as you go on in the good old way. Yes, we want to visit your church and be with you in more than one service. Make a suggestion as to the time, and we will see if we can work to it. Pray the Lord to keep and to sustain us, and to help us to be faithful. C. H. C.
MINISTERIAL QUALIFICATIONS
Article NO. 2
July 4, 1935
In our last issue we promised to try to write farther on this subject for this issue. The text we were using was 1 Tim. iii. 1-7. We wrote on the several qualifications as “blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour.” Before proceeding farther we wish to correct an error made in the print in the last line of next to the last paragraph in the article in last paper. That sentence reads, “If he does not behave before being set apart, the church has no Spiritual right to set him apart.” It should read, “the church has no Scriptural right to set him apart.”
The next qualification the apostle gives is that he must be “given to hospitality.” To be given to a thing is to be disposed to it, or disposed that way; inclined that way; addicted to it. Such is the habit or custom; it is his way of doing or being. Hospitality means the kind and generous reception and entertainment of strangers or guests. We once knew of a minister being on a trip visiting churches, which he had been requested to visit, his wife accompanying him. At one church on that trip two home ministers were present. They were members of that church. That visiting minister and his wife did not receive a single invitation to go home with those preachers, or with the members. To our mind, this is not “given to hospitality.” The minister, if he fills this qualification, is glad to have brethren, sisters, friends, to visit in his home. He is glad to entertain them in his home—be that home ever so humble—as well as glad to have them visit his churches.
[pg 71] “Apt to teach.” Some people may know things, but are lacking in the ability to impart instruction to others. This is true in nature as well as in the gospel. We have met some literary teachers who are not a marked success because they do not possess the ability to impart instruction to others. They know the things all right; but do not have the necessary ability in order that they be successful teachers. They are not “apt to teach.” There may be many who are well informed as to the teaching of the Scriptures; they are sound in doctrine and practice; they know what the doctrine and practice of the church is; but they are not “apt to teach.” They know what the truth is when they hear it, but they cannot tell it in such a way as to make it plain to others; they cannot impart instruction; they are not “apt to teach.” The one who is set apart to the work of the ministry must be “apt to teach.” He must be able to instruct. He must be able to teach others. Here brings in the necessity of study. “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” Note the word rightly in this expression by the inspired apostle. The minister must not only study to divide the word of truth, but “rightly dividing.” He must study to know what the right division is. He must study to know where each Scripture belongs which he uses. He must rightly apply it. This is necessary to be done in teaching. He must be apt in that line. To be apt is to be fit or fitted; suited; suitable; appropriate. Hence, for one to be apt to teach he must be fitted to teach. How is one to be fitted to teach the doctrine and practice and order of. God’s house unless he makes such things a study? If one does not read and study the Scriptures [pg 72] he is not “apt to teach,” in the sense of our text. How necessary that the church observe this requirement, to see that one possesses it before he is set apart to the work of the ministry. The fact that one can make a noise with his mouth is no evidence that he is “apt to teach.” Some folks seem to think that if a man can stand on his feet and make a great noise with his mouth that he should be ordained to the work of the ministry at once. That is a great mistake, and the church has suffered much on account of it.
“Not given to wine.” To be given to a thing is to be disposed, inclined, addicted. This is very clear to us that the minister is not to be in the habit of drinking. He should not be inclined that way. For him to be otherwise is to set a bad example, and to put forth a bad influence. If he is the kind of man the Lord requires him to be he MUST let wine alone.
“No striker.” By common usage the word striker now has a variety of meanings. Webster gives it as one that strikes, in any sense; and one who, especially in politics, attempts a strike. Under that definition he refers to the word strike used as a noun, note 15, under that word. There we are told that a strike is an act of obtaining or attempting to obtain money by importunity or any form of blackmail. If this is forbidden—absolutely forbidden that a man shall occupy as a minister of the gospel of the grace of God who is guilty of this, how much worse for the church to tolerate and harbor a man in that position who is guilty of robbery! The word in the original also means quarrelsome. The minister must not be quarrelsome. He is to be faithful (or should be), and this requires that he speak out against false doctrines and wrong practices, things not [pg 73] authorized by the Book; but he should not be always trying to “pick a quarrel” with someone.
“Not greedy of filthy lucre.” Greedy is, 1st, having a keen appetite for food or drink; ravenous; voracious; very hungry. 2. Having, or characterized by, eager or keen desire; eager for wealth. See Webster. We gather that one may have a keen appetite for money, or wealth, as well as for food or drink. One may be very hungry for filthy lucre. One may be eager for wealth. It appears to us that it is just as possible for a man posing as a minister to be eager for wealth as for one occupying the pew. Is it not possible for a preacher to become covetous as well as other members of the church? We think that in our life we have seen some of that sort. If the preacher is greedy of filthy lucre he might allow himself to engage in some questionable practices, which would be calculated to bring reproach upon the cause. Besides, if he should be successful in gathering worldly wealth, according to his greed, he is liable to be lifted up with pride and haughtiness. He might forget God. He might forget from whence his blessings coma. Ha would be more than likely to neglect the service of God. In fact, he is most sure to do that if he is greedy of filthy lucre. Or he might do some things in or as service to God to get gain. One greedy of filthy lucre is likely to think of self. We once knew a preacher to say a reason why he would not make announcement at his appointments that he would take subscriptions for an Old Baptist paper was this: One might be there who left home with a dollar in his pocket expecting to give it to the preacher; if he should announce that he would take subscriptions for the paper the party would give him the dollar for the paper, and , [pg 74] thus he would not get the dollar the man brought there expecting to give to him. It looks like we cannot get through with this text. We will have to quit for this time, and try to write more for next issue. C. H. C.
FAIRCHILD, HARDY,
TODD AND BISHOP
JuLy 18, 1935
Our readers will remember that in our issue of June 20, 1935, we had an article under the above heading, in which we published a letter written to Elder W. C. McMillon by Elder Fairchild. In that letter from Elder Fairchild, the reader will remember that he said, “But now a few of us ministers, including Elders J. B. Hardy, H. A. Todd, and a number of others have agreed to go into this work, work with all who will work with us, and those who will not, we will simply leave alone.” In our article we said, “Wonder if Elder Fairchild would be willing to tell what other preachers are expected to work with those he named? He said there are others, but did not give their names.”
Since our issue of June 20 came out we have learned the names of some of the others these brethren are working with, although Elder Fairchild did not give them to us. We have before us a part of a newspaper published in Jackson, Tenn., the home of Elder Bishop. That paper is dated June 28, 1935, and in that paper we find the following news item:
The Bishop Memorial Church of Jackson will be host to the Primitive Baptist Conference which opened here today and closes Sunday.
[pg 75] The conference opened this morning with Elder W. A. Bishop delivering the address of welcome. Elder J. J. Kirkland responded while the principal address of the day was delivered at noon by Elder J. E. Stewart on “Co-operation of Church and Pastor.”
Tonight’s session will open at 7:30 p. m. with a 30 minute song and devotional service. This will be followed by an address, “Unity of the Saints,” by Elder Cayce Pentecost.
The Saturday session convenes at 10 a. m. with Elder W. 0. Miller speaking at 11 o’clock on “Prayer.” The noon address will be dehvered by Elder J. B. Hardy on “Scriptural Teachings as to Women’s Work in the Church.” The evening address will be by Elder W. A. Pinkstaff on “Inward Essentials to Outward Growth of the Church.”
The main address at the conference Sunday morning will be by Elder T. W. Mitchell on “Church Discipline.” At the noon hour. Elder H. A. Todd will speak on “Church Sovereignty.” The address Sunday night will be by Elder A. M. Towry on “Christian Experience.”
The above tells the names of some of the preachers they are working with. Note their names: J. J. Kirkland, J. E. Stewart, Cayce Pentecost, W. A. Pinkstaff, T. W. Mitchell, and A. M. Towry. Now, let us see a little about what kind of line-up this is. J. J. Kirkland was lined up with the other Kirkland brothers in the disturbance they caused the Baptists in the years 1905 and 1906. The other three went to the Missionaries, and died holding membership there. J. J. remained out where the other three left him, with what few fol- lowers they had in the whole country. Since that time he has had no identity whatever with the regular old order of Baptists. W. A. Pinkstaff’ went with the Progressive element along the same time, and has not been recognized by the Old Line Baptists since. He has been a part of the time in the Elk River Association, which has not been recognized by our people in [pg 76] twenty-five years or more. T. W. Mitchell is in the same line-up.
A. M. Towry was excluded several years ago from Pleasant Grove Church in the Flint River Association. If you wish to verify this statement write W. G. Monks, Fayetteville, Tenn., clerk of the church, or to Elder J. M. Walker, Hazel Green, Ala., the pastor, or B. B. Lawler, Brownsboro, Ala. Elder J. E. Stewart is excluded from Shiloh Church in the Mt. Zion Association. We wrote a little article in regard to this some time ago when we saw he was mixing some with our people, which we withheld after writing it. Now is the time for us to give space for at least a part of what we then said. Here it is:
It becomes our duty to notify our brethren generally that Elder J. E. Stewart stands excluded from the church. He united with Shiloh Church, in the Mt. Zion Association, and was baptized by authority of that church. In their conference in November, 1917, a committee was appointed to investigate his standing in the vicinity of Flint River Church, in the Flint River Association, where he had been living for some time, though his membership was still with Shiloh Church. Brethren V. H. Copeland and H. Thrasher were appointed as the committee. Their report was not very good. In the March, 1918, conference he was charged with affiliating with a disorderly church and refusing to pay his just debts, and excluded from the church on said charges. Elder A. Whitworth, of Arab, Ala., was moderator of the conference, and H. Thrasher was clerk. Brother S. E. Copeland, Guntersville, Ala., wrote Brother Stewart on January 29, 1928, trying to get him to see the error of his way. Brother Stewart answered the letter. We have the letter before us as we do this writing. It is not dated; but on page one we find this sentence: “I have told public that I was excluded, never denied it in my hfe.” Of course, he goes on in the letter and tries to justify himself. But this is evidence from his own pen that he was excluded, and the records of Shiloh Church show it to be a fact that he was withdrawn from. We understand the faction he now stands identified with is in or [pg 77] recognized by the Elk River Association, and they have no correspondence with our people. Elder James Duncan, 2053 Young Ave., Memphis, Tenn., wrote us on Dec. 11, 1934, that Elder Stewart told him he was in the Sand Mountain Association. He is not a member of any church in that association.
If you wish a copy of the minutes of the meeting when Elder Stewart was excluded we are sure you can get the same by writing V. H. Copeland, R. 3, Guntersville, Ala. He is clerk of the church. Or you can get it by writing
S. E. Copeland, Guntersville, Ala.
Now note the fact that the above so-called “conference” met with Elder Bishop’s church in Jackson, Tenn. And we see that Elder Cayce Pentecost was to deliver an address; thus it seems that he is also one of the number who will work with Elders Fairchild, Todd, Hardy and Bishop. We note the above article says “the main address at the conference Sunday morning will be by Elder T. W. Mitchell on ‘Church Discipline.’ ” From the way matters are going it seems that some of them need a little instruction on the matter of discipline. This way of recognizing and affiliating with excluded parties is no better than the very grossest of disorder. This sort of practice destroys every principle of church discipline. It treats the churches with downright contempt, and utterly ignores their right to withdraw fellowship from those they consider to be disorderly in their walk. It destroys the right of any church to discipline her members for anything.
We call attention again to the expression quoted above from the letter written by Elder Fairchild, “a number of others have agreed to go into this work, work with all who will work with us,” etc. Well, it does seem like they will work with anyone who will [pg 78] work with them. We have heard such a remark some- times about some parties as this: “He is just anybody’s dog that will hunt with him.” But we are thankful that there are some who will not work with them in the work they are doing. We are sorry they are engaging in this, and that they are not content to let the old church alone. C. H. C.
MINISTERIAL QUALIFICATIONS
Article No. 3
July 18, 1935
We promised in our last issue that we would try to write more on this subject. We were using 1 Tim. iii. 1-7. Last issue we wound up on the expression, “not greedy of filthy lucre.” We will begin this article with the next expression in the text, “but patient.” Here is a qualification that most of us, or many of us, at least, need to take heed to. Patient means, 1. Undergoing pains, trials, or the like, without complaint; bearing or enduring with equanimity; having or exercising patience. 2. Being indulgent to the shortcomings of others; lenient to others’ deficiencies; forbearing. 3. Expectant with calmness, or without discontent; not hasty; not overeager; composed. See Webster. It is so easy for us to complain when we have trials to undergo. But the minister of the gospel should bear trials without complaint. He should be willing to suffer without complaining. He should be indulgent to the shortcomings of others. He should be kind to those who err from the right way. He does not need to encourage them in wrongs by being indulgent, or [pg 79] patient. He should not be ready to declare non-fellow- ship for every brother who may step aside from the right way. He should be ready to bear with the wrongs of his brethren. Yet he should not be willing to fellowship or bear with disgraceful practices and heretical doctrines in the church. He should patiently teach against and warn against every false way. He should do this in the right spirit, not manifesting a spirit that is overbearing. He must patiently labor for that which is right. He must do this calmly. He must not “lose his head.” He should not be too hasty. Patient labor will frequently accomplish that which is right, when hasty action would destroy instead of save. He should not “make haste.”’ Let us patiently labor for the things that are right.
“Not a brawler.” A brawler is one that brawls. To brawl is (1) to quarrel noisily and outrageously. 2. To complain loudly; to scold. 3. To make a loud confused noise. Two synonymous words are to wrangle, squabble. The minister must not engage in such practice. That is, he should not engage in such. It sure would look bad for a minister of the gospel to engage in a noisy and outrageous quarrel. It would not look well for him to complain loudly and to scold. One can reprove without scolding. This is a very nice point, and one that the minister should be very careful about. He might administer reproof and some might think he is scolding. Hence he needs to be very careful about that. He should not wrangle. It is better to hush and say nothing than to wrangle over a matter. Let the other fellow “cool off,” as well as “cool off” yourself. Do not wrangle or squabble. Here patience needs to be exercised some more.
[pg 80] “Not covetous.” This goes back somewhat to the expression, “not greedy of filthy lucre.” They are almost just alike in meaning. Covetous is, 1st, very desirous; eager to obtain. 2. Inordinately desirous; excessively eager to obtain and possess (especially money); avaricious. See Webster. From Cruden we quote the following: “This word is sometimes taken in a good sense, as in 1 Cor. xii. 31, ‘Covet earnestly the best gifts.’ This covetousness is good and commendable, when spiritual blessings are earnestly desired and sought after. But most commonly it is taken in a bad sense, for an eager and immoderate desire after earthly things. Covetousness is called idolatry, because the covetous man places the love, delight, and confidence in riches, which are due to God alone. This sin is condemned in all sorts of persons, and is expressly forbidden by the tenth commandment, ‘Thou shalt not covet.’ Such as are addicted to this sin, are hated of God. They are cruel and oppressive. The riches they are so eager in the pursuit of prove but poison to kill them, and thus they are miserable. The inordinate love of wealth does likewise betray men to manifold sufferings; both from themselves, in denying themselves the comfort of their estates; and from others, as extortioners, thieves, and the like.” We have omitted the citations which he gave; that is, the Scriptures referred to. Covetousness is classed with very grievous sins by the inspired writers. ”But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.” —-1 Cor. v. 9. Here the sin is classed with fornication, idolatry and drunkenness. In verses 9 and 10 of the [pg 81] next chapter the apostle says, “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” Horse stealing is no worse than covetousness. If you would not ordain a horse thief to the work of the ministry, neither should you ordain a covetous man to that office. Would you ordain a drunkard to the eldership? If you would, we would say God pity you. If you would not, but would ordain a covetous man, we wonder why. If you have a man in your church who has been ordained as an elder, and he should be a thief or a drunkard, would you continue using him as an elder? Perhaps some would; but if they would, it is very evident they have very little regard for right living. If you have regard for right living, and your preacher should be guilty of thievery or drunkenness, you would deal with him. There is no more Scriptural authority for dealing with him for those grievous sins than there is for dealing with him for covetousness. Do you know of one posing as a preacher who is guilty of the heinous crimes—any of them—here enumerated? God pity the people who will harbor such. They are sure to reap the vengeance of God for such wickedness.
In Col. iii. 5 we read: “Mortify therefore your mem- bers which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” We are here plainly told that covetousness is idolatry. It is no worse for one to make an image of wood, or of stone, or of metal, and worship that as a god, than to be covetous. To be covetous is just as bad as to worship a star, or the moon, [pg 82] or the sun, or a bush, or a stump, or a graven image. To be covetous is just about as bad as the greatest heathen idolaters in the jungles of Africa, China, Burma, or the Hindoos. If you would not ordain and keep a Hindoo idolater in the ministry, then neither should you retain a covetous man in the ministry.
The next qualification would require too much space for us to take that up in this issue. We will have to stop now, and will try to continue the subject in our next issue. C. H. C.
MINISTERIAL QUALIFICATIONS
Article No 4
August 1, 1935
In our last issue in writing on the above subject, embraced in 1 Tim. iii. 1-7, we promised to try to write more for this issue. The last thought we gave attention to was, “not covetous.” We will try now to take up the next qualification the inspired apostle laid down.
One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) “
“One that ruleth well his own house.” If a man does not do this he is not to be set apart to the work of the ministry. The man is supposed to be the head of the family. “But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man.”—
1 Cor. xi. 3. Paul wrote this by inspiration of God. It is God’s order; and Paul would have you to know this fact. Yet, how few people seem to know it in this day and age of the world. So far as [pg 83] mankind in general is concerned times have changed and the order is reversed. Frequently, in this day, the head of the man is the woman. The woman, usually, in this day, rules the house—including the ruling of the man. We think we have met with a few women of that sort in our life. All they lack being “the man of the house” is wearing the breeches. Figuratively speaking many of them do wear the breeches.” But in the very morning of time God said concerning the man and woman, “He shall rule over thee.”—Gen. iii. 16. Many in this age of the world have reversed God’s order. No man who has reversed God’s order is to be set apart to the work of the ministry. One to be set apart to the office of, a minister in the Lord’s kingdom must be one “that ruleth his own house.” He must be one who has not and does not reverse God’s order.
When the Lord made the woman he did not take the dust of the ground to make her. Out of the ground He “formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air.”—Gen. ii. 19. But Adam was without a help meet. Note that the woman was to be a help meet—not a ruler over the man. “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man.”—Gen. ii. 21, 22. Here is a surgical operation no human being can perform. But we must not “branch off”’ on that question. God made the rib a woman which He had taken from the man’s side. He did not take a bone from his head and make a woman. She is not to rule over the man. God did not take a bone from the man’s foot and make a woman. She is not to be trodden [pg 84] under foot—no more than she is to be a ruler over the man.
The man is as much wrong if he treads his wife under his feet as the woman and man are both wrong if she is the ruler of the family. The woman was taken from the man’s side, from near the heart, and from under his arm. He is to protect her, and is not to rule over her as a tyrant. But he is to rule in love. If they have children, he is to rule them also. This does not mean that he is to treat them as brutes or as slaves. But he is to have control over them. The man who does not rule or control his children, if he has children, has no business being set apart to the work of the ministry. In the olden times the parents “raised the children;” but frequently in the present day the “children raise the parents.” In the family where this is the case, the church has no right to ordain the man to the ministry. He must be “one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.” The house means his family. He is the head of the family. If the head is weak, so that he cannot rule well his own house, then he is too weak for the work of the ministry, and has no business to be put in that office, or in that place. He will not fit there.
If a man allows his children to be gallivanting over the country instead of going with him to the house of God he is not ruling well his own house. If he has his children go with him to the house of God, and yet they stay out on the grounds during the service, perhaps in some mischief, he is not ruling well his own house. If he allows his children to attend the Arminian Sunday schools, thus encouraging them in learning false [pg 85] doctrines, the doctrines of men and devils, he is not ruling well his own house.
“If a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” Here is a question asked by the inspired apostle, and the form of the question allows but one answer. He cannot take care of the church of God if he does not know how to rule his own house. This question is what is called an affirmative question, which is the very strongest way of stating a proposition. Hence, in that question the apostle makes the statement in the very strongest way of stating the proposition, that a man cannot take care of the church of God if he does not know how to rule his own house. We are of the humble opinion that the church has often in the past “eased over” this matter, and lightly regarded it.
“Not a novice.” A novice is one newly come to the faith. This should be a caution to the church not to be in a hurry about setting a man apart to the work of the ministry. “Lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.” This brings reproach and shame and trouble upon the church. Here is where and how a man may be spoiled—ruined, absolutely, when otherwise he might be a benefit to the cause. The “big head” is a bad disease for a man to have who is posing as a preacher. How does it look for a young man to presume to advise an old man, who has spent years in the service, to dispense with and throw away his dictionary and his books that tell him what words mean, and reprove him for using them? Would it not be more befitting for such a young man to allow his head to “shrink” a little, and to learn something—at least enough to learn that he has much yet to learn? Is [pg 86] he not “lifted up with pride” just a little, you think? If the church puts a novice into the office of the ministry, she does him an injustice and an injury, and also does the church an injury.
“Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without.” Then the apostle assigns the reason why. “Lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” We do wish we could so emphasize and sound out this requirement that it might never be forgotten or overlooked by the church when they consider, or even think, of having a man ordained to the work of the ministry. The apostle placed great emphasis upon this point. He starts out in giving the qualifications by saying he must be blameless; then enumerates or lays down the other qualifications, coming on down to this last one named; and places great emphasis upon this by saying, “Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without.” He must not only have a good report of them that are within—those who are members of the church—but of them which are without. He must have a good report of them who are not members of the church. He must have a good report of them, that do not love the doctrine he advocates. Those who even despise the doctrine must give him a good name as a man and as a citizen. His life must be such that the haters of the truth, the haters of the doctrine believed and cherished by the true church, will say of him, “He is a good man.” We once heard a man say that he had lived in a community of Primitive Baptists, and that they were good people and good neighbors, but the doctrine they advocated is as bad as the devil wants it to be. He MUST be of good report of them which are without. To set a man apart to the work of [pg 87] the ministry who is not of good report of them which are without, is to bring shame, disgrace and disrespect upon the church. What man of good morals can respect a church that will set a man apart to the work of the ministry who is not of good report of them which are without? What respect can they have for a church that will put a man in the ministry that the world cannot, or does not, speak well of as a man? His life must be above reproach, if he is to occupy the sacred desk as a minister of the gospel of the grace of God. Shame on the church that will harbor a man in the ministry who is of ill repute. What’s the matter with you? Do you not have the Christian courage or fortitude to object to such? Do you love such as that, too? When you condone such, and pass up such without objection, by your act and conduct you say you approve of it. What will you do? Will you be true to your God and to His cause? May the Lord help us, and give us courage to contend against every wrong. C. H. C.
REQUESTS FOR VIEWS
August 1, 1935
For several years we have been receiving requests for views which have not been complied with. There have been different reasons why we have not complied with these requests to give our views on different matters and different passages of Scripture through the paper. But we are now going to try to answer some of them—all that we can, as fast and as soon as we can get to them. We have had requests for views on many passages on which we feel to have no light. We may [pg 88] have requests for views on some things that we may feel could be of no general interest to our readers. Such matters as these we will have to pass by. These requests have been put on file by our wife, and we are now going through them, and will do the best we can with them. Most of the comments will have to be very brief. Bear with us, please, and we will try to do our best with these matters. C. H. C.
SHEEP AND GOATS
August 15, 1935
We were requested quite awhile ago to give our views on the latter part of Matt. xxv., concerning the sheep and the goats. We do not have space to quote here the language contained in verses 31 to 46. Turn and read it. Verses 31 to 33 tell us how the Son of man will come in His glory and will divide the people, or separate them, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and that He will put the sheep on His right hand and the goats on His left hand. Then He will say to those on His right hand, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”
Here is a kingdom that was prepared from the foundation of the world. It is not being prepared now; but the preparation of the kingdom was done from the beginning of time, or even before time. That work is not going on now. It is too late now to work in order to have a place prepared for you in that kingdom, or in order to have the kingdom prepared for you. The kingdom was not prepared for the whole race of [pg 89] mankind. He will place a portion of the race on His left hand, and He will say to them, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”
Those He will place on His right hand are those He calls His sheep. His people are given the appellation of sheep. “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth His life for the sheep.”—John x. 11. “I lay down my life for the sheep.”—John x. 15. They were His by gift. The Father gave them to Him in covenant before the world was; and He calls them His sheep. The Father did not give Him all the race; but gave Him all that He wanted. David, in impersonating, or representing, the Son, said, “I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me. Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.”— Psalm ii. 7, 8. Here the Father is represented as saying to the Son, “Ask of me, and I will give thee.” Surely the language conveys the idea that “I will give thee all that thou askest for.” The Father gave some to the Son. “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which He hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. “—John vi. 39. The Father gave some to Him. How many did the Father give to Him? All that He asked for. How many did He ask for? He asked for all that He wanted. He asked for all that He wanted; the Father gave Him all that He asked for; He shall lose nothing the Father gave Him, but shall raise them up again at the last day; He will place them on His right hand: not one of them shall be forgotten or left out; [pg 90] then He will say to them, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” To those on the left, those not given to Him, those for whom He did not die, He will say, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” Those on the left “shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”
Those on the left are not injured by the Lord. He leaves them where they are placed by reason of sin. Those He calls His sheep were His by choice; they were chosen out of the lost race of Adam to be heirs of glory; the kingdom was prepared for them; and they were given to Christ for an inheritance and for a possession; they were predestinated by the Lord to be conformed to the image of Jesus; they were chosen to be heirs of eternal glory. They are heirs according to God’s promise—not according to their works or doings. This is all of grace, from first to last; and to the Lord belongs all the praise.
Here in time these heirs of promise are brought into divine relationship with Christ by the direct and immediate work of the Holy Spirit in the heart. This is an internal work. It is a work of the Spirit of God performed on or in the spirit of man. It is not a head work, or a work on the head, or in the head, but in the heart. The heart is the seat of affection. This work of the Spirit gives the sinner a new life, and with that new life comes new affections, new desires, new aspirations, a new love. No sinner of Adam’s race ever truly cries unto the Lord for mercy until this work has been done in his heart. In this work God shines in the heart. This gives the light of the knowledge of the [pg 91] glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Then he has a new life, and has the light within. This gives him to see the depravity of his own heart and the corruption of his very life and nature. Then he begins to cry for mercy. A child never cries before it is born. The fact that a child cries proves that a living child has been born. The cry of the sinner unto the Lord proves that he has been born from above. He is a new born babe in Christ. Here is one of the Lord’s sheep, one of His lambs. He will carry His lambs in His bosom. How lovingly and kindly and tenderly He cares for them. He preserves and keeps them; and He will finally place them on His right hand, and will say to them, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”
How is it that these do the things the Lord says while here in the world? Doing of those things is bearing good fruit. The tree does not bear good fruit in order to be made a good tree. The tree must be made good first in order that it bear good fruit. The fruit the tree bears shows what kind of tree it is. The fact that a tree bears good fruit proves that the tree was good before it bore the fruit. The bearing of the good fruit here in the world proves that one is a child of God, and it does not make him a child by birth. It manifests what he is. When we see one doing the righteous works enumerated by the Saviour in this chapter, it manifests the fact to us that the person doing these things is a child of God. He does not claim heaven on account of these things. He feels his poverty; he feels his unworthiness; he is depending alone upon the work of the . Lord, the mercy and grace of God, for a home in heaven. And he is not saved in [pg 92] heaven on account of having done those things. Those on the left will claim a right to heaven on account of the good works they claim to be doing and that they have done. But their works will not save them. The goats, those not given to the Saviour, are not depending on the grace of God for salvation, or for a home in heaven. They are depending upon their own righteousness. But sinners are not saved on their own works. The grace of God brings salvation, and the grace of God saves from sin. It is alone the work of the Lord by which a poor sinner is saved in heaven.
There is no end to this. The more we write the more beauty we see in the glorious doctrine of grace, and the more we feel to praise and adore the Lord of glory for His wonderful works to the children of men. Our poor heart feels to be filled with His love and praise. To Him be glory for ever and ever. Remember us in your prayers, and help us to love, serve, praise, honor, and adore His matchless name. C. H. C.
I TIMOTHY V. 9
August 15, 1935
In this passage the apostle is giving instructions concerning the widow who may be taken under the care of the church—that is, he describes the widow that the church should care for in a temporal way. The church is not obligated to care for a widow who has children or nephews who are able to care for them. See verse 4. But if she has no children or relatives who are able to care for her, then the church is under obligations to see after her welfare—if she comes under the [pg 93] description the apostle gives; if she is well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children; if she have lodged strangers; if she have washed the saints’ feet; if she have relieved the afflicted; if she have diligently followed every good work. If the church has a member who is a widow coming under this description, then the church should see that she does not suffer and that she is cared for. C. H. C.
FAITH AND BELIEF
August 15, 1935
Several years ago J. E. Tate, Rutherford, Tenn., asked us to show or explain the difference between faith and belief, and referred to Eph. ii. 8, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” If we had time and space we might write a long article on this subject. The word faith is sometimes used in Scripture in the sense of belief; sometimes it means doctrine or teaching; sometimes it means trust or confidence; sometimes it means fruit of the Spirit (Gal. v. 22); sometimes it is used in the sense of evidence. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”—Heb. xi. 1. Here it is described as evidence and also as substance. Sub is a Latin prefix, meaning under. Stance is from the Latin sto, which means to stand. Hence, substance is something which stands under. “By grace are ye saved through something which stands under.” What stands under? “Neither shall any pluck them out of my hand.”—John x. 28. The hand of Jesus stands under. “By grace are ye saved through the [pg 94] hand of Jesus Christ.” The poor sinner is saved from his sins by the grace of God through Jesus Christ, not through his belief. “He that believeth on the Son hath the witness in himself.”—1 John v. 10. “Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us.”—Heb. x. 15. Belief is based upon testimony. The Holy Ghost brings the evidence by testimony, which produces the belief. If one truly believes on Jesus as his Saviour it is because the Holy Ghost brought testimony, evidence, that Jesus is his Saviour. If the evidence is true, Jesus was his Saviour before he believed, and before the evidence was brought to him. The belief, then, does not procure the salvation, but follows after being saved. These are just a few thoughts on this line. C. H. C.
TODD’S NEW PAPER
September 5, 1935
A brother sent us a copy of a new paper, Volume 1, No. 1, dated August 1, 1935. The name of H. A. Todd appears in the paper as editor and manager, and the name of W. A. Pinkstaff as book and circulation manager. There is a department for women edited by Mrs. H. A. Todd, and a department for young people edited by Mrs. W. A. Pinkstaff. They have for a motto Jere. vi. 16, “Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths,” etc., which will serve pretty well for a blind or a camouflage, to deceive the unsuspecting. We note a few things said in this new venture which we think should be noticed and exposed and attention called to them, for the good and benefit of the cause. Of course these men are posing as Primitive [pg 95] Baptists. This only makes it the more necessary that their utterances should be examined and exposed. On page 2 Elder Todd says:
We will contend for the sovereignty of His churches under Him and that they owe no allegiance to any lord or over-head authority on earth or in heaven. That each church has perfect freedom of action without let or hinderance from any other church or federa- tion of churches or pastors or preachers or boards or synods or coterie of men, nor are they answerable to other churches or asso- ciations of churches for any faith or practice they may elect; nor can other churches unchurch them by declaring non-fellowship for them. One church is not and cannot be under jurisdiction of any one, or of another body, but is wholly under jurisdiction to its head and Lord. They are not sovereign to do or believe anything, as a church, their Lord forbids, nor are they free to leave undone things He has commanded them to do.
We suppose the gentleman means hindrance by saying hinderance. It is true that a church of Christ is under jurisdiction to no one but to the Lord Himself, and the Lord is the only one who can remove the candlestick. He does this when a church departs from the faith or practice He has given. But to contend that a church is in no sense answerable to any other church for any faith or practice she may elect is as far from the truth as hell is from heaven. If that contention or statement be true, then the churches have no authority or way under heaven to preserve and keep themselves pure and free from the introduction of corrupt doctrines and practices. The Catholic party introduced corrupt doctrines and practices in the church in about the third century. According to Todd’s statement the party then contending for purity of doctrine and practice had no right to declare against or to withdraw from those corruptions; and that being true, then the Roman [pg 96] Catholic party was and is as much entitled to the claim of being the true church of Christ as the party that opposed those corruptions. The only way under heaven for the church to protect herself from those corruptions was to declare non-fellowship for and withdraw from these heresies.
About 1792 Andrew Fuller, William Carey and others departed from the original doctrine and practice of the church, by advocating a universal atonement, that Christ died for all mankind, and introducing the mission system among the Baptists. According to Todd the churches which embraced those heretical departures had a right to do so, and no other church had a right to call them in question, or to protest against the departures, or to declare against them, or to withdraw from them. If Todd is correct in this, then the Missionary Baptists are as much entitled to the claim that they are the church of Christ as the Primitives are. Perhaps Elder Todd thinks they are as much entitled to this as our people are, as he remained with them so long. We wonder why he did not stay with them; we wonder why he would try to come back to our people in an irregular way and start out again with the claim of being a Primitive Baptist in such a direction as to cause more trouble among us and to stir up more strife among us. He certainly knows that the course he is pursuing will cause trouble among the Old Baptists if they allow his measures introduced among them again.
On page 3 of the paper we see this statement:
Revival season is coming on now among the churches and let us all earnestly pray that the Spirit of the living God shall be present in His power to convict of sin, to release mourners, strengthen saints and add to His churches the saved.
[pg 97] Does that sound like Old Baptist reading? “Revival season is coming on!” That sounds to us as though there is a certain season of the year that the Lord may revive us. Then, too, we must get up and have a revival, and this is about the season of the year for us to work at it. If we do not have our revivals the Lord by His Spirit may not convict of sin. And we must pray for the Lord to do that or He might forget about it, or He might go to sleep on the job. “Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is on a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.”—1 Kings xviii. 27.
On same page and in same paragraph we see the following statement:
Good works are not conditions between the soul and heaven, nor are they evidences that a soul is born of God, but they are the accompaniament of salvation and the flowering out of a willing mind in humble obedience to God.
In this is a flagrant contradiction of the doctrine Primitive Baptists have always held to. Primitive Baptists have always contended that good works are evidences of regeneration. The London Confession of Faith, Chapter XVI., Section 2, says, “These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith,” etc. This section was unanimously adopted, with the rest of the Confession, by the ministers assembled at Fulton, Ky., in November, 1900. H. A. Todd acted as reading clerk in that meeting. Now, if good works are the fruits and evidences of a lively faith, they are evidences of regeneration; they are evidences that the one who performs them has been born of God. Elder Todd accepted that as truth in November, 1900. But he [pg 98] disputes it now. If he was a Primitive Baptist in what he then accepted as truth, he is not a Primitive Baptist now. In 1898 A. M. Kirkland pubhshed a pamphlet called “Cause Defended.” That pamphlet contains an article on each of the articles of faith of the Philesic Association. Article 6 says:
We believe that God’s elect are regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and that good works follow justification and are evidences of faith.
Elder J. N. Wallace, at the request of Elder Kirkland, wrote a chapter on this article of faith. In that article, or chapter. Elder Wallace said:
Paul, to the Ephesians, ii. 10, “Created in Christ Jesus unto good works”—not by or for good works; showing that good works follow the creation in Christ Jesus, and by no means precede it.
This is sufficient to show that the position then taken in this work was that good works were evidences of one having been born of God. The Primitive Baptists occupied that ground then. That was Primitive Baptist doctrine then. If it was Primitive Baptist doctrine then, it is so yet. As Elder Todd and those with him do not now occupy that ground, they are not Primitive Baptists.
On same page we see this expression:
If they can bring “forth fruit unto repentance,” then, and not till then, should they be baptized. Any letting down at this point will endanger His work and will deceive those who have been urged to join the church, while they are dead in sin.
The Scriptures teach something about bringing fruits meet for repentance (Matt. iii. 8), which verse is translated, in the Interlinear, to read, “Produce therefore fruits worthy of repentance.” This certainly teaches [pg 99] that those who are to be baptized should be required to produce evidence of repentance. But Elder Todd has the matter reversed, and he would require them to produce fruits unto repentance—they may produce the fruits first and then repent, according to the teaching of these men in this article.
Well, here is another thing we never knew until these newfangled fellows brought it to our attention: “Any letting down at this point will endanger His work.” They have capitalized the pronoun His, thus making the word refer to Deity. Thus they set forth the idea that the work of the Deity may be endangered by the failure of men, or by the doings of men. If this is not the rankest Arminianism we would not know where to find it. And such men proposing to band together with a few others to save the old church from utter ruin and destruction! Wonder who appointed these men to accomplish such a wonderful work!
On same page we see yet another statement to which we call attention:
In these blessed doctrines rest the hope of the real Christian and the only cure for the sin-weary world.
Here is another new thing under the sun. We never knew before that the world was sin-weary. The good Book teaches us that the wicked unregenerated world are all in love with sin. “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved dark- ness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” —John iii. 19. The Lord Himself has here told us that men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. This does not sound to us as though [pg 100] it was or is a sin-weary world. Verily, this elder has become wise above what is written.
And here is another wonderful revelation we find on the same page:
We do not think it quite true to facts in the case when we say, “The people do not like the Old Baptists because they preach salvation by grace.”
Perhaps it would not be true to facts to say the people do not like Elder Todd, and others like him, because they preach salvation by grace. He and others can “so wrap it up” that they can remove the offense from their preaching, and the world will not dislike them on account of the doctrine they preach. But why did those wicked men hate the Martyr Stephen? Why did they stone him to death? Nothing else under heaven only on account of the doctrine which he preached. Why did the wicked Jews despise our Lord? Why did they try to destroy Him time and again during His ministry? And why did they finally deliver Him to the Roman soldiers and they crucify Him on Calvary’s cross? For nothing else under heaven than the doctrine He preached and the eternal principles of truth which He so boldly and fearlessly advocated. And if they hated Him on account of the doctrine He preached and advocated, so will they hate and despise all those who faithfully and boldly teach, advocate, and contend for the same principles. Why did the wicked enemies of truth persecute, stone, beat with stripes, and imprison the great Apostle Paul? For the doctrine he preached—salvation by grace. That doctrine in its purity and simplicity has always been despised by the world. And the world has always hated those who faithfully [pg 101] contend for that doctrine. “As we said before, so say I now again. If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. “—Gal. i. 9, 10.
We find there has been a deficiency all along by reading the following statement on the same page:
Our young people have left us in numbers because there was nothing for them to do in His churches.
There has been nothing for any person on earth to do in His churches from the day He established the same in the top of the mountains until this good day, only the things He put in there to be done by His humble followers. Neither has anything been taken out of the kingdom which the King and Lawgiver put there. If there has been nothing in the church for the young people to do, it can be for no other reason than that those same young people had no business in the church. There has been something to do in the church for every person under heaven whose duty it has been to be in the church. The trouble about that matter has been, and is yet, that such fellows as Todd & Company are not satisfied with what the Lord has put in His kingdom. They want some new furniture brought in which the Lord never authorized to be put in there. The furniture He put in the kingdom beautifully decorates that kingdom, and the stuff these fellows want brought in would only litter up and defile the kingdom of our Lord.
But one more statement we find (on page 4) gives [pg 102] the whole thing away. Read it and ponder it well, you Old Baptists:
Herein lies the marshy bogs in which we have floundered for many years and the price paid is the loss of prestige among men and going away of our young people.
Have the Primitive Baptists been floundering in such “marshy bogs” all these years? Fuller thought so. Hence he introduced means and measures to lift the old church from the dung hill into society and the respect of the world. Such men always look down upon the old church. The reason why they look down upon the old order of things and upon the good old way our fathers trod is because they are very high and exalted in their own estimation. When one can really see the deplorable state of the inventions of men and their own true condition, and the exalted place where the Lord has placed His church, they then look up to see the kingdom, and can then realize the fact that they cannot raise the church up so as to have it look beautiful to the world, and so that the world will love and admire the true church of God. They may bring the church down by their inventions and contaminate it with the world, so that the world will admire the same. But when they do that they depart from the principles of truth and righteousness, as marked out by the Lord of glory, and bring upon themselves shame and contempt. The true followers of the Lord will not go after them. The Lord will reserve witnesses to Himself, and the old church will continue to stand aloof from the inventions of men, and will not entirely be swallowed up by the devil and his cohorts. C. H. C.
[pg 103]
JOHN V. 39
September 5, 1935
Several years ago Sister F. L Stockton, Greenwood Springs, Miss., requested us to give our views on the text cited above, which reads, “Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” This was said by the Saviour to the unbelieving Jews. They thought they had eternal life in the Scriptures. Some people think the same way today. But eternal life is not in the Scriptures. The Scriptures testify of Jesus; they tell where eternal life is. The Scriptures testify that eternal life is in Jesus Christ. If God’s people, those who have been born again, and who have been taught that eternal life is in the Scriptures, would search the Scriptures for themselves, they would find they have been taught wrong, and that eternal life is in Jesus and not in the Scriptures. C. H. C.
SEVERAL QUESTIONS
September 5, 1935
Mrs. Annie Lester, of Shobonier, 111., several years ago asked us what Paul meant by unknown tongues in 1 Cor. xiv. 2-4; what he meant by letting the women keep silent; that is, in what way; why did Peter say be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, in Acts ii. 25—or did they baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost; and what did Peter mean by the expression, “save yourselves from this untoward generation,” in Acts ii. 40. The expression, “unknown tongue,” means an [pg 104] unknown language. Tongue means language. It does not mean such senseless mumbling noises as some practice and call it an unknown tongue. The women are to keep silent in the churches in the sense that they are not to engage in preaching or teaching, or in the public discussions of matters that pertain to the church business. It has no reference to them telling the dealings of the Lord with them, or giving a reason of their hope, when they ask for a home in the church, nor in engaging with the congregation in singing hymns in the service. Read the verses just before and you will see what the apostle is giving instruction con- cerning. As proof that nb woman is to be a preacher, the apostle says the bishop is to be the husband of one wife. Can any woman fill that measure?
The command to those on the day of Pentecost to be baptized in the name of Christ is the same as to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The command there recorded means to be baptized by His authority; or in the name of that One who was anointed to remit your sins. The command to save yourselves from this untoward generation, as given to those on that same day who were pricked in their hearts, is to be accomplished by doing what he had already instructed—by coming out from among the crooked generation and being baptized in the name of the Lord—obtaining membership in His church and living separate from the world in a religious way. C. H. C.
[pg 105]
LUKE VII. 28
September 5, 1935
In 1928 Brother J. E. Willis, Saltillo, Tenn., requested our views on this text. It reads, “For I say unto you. Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” There was no greater prophet than John. But he was not in the church. He made ready a people the Lord had prepared. He made them ready for the organization of the Lord’s kingdom, or church, by baptizing them. Jesus took the material John baptized—such of them as He pleased—and organized His kingdom. Jesus was baptized by John. Hence Jesus Himself was a member of that church or kingdom; and He was greater than John the Baptist. John said, “He must increase; but I must decrease.” Jesus placed Himself as servant—as least —in the kingdom; and He was greater than John.
C. H. C.
THE LAST JUDGMENT
September 5, 1935
The general judgment at the last day is not a day in which mankind will go before, or be brought before, the great Judge of the universe and be examined or tried. The Lord’s children and the other folks will be separated, and the Lord’s children will hear the blessed announcement made to them, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” Those on the left will hear the awful denunciation, ‘ ‘Depart from me, ye cursed,
[pg 106] into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” God’s people do not come into judgment. John V. 24. The word translated condemnation in that verse primarily means judgment. C. H. C.
SABBATH QUESTION
September 5, 1935
In the law given Moses on Sinai was a command for the observance of the seventh day as a sabbath day. Of course some of the things commanded in that law should be kept, obeyed, or done, even if the command had never been written. One such command is, “Thou shalt not kill.” Another is, “Thou shalt not steal.” There are other commands in the law like these. It would have been wrong to kill or to steal if these commands had never been written in the law. But some of the things written in the law should be observed because they were written, and because God commanded them. One such command was the one concerning the sabbath, which was the seventh day. There were many other things which the Lord commanded to be done and to be observed under the law. But the law and all the ordinances connected therewith belonged to the Jews. The Gentiles were never under that law, and were never required to observe the ordinances connected with it. But it is wrong for a Gentile to kill or to steal, even though he was never under the law given by Moses. Now, when Jesus came and died on the cross He fulfilled the law, and all the ordinances under it were finished. The sabbaths under the law were typical of rest under the gospel—just as the offerings and [pg 107] sacrifices were typical. The real Christian sabbath is his rest in Christ and His finished work. Also there is a rest for the child of God in the service of God. The Sunday sabbath was first instituted by Constantine about the year 321. That was the first sabbath law after the death of Christ. But it should be observed because it is the law of the land. We should obey the law when there is not a matter of conscience violated. C. H. C.
ARE AGREED
September 5, 1935
Dear Brother Cayce:
I have just been through Big Sandy Association—Hollow Rock, Mud Creek, Zion’s Rest and Antioch. Spent some time with Elders T. M. Hampton, J. L. Fuller, T. M. Phillips and—— Philhps. We talked over conditions as they prevail at present among our people locally, and we are one hundred per cent agreed; and were it not for a little misunderstanding as to the motives in the course some of us have pursued to try to warn and save the brethren that have departed there could not have been any difference among us. When we saw that we could not save these brethren we then made it plain to them we would not tolerate their departures. We did what we felt was best for the cause. Yours in hope, Z. Stallings.
REMARKS
We are glad that you brethren agree. We saw this matter coming, and felt the obligation resting upon us to warn the brethren of the approaching danger. We had to do this or be untrue and unfaithful. It was not pleasant to do that. We were well aware of the fact that to give the warning would bring down the wrath of some upon our head. “But none of these things move [pg 108] me,” said Paul. To be true, as he was, we must not let these things move us from the path of duty; we must not fail to utter the warning. Sure enough, it brought forth the wrath of some brethren upon us. Some accused us of falsifying; some accused us of having “it in for them” all along the line. We are grieved that the brethren would thus accuse us. But, by the help of God, we trust we may be enabled to endure all the afflictions that may come our way what few days we may yet have to stay in this old world. It will not be long until we shall receive the discharge from the warfare; and we trust it may be an honorable discharge. We pray the Lord may forgive the brethren who have thus accused us, and who have persecuted us. We trust we are bearing these things for Jesus’ sake. C. H. C.
MORE ABSOLUTE DOCTRINE
September 19, 1935
On pages 143 and 144 of the so-called Sovereign Grace and Pilgrim, the issue for July-August, 1935, we have the information that one of their preachers (Elder J. B. Bowden) had his car stolen, which had his suit case in it. The suit case contained his Bible, Concordance, 40 pages of manuscript (some of his writings), his credentials, and other items. In his car was also eight dollars worth of honey belonging to one of his brethren. It appears that a detective agency was employed to work on the case. Elder Bowden says, “It has left me stranded, no way to go to church or anywhere else. I have no clothing, and am badly crippled in my nervous system. I have worried so much over it that I have [pg 109] not slept much the last three nights.” He exclaims, “Oh, what is the world coming to!” Then in closing the letter he says, “I want to go home as soon as possible. I have been away so long, and to think that I was on my way, and some of Satan’s bunch had to take away from me what little I had is hard, but the Lord will take care of His own.” In a later letter Elder Bowden informs the editor that “the police found part of the car but could not get anything for it as most of the glass was broken.” In a still later note, appearing on same page (144) it seems that he had obtained another car and had more trouble. It seems that he was run into while on the way home. He says, “Now to have a man of poor principles to try to go around me, turn too quick and hang the wide long truck into my car door, rip the body open and run me off into the ditch. It was my first of such an experience; several saw it and said I was in no way to blame.”
We agree that the brother has had some trials. Pretty tough. But if his doctrine is the truth, those fellows could not help stealing his car and the things that were in it, and smashing the car to pieces, for according to his doctrine, God absolutely and unconditionally predestinated from all eternity that they should do just what they did do. That was just a link in the chain of events, which chain was forged and welded by the God of heaven before time began, and that link in the chain could not be broken by any power in heaven, in earth, or in hell. Of course, according to their doctrine, those thieves would not have stolen the car and its contents, had not God predestinated, fixed and unalterably decreed for them to do so. Neither would that fellow have run into him with his truck, had not [pg 110] God unalterably decreed for him to do so. The witnesses who saw the affair said Elder Bowden was in no way to blame. Of course they put the blame on the driver of the truck. But, according to the doctrine of these Absoluters, the truck driver was no more to blame than Elder Bowden, because he was only doing what the eternal God unalterably fixed and decreed that he should do. The witnesses, of course, did not see that. That part of the affair was not done in a way to be seen by those witnesses. The witnesses, perhaps, could not exonerate the truck driver; but according to Elder Bowden’s doctrine, the doctrine of these Absoluters, Elder Bowden could exonerate the truck driver, and could put all the blame where it belongs—on the predestination and decree of God, the forging and welding of such a link in the chain of events. That was the way God fixed and arranged and decreed and unalterably predestinated that the thing should be. The driver could not help doing that. The channel had been made by the eternal God for him to travel in. He had to go that way. Had he done otherwise he would have thwarted God’s pre- destination and decrees, and of course no little truck driver can do that. Perhaps God will be sorry He so arranged the matter, as Elder Bowden complains about it.
Elder Bowden says he has worried over the matter. He is just worrying over what he and his brethren claim is God’s predestination. He says he is badly crippled in his nervous system. No doubt but what a man is crippled somewhere who will advocate the doctrine these fellows advocate. Let us hope it is in the nervous system, or in the head, and not in the heart. But Elder Bowden says “some of Satan’s bunch had to take away [pg 111] from me what little I had.” If they had to take away from him what they did take, then they could not help it. They did it because God had so predestinated and arranged for them to do it. They were carrying out God’s will and predestination and His plan in doing what they did as much as Elder Bowden and his brethren are when they are preaching the greatest discourses; and they were carrying out God’s will and predestination just as much as Jesus did when He ascended to His Father in glory. That is the doctrine of these Absoluters. The men who did that stealing were only doing what was God’s will for them to do. They were just as much God’s bunch as Elder Bowden or his brethren can be in their preaching, according to his doctrine. According to their doctrine God Himself made them all —the thieves and the truck driver—just what they were and what they are. Hear ye the following statement made by D. K. Caldwell, Hamburg, Ark., on the next page of the pamplet (page 145):
If I rejoice it is in an all wise and sovereign God who before determined all things. And in making all things He so made and fitted them with a nature that compels them to do the things He before determined they should do. There is no power in heaven, in earth, or anywhere else that can make them do otherwise.
There it is. God made those thieves and the
truck driver just what they are. God so made them that they could not do otherwise. No power in heaven, in earth, or anywhere else, can make them do otherwise. God Himself cannot make them do otherwise, for there is no power in heaven that can do so, the writer says. God has made them that way, and He cannot change them. That’s their doctrine. You have it right there, in black and white. God made those thieves that way. The
[pg 112] devil or Satan had nothing to do with it. The only job Satan has, according to the doctrine these men teach, is to do dirty little tricks that God is ashamed to do Himself, so He has Satan to do them. We cannot see it any other way than that this doctrine came from the devil. He invented it so as to shift his dirty work, and the dirty deeds of his cohorts and emissaries, off on the Lord; and these fellows are helping the devil out by advocating that doctrine. May the Lord help us that we may never be deceived by such teaching.
C. H. C.
INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC
September 19, 1935
Regular preaching Sunday morning at 11 o’clock by the pastor, Elder Cayce Pentecost. You are most cordially invited to attend, hear the discourse and enjoy the music, both instrumental and vocal.
The above is copied from the Dresden Enterprise of Sept. 6, 1935. The heading of the article was “Primitive Baptist Church.” The item needs very little comment. It very plainly tells us that they have instrumental music in that church. The only question we are wondering about is as to whether other churches and ministers in that section affiliate with them as being a true old line Primitive Baptist Church in the using of instrumental music in their church service. How do you stand on this, brethren? We know how the brethren and churches of the Greenfield Association once stood, and the Forked Deer, and the most of the Big Sandy, if not all, and the Predestinarian, and perhaps all the Obion. How do you stand now? C. H. C.
[pg 113]
RICH MAN AND LAZARUS
September 19, 1935
In 1930 Brother J. L. Dearing, Iredell, Texas, asked us the question, “’Who are the five brethren of the rich man?” This is in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. The five brethren were his Jewish brethren. Notice Luke xvi. 31, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” This was literally and actually fulfilled and verified as true when Jesus rose from the dead. The Jews still rejected Him as being the Messiah. And they reject Him to this day. But they may be brought in again some day, and that day may not be very far in the future. C. H. C.
MATTHEW IX. 16, 17
September 19, 1935
Mrs. A. D. Hodges, Carnegie, Okla., asked us for our views on this text. It reads, “No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse. Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.” The Saviour is here teaching that the old order of law worship and service is not brought over into the new or gospel dispensation. The new cloth of gospel worship and service is not tacked on or sewed on or simply added to the old law worship and service. The gospel day is a new [pg 114] dispensation, a new garment, and old cloth is not to be mixed with it.
In that age bottles were made of skins. Old bottles would not stretch. If new wine should be put in them the bottles would burst—the fermenting and working of the wine would burst them. To put new worship—gospel worship and service—in the old bottle of the law dispensation would be to cause the bottle to burst, and the whole thing would come to destruction—all would be lost. There is to be no mixture of law and gospel. The old bottles served their usefulness in the first use they were put to. The law served its purpose, and it is passing out now. A new bottle—a new gospel day—is coming in, and the new wine of gospel worship and service is in it. Are you using old bottles, engaging in law worship and service? If so, you suffer loss. Since writing the above we find we gave our views on this same matter of new wine in old bottles, as mentioned in Mark ii. 21, 22, in our issue of May 14, 1907, in which we gave the same views, though expressed in different words.
C. H. C.
JUDE 12, 13 .
September 19, 1935
Sister M. 0. Lucas, Albertville, Ala., asked us in 1930 to give our views on Jude 12,13, and asked if these persons under consideration were disobedient children of God or were they unregenerate. Jude says they are clouds without water. God’s preachers are rain clouds —not “thunder heads.” Jude says they are wandering stars. God’s preachers are “fixed stars.” Jude says [pg 115] “to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.” That is a long time. That seems to us that the darkness is too long for a child of God. Go on down to verse 19 and you will see that Jude says concerning them, “Having not the Spirit.” Paul says in Rom. viii. 9, “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.” It seems to us this should settle the mat- ter as to what sort of folks such people are. Jude warns the Lord’s children concerning them, and they should be marked and avoided. The church does not need them. Keep them out. C. H. C.
MATTHEW XIX. 27, 28
September 19, 1935
In 1930 Brother J. T. Fannin, Corsicana, Texas, requested our views on the language there recorded. Get your Bible and read it, as we must use limited space. We suppose the main expression on which our views are wanted is, “That ye which have followed me in the regeneration,” etc. This expression has no reference to the work of regeneration called the new birth; but refers to the new order of things; the bringing in of a new order of worship and service. The “ye” were the apostles. They were appointed as judges by the King, and they passed on and explained all the laws and rules and regulations which He gave to govern His kingdom. C. H. C.
[pg116]
ANOTHER CORRESPONDING
EDITOR
October 3, 1935
In this issue of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST we have the privilege of adding another name to our list of corresponding editors. For several years we have been reading some of the writings done by the brother whose name we now add to the list. We never had the privi- lege of meeting him until at our association at Elizabeth Church, near Marvell, Ark., which was held on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, September 13, 14, 15, 1935. He was named for us. This brother is no other than Elder Claud E. Webb, Carthage, 111. For some time we have had a mind to ask him if he was willing to be placed on our editorial staff, but did not write him in regard to the matter, although we have had correspondence with him, as we preferred to talk with him face to face. We desired to hear him preach. This would give us a better opportunity to know that we were of one heart and one mind. We were made glad in our poor heart when we learned that he arrived at the association ground Thursday night. We had the pleasure of being associated with him, and others, for three days, and of hearing him preach. The good Lord blessed him to preach in the good old way to the comfort and consolation and instruction of His dear children who were present. So before we separated we asked him about allowing his name to go on our editorial staff, and we talked the matter over freely; then he gave his consent. In another column will be found his article giving his consent to be put in the list with our other corresponding editors. We have confidence in him, and believe him to be sound and true to the principles our people nehave [pg 117] loved and stood for through the ages. May the good Lord bless our labors together for the good of our beloved Zion. We feel thankful to have such able and faithful and true men of God on our staff as those whose names appear there. We are sure no truer set of men can be found. May the Lord’s blessings rest upon them, and help us all to labor together and to strive for the peace of Jerusalem. C. H. C.
REVELATION XX. 12
October 3, 1935
We were requested some time ago to give our views on Rev. xx. 12. Verses 12 to 15 read as follows:
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Notice that first the books were opened, and then another book was opened, and this other book was the book of life. Notice, also, that none of those whose names were written in the book of life were cast into the lake of fire. Those who were judged out of the things written in the books, according to their works, were cast into the lake of fire. Every person who was judged according to his works, or who was judged out of the things written in the books, was cast into the [pg 118] lake of fire. God’s children were not judged out of the things written in the books. Their names were written in the book of life. Jesus said, in John v. 24, “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.” The literal rendering of the text in our present day English is, “into judgment comes not; but has passed out of death into life.” God’s children, those whose names are written in the book of life, do not come into judgment. Other folks do, and will be cast into the lake of fire. If you class yourself with the number who are to be judged out of the things written in the books, then you class yourself with the number that will be cast into the lake of fire. C. H. C.
MARK XVI. 16
October 3, 1935
Some time ago Brother Clinton Bradford, Primm, Tenn., asked us about the above text, and wanted to know if the word is is future tense, and says he has been arguing that it is in the past tense. The verse reads, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” The language “and is baptized” is not future tense. The word is in connection with another word is never in the future tense. It cannot possibly denote something in the future. There is no such thing in the English language as is being in the future. The expression in our English language is the present perfect tense. But the word in the Greek translated “is baptized” is in what is called [pg 119] the aorist tense in Greek. That tense “is strictly the expression of a momentary or transient single action, being thus distinguished from the imperfect; and in the indicative mood it ordinarly signifies past time. It is, however, used of a prolonged action, if there is no positive need to make a direct expression of that circumstance. It is thus of constant use in the narrative of past transactions.” See page xlii., Bagster’s Analytical Greek Lexicon. You are right in saying it is past, although the English has it in the present perfect tense, which denotes an action finished or completed in the present. Yet the very expression frequently carries with it the idea of something already done. “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God” (1 John V. 1); is born— already born—not will be born. C. H. C.
I CORINTHIANS XI. 33
October 3, 1935
Brother J. L. Callaway, Manassas, Ga., asked us quite awhile ago if this text means for a church to put off the communion when there is a private offense between two members, which has been brought to the knowledge of the church generally, but has not been brought before the church. The text reads, “Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.” No, the text does not mean to put off the communion under the circumstances or conditions named. It simply means to wait until all the brethren who are in attendance are gathered together. Do not begin the service while the brethren are still gathering together. Let the [pg 120] service be engaged in in quietness and order and due decorum.
As to the matter of trespass, one member against another, the instruction given is, “If thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone.” This is in Matt, xviii. He is not to tell others, but the brother who trespassed. “If he neglect to hear thee, take with thee one or two more.” Still he is not to tell others. “If he neglect to hear them, tell it to the church.” If one has been telling others, so that the membership in general are informed about the matter, somebody has violated the instruction given by the Lord. If a brother trespasses against us, we should either bear it in silence, and say nothing to a living soul about it, or tell the brother; and if this fails, then take one or two more. If reconciliation is obtained, then no one else should ever know about it. If we fail to get reconciliation, then tell it to the church. It is a violation to tell it to more than the one or two witnesses until this time. May the Lord help us to follow His teaching. C. H. C.
REVELATION XII. 7, 8
October 3, 1935
In 1930 we received a request from Brother S. H. Garland, Henryville, Tenn., to give our views on the language recorded in Rev. xii. 7, 8. We gave our views in a short way on this text in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of January 9, 1917. The war therein mentioned, we think, took place in the Jewish heaven, when the woman mentioned in the first verse had made her appearance. [pg 121] She appeared in the end of the Jewish age, or Jewish economy. The woman appeared in heaven, and there was war in the same heaven; and the dragon was cast out. Then persecution of the woman (the church) began; then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she remained in seclusion for 1260 years. C. H. C.
DESTRUCTION OF SODOM
October 3, 1935
In 1930 T. L. Parnell, then at Cuba Landing, Tenn., asked us if the destruction mentioned in Genesis xix. is eternal. He said, “Some say it is and some say it is not.” It was a literal destruction. The city was literally destroyed. Nothing said in the chapter about an eternal hell or eternal punishment. C. H. C.
WHERE WAS JUDAS?
October 3, 1935
In 1930 Sister Cora Absher, Pressman’s Home, Tenn., asked us where Judas was when Jesus washed the disciples’ feet, and did Jesus wash Judas’ feet? No, Jesus did not wash Judas’ feet. He went out while they were eating the passover supper. While Jesus was eating the passover supper with the disciples. He gave the sop to Judas, and Judas went immediately out. After he was gone out, Jesus took the bread and wine and instituted the sacramental supper; and then when supper was ended He washed His disciples’ feet. C. H. C.
[pg 122]
OUR ASSOCIATION
October 17, 1935
It was our intention to write a little account of our association for our last issue, but after we got home from the meeting we were sick for several days, part of the time confined to our bed, so we did not write. The date we are doing this writing is October 3, and we still do not feel as well as we would like to. This will also explain why some other matters have been delayed, which need our attention.
The associational meeting (South Arkansas) was held with Elizabeth Church, five miles south of Marvell. Service was held at the church Thursday night, but the associational meeting began at 10 o’clock on Friday and continued until Sunday noon. Then they had preaching Sunday afternoon and night. We had service Friday morning, afternoon and night; Saturday morning, afternoon and night. The home ministers present were Elders John R. Harris, J. M. Burch, W. H. Lee and the writer. Other ministers present were Elders Claud E. Webb, Carthage, 111.; J. W. Hipp, Prim, Ark.; W. H. Eubanks, Newport, Ark.; F. M. Russell, Pangburn, Ark.; T. E. Ellzey, Harrisburg, Ark., and W. M. Alley, Hot Springs, Ark. All the ministers present occupied the stand at some time during the meeting, except Elder Alley, and each one seemed to be blessed of the Lord to preach in such a way as to comfort, strengthen, build up and edify the Lord’s dear people.
One brother had joined at the regular meeting the fourth Sunday in August, the baptism to be attended to during the association. Then during the association three united with the church by letter and two more by [pg 123] experience. The writer had the pleasant duty of baptizing the three on Sunday morning. Then on Sunday another dear brother came forward asking for a home, and he was joyfully received, his baptism to be attended to on the fifth Sunday, the church having agreed to hold their regular meeting at that time instead of on the fourth Sunday. We have been informed that another one came to the church on Sunday night. We cannot say whether the baptism has been attended to or not as we are doing this writing, as we were sick and not able to go to the meeting. Elder Garner is the assistant pastor, and we have not received word as to whether he was there or not. Wife wrote him we were sick and not able to go, but we have not yet heard from him.
The meeting was a pleasant and enjoyable one. May the Lord be praised for His mercies. Remember us in your prayers. C. H. C.
TO OUR EXCHANGES
October 17, 1935
We feel that the good of our beloved cause demands that we say something to our readers and to our Primitive Baptist exchanges in regard to W. D. Griffin, Fayette, Ala. We published a request from him some time ago, in which he wanted to get a minute of all the Primitive Baptist Associations. We have noticed the same request from him in some of the other Primitive Baptist papers that we exchange with. We had no idea when we published that request that he would pursue the course that he did in at least one instance. To at least one brother he sent a copy of the minute of his [pg 124] association and also a pamphlet which contains more false doctrine than anything we remember to have seen of the same size. He has taken this way, evidently, of getting names of brethren to whom he sends this blasphemous pamphlet. We intend, the Lord willing, to expose the heresies contained in the pamphlet, as soon as we can possibly do so. We would suggest to our readers that you send no more literature to W. D. Griffin, if you do not want the blasphemous doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things circulated among our people—and that, too, in a deceptive way, as this pamphlet does. C. H. C.
GALATIANS IV. 22-31
October 17, 1935
Brother S. P. Taylor, formerly at Thomasville, Ga., now at Albany, Ga., requested us in 1930 to write on Gal. iv. 22-31. Our space is so limited that we will not quote the language contained in those verses. Get your Bible and read the chapter. Neither can we write at length. There is much contained in the language; but we will have to do no more than just hint at some of the subject matter.
The two covenants are brought to view. Agar (or Hagar) was a type of the covenant given on Sinai. This covenant gendereth to bondage, and was a type of national Israel, or the Jews, or national Jerusalem, which the apostle says is in bondage with her children. Sarah, the wife of Abraham, the free woman, was a type the covenant of grace, called in some places the new [pg 125] covenant, because it was brought out and manifested after the covenant of works, or the Sinai covenant.
Ishmael was the son of Hagar, by Abraham. Hagar was a bondmaid of Sarah. She was in bondage. Of course, as she was in bondage, she could not give birth to a free child. Her son was, therefore, born m bondage. And he was born after the flesh. God had before made a promise to Abraham and to Sarah. But Sarah began to doubt the promise ever being fulfilled. So she gave Hagar to Abraham. This is the first record we have of a ladies’ effort society to help fulfill a promise He had made. But the effort did not bring about the birth of the promised heir, nor did it help to bring that about.
At the proper and right time Isaac was born unto Abraham and Sarah. Isaac was the promised child. Isaac was the child of promise. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. “—Verse 28. Sarah typified the covenant of grace, and Isaac typified ( all the heirs of promise. “If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”—Gal. iv. 29. The children of God were known and embraced in the covenant of grace before the world was. It was and is an everlasting covenant. It does not grow. It is ordered in all things, and sure. Not one has ever been added to it, and not one has ever been, or ever will be, taken away. The promise is sure to all the seed. The efforts of Sarah and Hagar did not help to bring about the birth of the promised heir. Even so, the efforts of all the men and women and the societies that have ever been organized have not helped to bring about the. birth into the spiritual realm, or into the family of God, one heir of promise, or child of promise.
That human effort in that day resulted in the birth of [pg 126] Ishmael, and not the birth of Isaac, the promised child. So the efforts and labors of the so-called religionists of the day do not, and cannot, and will not, help to bring about the spiritual birth of a single son or daughter of Adam. All they can do by their efforts is to bring about the birth of an Ishmaelite. Ishmael was a mocker. It is even so in this day, the Ishmaelites are only mockers. And as it was then, even so it is now, “the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free- woman. ” The works of the flesh, the works of men, will not make one an heir of God. “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. Read several verses there in the Book.
God is the Father of His children, and Jerusalem which is free, and which is above, is the mother. This Jerusalem is the covenant of grace. They were conceived in that covenant, and at “the set time” they are born from above. God foreknew them in that covenant, he is not surprised or taken unawares when one is born into the heavenly family. He has never been put to the necessity of calling for help in order to get one of them brought forth. We could write a lot more on this question, but our space is limited, and we must stop here. May the Lord bless these thoughts to the good of every reader. C. H. C.
[pg 127]
NONATTENDANCE
October 17, 1935
We were requested some time ago to give our views in regard to members not attending the services of the church. If they are providentially hindered, the church should bear with them. If they are in need of help, and that is the real reason why they do not attend, then the church should help them. If they are simply drifting into a careless or indifferent state, they should be encouraged. If they are simply rebelling and refusing to attend the service when there is no good reason for not doing so, they should be dealt with accordingly. When one unites with the church he covenants with the church, or enters into a covenant with the church, that he will attend the services of the church when not provi- dentially prevented. If one does not attend, the church should know the reason why. If A and B have entered into a covenant with each other, and A fails in some part of the covenant, B is entitled to know the reason of A’s failure. It is B’s business to know, and it is A’s business to give B the information in regard to the matter. C. H. C.
WHO CRUCIFIED CHRIST?
October 17, 1935
In 1930 Brother B. A. Caddell, Brent, Ala., said, “I have always been taught that the Jews crucified Christ. It looks like the Gentiles did the actual work.” He refers to Mark x. 33, 34, which reads, “Behold, we go up to Jerusalem: and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall [pg 128] condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him to the Gentiles; and they shall mock Him, and shall scourge Him, and shall spit upon Him, and shall kill Him: and the third day He shall rise again.” True, He was crucified by the Roman soldiers, and they were Gentiles. Pilate was a Gentile. But the Jews cried out unto Pilate, “Crucify Him; crucify Him.” The Jews delivered Him to the Gentiles, and the Gentiles crucified Him by the authority and upon the demand of the Jews. Hence the apostle said, “Ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”—Acts ii. 23. If a man is hung or electrocuted by the authority of the state, the high sheriff springs the trap or turns the switch, but it is the state which takes the man’s life. The Jews crucified the Saviour, but they did it by the hands of the Gentiles. C. H. C.
PSALM XXXVII. 25
November 7, 1935
Miss Nannie Sewell, Winchester, Ky., asked for an expression from us some time ago on the language recorded in Psalm xxxvii. 25, “I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.” The righteous are those who do right—that is what it here means. When one does right—does as God commands him—he will not be forsaken. The Lord has promised to not forsake him. His seed are his offspring who also do as the Lord requires. One will never be brought to the state of having to beg for bread because of doing as the Lord requires. “There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; [pg 129] and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty. “—Prov. xi. 24. C. H. C
ADMINISTRATION OF BAPTISM
November 7, 1935
In 1930 S. Buckingham, of Upper Sandusky, Ohio, asked us “What kind of baptism did the disciples baptize with?” We suppose he means by this question to ask if they administered water baptism. They baptized in or with water. The baptism they administered was water baptism. Jesus authorized the apostles, in what is called the commission, to administer baptism, and this could be none other than water baptism. Baptism is an ordinance of and in the church. The ordinances were delivered by the apostles to the church for admin-istration and for keeping. See 1 Cor. xi. 2.
In 1933 the same brother asked us were the prophets, evangelists and teachers mentioned in Eph. iv. 11 ordained, and did they have the care of churches, and did they baptize, and did they pass the sacrament? We are sure that the pastors had the care of churches, of course. Yes, they baptized. Paul baptized a few at Corinth, though he said, “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” The church gave him the authority to baptize, as the ordinances were in the hands of the church for keeping. Yes, they were ordained. See Acts xiii. 2 for authority for ordination. These ordained, and authorized by the church to do so, administered all the ordinances. They administered the sacramental supper as an ordinance, just as they also administered baptism as an ordinance. C. H. C.
[pg 130]
EASTER AND CHRISTMAS
November 7, 1935
In April, 1931, Elder 0. K. Sheffield, Ft. Pierce, Fla., asked for our views concerning Easter and Christmas. The word Easter is found only once in our Bible, and that is in Acts xii. 4. But the word there translated Easter is found in many other places in the Book, but is translated Easter in no other place. The word is pascha, and has reference to the passover. It means passover. It has reference to the paschal lamb, and is applied to Christ as our paschal lamb. He is our passover. The Easter observance is a Roman Catholic invention, and they set the time as having to do with full moons. Hence Easter Sunday comes on different Sundays. The Catholics established the observance of Easter Sunday in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ, and yet it is not at a fixed time. It is heathen in its origin, the Catholics borrowing it from heathenism.
The same thing is true of Christmas—it is of Roman Catholic origin. It was instituted by Constantine the Great. He brought different heathen customs with him when he professed to embrace Christianity. The Pagan idolaters, which Constantine renounced, observed mass in regard to different things. So Constantine brought “the mass” with him. So he ordered mass to be observed in commemoration of the birth of Christ; hence the name Christmas, or Christmass. He also set apart the day in winter. No one knows when Christ was born; but it was not in the winter. The shepherds were keeping watch over their flocks by night, in the fields, which they would not be doing in winter.
Personally we have nothing to do with either of those feast days. To observe and keep them is to follow Rome. C. H. C.
ELDER WEBB WITHDRAWS
November 7, 1935
In another column will be found an article from Elder Claud E. Webb withdrawing his name from our editorial staff. We regret very much for him to do this, though it may be best for the cause for him to take this step, but we fear not. For several years there has been some variance and misunderstanding between many brethren north and south. We had hoped that this might all be removed and overcome by having Elder Webb’s name on our editorial staff. We hoped that this might have a tendency to bring them all closer together. Elder Webb fears it might have a tendency otherwise.
He may be right. We do not know. Anyway, it is our desire, and the desire of Elder Webb, to do all that we can to bring all the brotherhood closer together. We ask the prayers of all the brethren and sisters, that the Lord would direct us in the way that would be best for the cause of the Master. C. H. C.
GALATIANS IV. 27
November 7, 1935
In 1930 B. N. Sullivan, now in Mississippi, asked for our views on Gal. iv. 27. It means that there are more Ishmaelites than children of promise. C. H. C.
[pg 132]
RESTORING EXCLUDED
PERSONS
November 7, 1935
We doubt very much if one church has the right to restore a person who has been excluded from a sister church, labor or no labor. True, if a church excludes a person unrighteously, sister churches have the right to labor to show the sister church her error. We truly believe this is as far as they have a right to go. We mean to say that a church has no right to restore such a one as long as the identity of the church remains that did the excluding. Such a course always widens a breach and makes it much harder for peace to be restored. A church has the God given right to say who shall not hold membership in her body. She may err in her procedure in such cases; but she should not be non- fellowship-ped because of such error. We believe such acts as an exclusion by a church should be recognized by every sister church, and by so doing much trouble would be avoided. No church or set of churches can un-church another church. This is our humble opinion on such matters. C. H. C.
SOME ADDITIONAL HISTORY
November 21, 1935
We had an article under the heading of “Valid Baptism and Some History” in the issue of January 15, 1931, which may be found on page 330 of Volume V. The same article was reproduced November 21, 1935, with the following “Additional History.” Since the above was written, and having been^ requested to republish the same, we think it might be [pg 133] of some benefit to the brotherhood and to the cause for us to add a little additional historical facts, as follows:
It appears that Little Flock Church in Killeen, Texas, was organized about the year 1848 in Bell County. The church was in Killeen in 1906. The church first joined the Lower Concord Association, with which it remained till the Lower and Upper Concord settled their trouble in October, 1880. The church was then in the constitution of the Primitive Association. In 1888 the church joined the Little Flock Association, of which it was still a member when the history was written, from which we get the facts here stated.
The Concord Association divided in 1864. In 1880 the Concord Association met with Bosque Church in August. At that meeting in August the association passed this act: “We, the association, advise the churches to meet the brethren that went off from us (in 1864) and called themselves Concord Association, by messengers at Salem Church, Coryell County, on Friday before the fourth Sunday in October, 1880.” After the division in 1864 the two contending parties were known as the “Lower Wing” and “Upper Wing” of the Concord Association. Both factions met by their messengers at Oglesby, Coryell County, in October, 1880. Both parties confessed their wrongs. Then the “Lower Wing” dissolved, after which the churches in that wing, and perhaps others, organized the Primitive Baptist Association.
The above facts are gathered from “A History of the Primitive Baptists of Texas, Oklahoma and Indian Territories; by Elder J. S. Newman;” pubhshed in 1906, by the Baptist Trumpet, at that time published at Tioga, Texas, and now published at Killeen. It seems to us [pg 134] that if two factions burying their differences and coming together, both sides confessing their wrongs, and thus adjusting matters, and each receiving the work of the other, would throw the whole thing in disorder, so that they could not administer gospel baptism, then the editors of the Trumpet are already in that disorder, and cannot themselves administer gospel baptism—for that is what the church of that editor’s membership did in 1880. Have we made an incorrect statement, brother? If so, cite us. C. H. C.
ONE TALENT MAN
November 21, 1935
If the one talent man always buries his talent, then the others always improve their talents. According to this, we do not see where any disobedience ever comes in. We have understood that God’s people frequently disobey the Lord’s commands. C. H. C.
BUILDING THE HOME CHRISTIAN December 5, 1935
The above is the title of a book published by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Mich., 142 pages; price $1.
Like most every book we have seen, it contains some, things with which we cannot agree. On page 44 we find this: “The Sunday school is the church at work, gathering the young a little more closely about, for the pur- pose of instructing them more thoroughly. Here, too, is a wonderful help, if it is properly employed.” We [pg 135] will just state here two objections to this. First, there is no authority in the Book for the church to organize a Sunday school. Another objection is that a false doctrine is almost always, if not always, taught in Sunday schools. Unregenerate persons, who know nothing of spiritual things, are often engaged in teaching the Sunday school classes. They are no more qualified to teach spiritual things than an outlaw is qualified to teach morality. It is outside of his realm.
Page 55: “The child needs to be brought into a personal saving knowledge of Christ. Until he arrives at the period of personal responsibility, he is in the kingdom, and it is only by sinning his way out that he gets outside of the kingdom.” Jesus said (literal translation), “Except anyone be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom.” “Except anyone be born of water, even Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom.”—John iii. 3, 5. The way one is brought into the natural realm is by being born into it. Just so, the way one is brought into the spiritual realm is by being born into it. One who has been born into the natural realm cannot be unborn and thereby get out of it. Even so, one who has been born into the spiritual realm cannot be unborn and thereby get out. True, a child of God may be rebellious; but that does not unborn him, or put him out of God’s family. One who has been born into a natural family may be rebellious; but that does not cause him to be unborn, or put him out of relationship with the family.
Page 56: “It is an evangelism which seeks to direct the child from a state of childhood innocency where there is no condemnation upon him because of the absence of a sense of personal guilt, to a state of [pg 136] childhood where a sense of personal sin and guilt is beginning to be experienced, but where surrender to, and faith in, Christ has brought the testimony of saving grace.” According to this, it is not sin which brings condemnation but a sense of personal guilt. It is not the personal guilt which brings condemnation, but the sense of it. If this is correct, then there could be no condemnation upon a being unless he has a personal sense of it. If he is made aware of it, then it would be so; otherwise not so. This does not seem to us to be very good logic or reasoning. It is simply an incorrect principle. Saul had no personal feeling or knowledge of guilt when persecuting the saints until the Lord, by the direct power of His own speech, made him to know his guilt. He was doing that wicked work “in all good conscience.” But he was guilty just the same; and condemnation rested upon him before he knew it. He was made acquainted with the fact after the fact existed. The knowledge of the fact did not make it a fact.
Though we have to take issue with the author on this teaching, yet there are many good things in the book. Here is a statement that is especially good, page 41: “Reverence for, and obedience to, the Bible has been one of the secrets of the greatness of the American nation, and the security of the American home, in the past. In the measure that there has been a neglect, or a reversal of this attitude, has the home been impoverished, and the nation morally and spiritually reduced.” How true this is. This book has a chapter on the text in Prov. xxii. 6, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and (even) when he is old, he will not depart from it.” It is in treating upon this text that the author brings in the Sunday school. Let us call attention to [pg 137] the fact that the obligation of training up a child is resting upon the parents of the child. The parents are not instructed to send the child to others to be “trained up.” To do that is to shift the responsibility upon others than where God has placed it. No promise in the text in that case that the child will not depart from it. The parents who follow the course of sending the child elsewhere for the training thereby become transgressors themselves. The training up of the child is required of the parents. Here is where there has been a great falling down in our nation. Parents have tried to shift the training of the children to others instead of doing the training themselves which God’s Book requires.
Page 63 is a relation of a story of a father going to sleep and his child wandering in the forest and falling over a precipice, and when the father awoke he found his dead child. This may be a good illustration of parents going to sleep, instead of being awake and doing the training of the child. The child is left to wander around in the teaching done by others. The parent may awake some day and find his child in the vortex of immorality. Better stay awake, and keep your child under your own roof and under your own personal supervision and training, and see that he is not brought under the influence of the inventions of men in the affairs of religion, gotten up under the professed object of “bringing souls to Christ.” Worldly religion and so-called Christianity has made more infidels than any other thing.
Chapter six in the book is especially good. So is chapter seven. We quote this from chapter seven, page 107: “As this manuscript is being prepared, the people of the United States are trying to find their way back to [pg 138] prosperity. Surely some of the efforts to solve the economic ills of our people have been mere gestures, while others have been absolutely false. Booze has led millions of people from prosperity into poverty, and how can a nation find its way back to prosperity drunk? When, and if, we are able to return to prosperity, it will not be because of strong drink, but despite it.” How true this is. Drink never has brought righteousness or prosperity. Instead, it brings debauchery and crime. Dram drinking makes drunkards; and drunkards make widows and orphans. It brings murder, insanity, degredation and shame. It makes paupers, and brings innocent women and children to poverty, rags and starvation. Yet we are told that moderate drinking and the selling of legalized booze will bring prosperity. We are on the downward road to ruin. Nothing but a return to the strict observance of the teaching of God’s Word, from a moral point of view, will save our nation from destruction. Lord, help us.
C. H. C.
MATTHEW IV. 16, 17
December 5, 1935
Mrs. B. Martindale, of Texas, asked our views on Matt. iv. 16, 17, in March, 1931. The text reads, “The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up. From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say. Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” If you will read beginning with verse 12, you will find that here is a fulfillment of a prophecy of Isaiah. Get your Bible and read Isaiah ix. 1, 2, in connection [pg 139] with verses 12 to 16 here, and you will find that this is the prophecy of Isaiah concerning the land of Zebulon and Nephthalim. Those lands were in darkness, but when Jesus was there light was there. Then “from that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” This shows that the time was then immediately present when the Lord was to establish His kingdom on earth. The church was set up or established during His personal ministry. He set up the kingdom, just as Daniel prophesied that He would.
C. H. C.
I. CORINTHIANS VII. 15
December 5, 1935
Brother W. T. Morrisett, Edmond, Okla., asked our views of 1 Cor. vii. 15 in March, 1931. The text reads, “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.” The apostle does not mean by this expression that a brother or a sister is not under bond of the marriage vow in such a case. If he meant that, then he contradicted the teaching of the Saviour, who plainly taught that fornication is the only cause for which one may put away a companion and marry again. In verse 11 the apostle plainly says for them to be reconciled. If one departs, then the other is not bound to follow; but they are bound under the law of God to remain in such a state as that they may be reconciled. C. H. C.
[pg 140]
GENESIS II. 15-17
December 5, 1935
Virgile Harris, Lindsay, Okla., asked for an explanation of Gen. ii. 15-17, and asked, “Does Eve’s eating of the fruit of the tree represent natural death or spiritual death?” and “Did God foreordain or know that Eve would eat of the fruit? and does it represent any free moral agency on that course of hers?”
Gen. ii. 15 says, “And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and keep it.” This plainly tells what God put the man into the garden for. He did not put the man into the garden to violate His law. This answers the question as to whether God foreordained that Eve should eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God knew what they would do; but He did not foreordain or predestinate that they should do what they did. Verse. 17 says, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” If God foreordained or predestinated that they should eat and then commanded them not to eat, it would be what would be called double dealing. God does not deal that way. Hence, He did not predestinate or foreordain that they should eat of the fruit of that tree.
As to free moral agency, we do not know what you mean by that. There is no such thing that we know anything about. It is only a term men have invented. They acted (both Adam and Eve) freely, without any compulsion from the Lord, in the violation of the law. The death was not spiritual, for they had no spiritual life to lose. They lost all moral standing with God, and the [pg 141] life they lived became poisoned and contaminated with sin.
C. H. C.
ELDER NEWMAN GONE
December 19, 1935
On Tuesday, December 3, just as we were ready to go to press with the last issue of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, we received the sad news of the death of our dear brother, Elder J. S. Newman, who passed away on Friday morning, November 29. It was sad news to us, and we are sure it was sad news to many—yes, a great many, of the Lord’s dear children. A great and good man is gone. He endured much and bore much for the cause that we all love. He has been maligned and persecuted, but he bore it without murmuring or complaining. He went on faithfully declaring the truth, and was able and bold in defense of the truth, even in face to face combat with men of standing and learning in the world. He was a strong man in public debate, and has routed many champions of error in public discussions. Our cause has lost much in the passing of Joseph Sylvester Newman. We grieve for him. Lord, help us to be submissive. We knew that he was growing old, and that he could not stay here many more years; yet we were not prepared for the stroke. He remained active in the service until the end. He returned home from a trip in the service on Monday before his passing on Friday. He traveled and preached and engaged in debates in many states. We will hear his voice no more on earth. He has been on the editorial staff of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST most of the time for many years. He has sent us [pg 142] many subscribers. He has written much for our col- umns. His work will be missed. He was a great historian. Perhaps we do not have a man in our ranks now who is better read in church history than he was. May the good Lord bless and sustain the bereaved, is our humble prayer; and may He give us more such true and devoted and faithful men to fill up the ranks.
C. H. C.
JEREMIAH 11. 13
December 19, 1935
In April, 1931, J. D. Rinehart, Rienzi, Miss., asked for our views on Jeremiah ii. 13, which reads, “For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.” The Lord said His people had done these things. They forsook the Lord; they departed from His teachings. They forsook His commandments. This is certainly a great evil—for His people to forsake Him. His tender mercies had been extended to them; His rich blessings had been showered upon them; and they forsook Him. As did Israel in ancient times, so do many of His children in this present age of the world. Not only did they forsake the Lord, but they hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns. The Lord was a fountain of living waters. A fountain never runs dry. A fountain is self-sustaining. It needs no outside power or force to sustain it. It is continually springing up, and flows on without cessation. It never ceases to flow. But a cistern must be supplied from an outside source. Then it will go dry; [pg 143] but a broken cistern will not hold water at all. The water is all wasted that may be put into it. How different from a fountain! Yet, God’s people often turn from the living streams and from the fountain,, and will hew out for themselves broken cisterns that can hold no water. The things they turn to can give them no benefit whatever. To turn from the true service of God is to forsake the fountain of living waters, where there is joy and peace and blessed consolation, and the soul can drink of that water that comes from heaven, and have the spiritual thirst assuaged and quenched. Then to turn to the inventions of men, and engage in the things in pretended service of God which men have invented, is to hew out broken cisterns that can hold no water. It is a great evil thus to do. May the good Lord help us all to let the cisterns severely alone and to be faithful to Him and to His cause and to His service. C. H. C.
CLOSE OF VOLUME L
December 19, 1935
With this issue we close volume fifty of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, and once more it falls to our lot to write a little article in closing the volume. We have now rounded out the half century mark in the publication of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. Fifty volumes of the publica tion are completed with this issue. During these fifty years many changes have taken place. Many friends have come and gone. How many of those who were the old folks then are on the stage of action now? Those who are living and old now were the young ones then. [pg 144] We doubt if we have a single subscriber on our list now who was a subscriber when the first issue of this paper was printed and sent out fifty years ago. If there is one, we would be glad that person would write to us. Is there one on the list who has been a subscriber during all these fifty years?
While there have been many changes, yet the principles of the doctrine of grace are the same now that they have ever been. Principles are eternal and never change. Many have forsaken those principles; but the principles are the same. Men have despised and endeavored to overthrow and destroy the doctrine of God our Saviour; but it remains the same unvarnished and untarnished truth. Truth may be crushed to earth, but it will rise again, and will continue to shine in effulgent glory throughout all ages.
We have tried to contend earnestly for the principles of God’s eternal truth, not only during this year of our Lord, 1935, but all along the line. We do not believe that any person on earth can present any article we have ever written that will contradict any other article we have written. We do not feel to deserve any praise for this. We have only tried to stand on the principles of truth all along; and we very well know that truth does not contradict itself. Truth always harmonizes with itself. We are free to confess that we have made mistakes. It is human to err, and we are only human —just a poor sinner. We trust that we are a saved sinner—a sinner saved by the grace of God. Our only hope of rest when the toils of this life are over is in the free and sovereign and unmerited grace of a crucified and risen Redeemer. Our only hope of a better place beyond this life is in the mercy and grace and love of God.
[pg 145] We have believed that the Old Baptists would do their best to maintain and support a publication which stands without fear or favor for the principles upon which the church has stood through all the ages of the past, since our Lord organized His kingdom during His personal ministry while here on earth. That kingdom, or church, we are sure is the Primitive Baptist Church. It is here to stay. He put it on earth to stay until He comes back to earth again in person. He is coming back to gather His jewels home. And when He comes. He will take them all to heaven, in body, to live with Him in eternal glory. He will raise the bodies of all His sleeping saints, and will change them from natural to spiritual. The bodies will then be spiritual bodies. No more suffering or sorrow then. No more darkness; no more distress; no more tears of sorrow to be shed then. No more troubles and sad divisions then. Is such peace and joy ours to have in the sweet by and by? We are hoping for this, if we are not deceived.
We beg the Lord still for His mercies, and that He will forgive all our mistakes and the wrongs which we have committed, and to help us to continue to strive for the better things while we are permitted to stay on earth. If we have done anything which wounded the feelings of any of the Lord’s little children, it was unintentional on our part, and we humbly beg their forgiveness. Do not cast us aside because we have not always done as you think we should have done; but please bear with our many imperfections, and help us to strive for better things. May the richest blessings of heaven rest upon each one of you, is our humble prayer. The next issue of the [pg 146] paper will be dated January 2, 1936. Farewell in the Lord. Please remember us in your prayers. C. H. C.
INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME LI
January 2, 1936
Once more it falls to our lot to try to write a few lines by way of introduction to another volume of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. This time it is volume fifty-one. Now, what shall we say? We feel to be at an utter loss as to what we should say, or how we should say it. If we knew how, we would just try to re-consecrate ourselves anew to the service of God and to the service of His people.
It is still our desire to continue the publication of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST in defense of the same principles for which it has contended through all the past fifty years. We are sure that the same principles have been advocated and set forth in the columns of this paper from the beginning of its publication by our sainted father. The principles of truth are the same now that they were then, and they were the same then that they were during the personal ministry of the blessed Saviour while He was here on earth. If we are not deceived in our poor heart, we love those principles, and it is our sincere desire to continue to advocate and contend for them. We desire to do this in the right way. We desire to advocate the truth in love.
It is our desire to be faithful and true to the Master and to His blessed cause. We are well aware of the fact that in doing this we will incur the displeasure of some. One reason why we are aware of this fact is [pg 147] that we have incurred the displeasure of some in the past. We are sorry to incur the displeasure of any of the Lord’s children; but we must confess that we would rather displease them than to displease our loving Saviour. Some have not been pleased, and have censured us, because we would speak out plainly and sound a warning at approaching danger. We could not do otherwise and be true to our Lord. Why will brethren censure us and become offended at us because we give the warning when we see such things ? We regret that brethren have done this, but we do not regret trying to be true to our Master.
We may not have many more days to spend on earth. Our labors may be almost done. We have no more knowledge of the future than we had one year ago, and we could not look into the future then. The only way we can judge the future is by the past. While we do not know how much longer the Lord may spare us to stay in this old world, or how much longer we may have to labor in the Master’s cause here in the world, we are aware of the fact that there are troubles and trials to be met and encountered while we do live. “In every city 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 xx. 23, 24.
It is our desire to shun no part of the truth. To shun any part of the truth is to be unfaithful to the trust. It is our desire to earnestly contend for the things that make for peace in the Lord’s kingdom—the Old Baptist Church. The truth—what the Bible teaches—does not [pg 148] divide the Old Baptists. If every minister in the ranks of the Primitive Baptist Church would “behave himself” in the house of God, and live as the Bible teaches that he should live, and advocate nothing only what the Bible plainly teaches, we would have less trouble in the church. There would not be so many factions and divisions. We humbly pray the Lord to give us faithful and true men, men who are open and frank, and such men as that we may know where to find them and where to place them—men who are not deceivers. We need such men, and we need more of them. Let us pray the Lord to send them. May the good Lord help us, and sustain us by His grace.
In conclusion, we humbly ask an interest in the prayers of our readers. And will you help us to conduct THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST in such a way as that it may be for the comfort and benefit of the Lord’s dear children, and the advancement of His blessed cause? C. H. C.
OUR SPECIAL OFFER
January 2, 1936
From time to time during the past we have been making some special offer for subscriptions. One time we sent out a circular letter to persons who had been taking the paper, but whose names had been dropped— many of them having written us that they just did not have the money to pay for the paper. . That circular letter asked them to send just what amount they could, and that we would send them the paper for a year. We remember now one poor widowed sister sent us a dime
[pg 149] in answer to that circular. We sent her the paper for a whole year for that dime. We have made these special offers for the sole reason that we did not want one of the Lord’s dear children to be deprived of reading THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST on account of poverty or misfortune. We were willing and glad to bear the expense and the loss of sending the paper to them in order to try to be of benefit and comfort to the Lord’s humble poor. It was our desire to do all we possibly could for their benefit and for their help and for the benefit of the cause of our heavenly Master.
We find that we have frequently been imposed upon and wrongly treated on account of the special offers which we have made. This may have been unthoughtedly done by some who have thus injured us. Some have even used some of the propositions, or spoken of them, in such a way as to discourage others and to cause them to not subscribe for the paper. We do not understand why they would do this, as it could not possibly be of any benefit to the one who would thus do. But it has been done. In doing this, they have unwittingly done some injury to the cause—if it is a benefit to the cause for the Lord’s little children to read our paper and to have the benefit of the letters of comfort and instruction that go out in its columns every issue. They have hurt the cause and been of more hurt to those poor children of God thus deprived of the privilege and benefit of reading the paper than they have hurt us. Every paper we have sent out on the reduced prices has been sent out at a financial loss. We do not publish the paper for the purpose of making money. All we have ever tried to make is just a living for our family. We have not tried to lay up any estate for them, and do not [pg 150] expect to do so. We have tried to be and do as the apostle admonished, “Having food and raiment, be therewith content.” We have done without luxuries and even many necessities trying to do all in our power to send comfort and encouragement out for the Lord’s dear children.
If we know our own poor heart we love the Lord’s dear children, and we love the Master’s blessed cause. His service has been our meat and drink for many years. We now realize that our race is nearly run. We do not regret one single sacrifice we have made. We do not regret the spending of a single penny we have used in trying to get some comfort and encouragement to one of the Lord’s little ones. We only trust that when we shall have reached the end of the way we may be able to say with the eminent apostle, “I have fought a good fight; I have kept the faith.”
But, considering the facts as here stated, that some have used these special offers in a wrong way, we have finally come to the conclusion that it is best for us to not make any more offers of a reduced subscription price after the present offer, as appears elsewhere in this paper, is withdrawn. We cannot afford to publish the paper at a lower price than $1.50 a year, under present conditions. We furnish more reading matter, for the money, at that price than any other religious paper published. We are thus doing all that we can do, without people using these special propositions to make it appear that we could afford to publish the paper at such a ridiculously low price. It seems that if the paper were published free, some would expect to be paid something to get them to take the paper then.
When this special proposition is withdrawn, you need [pg 151] hot look for any more offers of a reduction in the price of the paper. Now is your last opportunity to get the benefit of such an offer. We have no idea now that we will ever make such a proposition again.
Once again we ask the prayers of our dear brethren and sisters. Pray the Lord to direct us in the right way, and to give us Christian courage and fortitude to walk in that way, and to sustain us by His grace, and enable us to bear all the trials which we may encounter during the few remaining days we have here on earth. May His blessings be showered upon each one of you, is our humble prayer.
C. H. C.
HOLIDAY REMEMBRANCES
January 2, 1936
We would be glad to write a personal letter or card to each one who remembered us during the holidays, but we cannot do so. We appreciate every expression of love and fellowship and friendship which we received, and we received a great many. It fills our poor heart with gratitude and thankfulness to God that we have so many true and faithful and loyal friends. We do not know how we could get along in this old world without friends, faithful and true, and brethren and sisters in the Lord. We do not feel worthy of their love and fellowship and friendship and esteem; but we love them all and appreciate them. May the Lord’s richest blessings rest upon each one of you, is our humble prayer. Let each one take this as a personal note of friendship and appreciation. Words cannot be found by us to fully convey to you our appreciation of your kind [pg 152] remembrances. With love to all, we remain, yours in love and fellowship,
C. H. C.
MATTHEW V. 40
AND I. CORINTHIANS VL 1
January 2, 1936
We have been requested to give our views on Matt. v. 40 and 1 Cor. vi. 1. The verse in Matthew reads: “And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.” The teaching of the Saviour in this language is that if one should take from you your coat by force or by unjust means, let him have your cloak also. His humble followers should rather suffer wrong than to do wrong. The expression, “sue thee at the law,” implies force or violence. Better let one have the coat and the cloak also rather than engage in force and violence. Turn and read beginning with verse 38, and you will see that violence is the matter under consideration.
In 1 Cor. vi. 1 the apostle says, “Dare any of you, having a matter against a brother, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?” Get your book and read on down to and including verse 8. The apostle here most positively and plainly condemns such a thing as a brother going to law with a brother. It is here described as a shame. It has always been contrary to and against the rules of the Primitive Baptist Church for any brother to go to law with another brother without the consent of the church. The rule, then, evidently has in it the idea that every other means of settlement should be availed of and used before taking such [pg 153] matters into the courts of the land—and not even then until permission is had from the church. When any brother takes a matter into the civil courts against another brother, he has flagrantly violated the teaching of the apostle in this text and the connecting verses, and has gone in direct opposition to what has always been the rules of the Primitive Baptists. We suppose this is enough for us to say on this line.
C. H. C.
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?
January 2, 1936
A brother has asked US this question: “What should be done in the case where the church ordains a man to preach and he does not preach, but his life is upright?”
Well, in the first place a church has no right nor authority to ordain a man to preach unless he does preach. The church cannot make a preacher by ordaining him. Some people seem to think the one and only thing necessary to make a preacher is for the church to ordain him. Ordination does not make a preacher. It only sets a man apart to the work whereunto God has called him—if God has called him to the work. If God has not called him, ordination does not help him any, nor does it help the church. Instead of helping the church, it is an injury to the church and to the cause. It is an effort to put a man into a place where God does not require him to be. God has not made a place for him there, and he will not fit that place. It is an effort to have him stand in some other place than his own. God’s requirement is for every man to stand in his own place round about the camp. When you thus put a man [pg 154] in the wrong place by ordination, you are going in flagrant disobedience to the command of God, and you are sure to suffer the consequences. You not only do yourself and the church and the cause of the Master an injury, but likely to do an injury to the man thus ordained. You may make him think God has called him to the work of the ministry, when He has not, and thus you deceive him; and this may cause him to desire to stand in a place other than his own place.
If and when a church makes such a mistake as this, it is her indispensable duty to confess her error, confess the mistake, and ask for the return to her of the man’s credentials, and withdraw from him the liberty of using the authority the church gave him when she tried to make a preacher of him by ordination. Not every man can preach whose walk is upright. No man can preach the gospel of the Son of God, in the spirit of the gospel, unless God has called him to the work, and bestowed the gift upon him. If a man is “running for preacher,” it is usually pretty good evidence that he is mistaken in his thoughts. C. H. C.
W. T. STEGALL
January 16, 1936
We have before us a little paper called Baptist Examiner, published at Ashland, Ky., bearing the name of W. T. Stegall as associate editor. We suppose this is the same Stegall whose post-office was Pontotoc, Miss., and who once had membership with a Primitive Baptist Church somewhere in that part of Mississippi. He was excluded from the Primitive Baptists. We think Elder [pg 155] J. W. Hardwick was pastor of the church. In two of these papers we have before us are articles by Elder Stegall. He makes a challenge to our people, whom he is pleased to call “Hardshells.” His whole effort is to prove that no one is saved unless that one has faith in Christ. His contention is that no one can be saved without hearing and believing the gospel. He bases his whole contention on Romans x. 14-18. He contends that one must believe in Christ, or have faith in Christ, in order to be born again, or in order to be saved. This is the doctrine he was advocating when the Primitive Baptists excluded him.
Let us try his contention a little. First, we will quote the language of the apostle, upon which Elder Stegall places so much stress to prove his contention. We begin with verse 13: “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gos- pel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith. Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith Cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”— Rom. X. 13-17. If Elder Stegall’s contention be true that one must believe in Christ, or believe on the Lord in order to be born again, or in order to be saved, it is also true that one must also call on the Lord in order to be born again; for the apostle says, “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” It is just as necessary for one to call on the name of the Lord in [pg 156] order to the saving under consideration by the apostle here as it is for him to believe. The saving the apostle is here considering does not come until one calls on the name of the Lord; and no one calls until after he believes. This is true in the sense of the apostle’s teaching here, or the lesson he is teaching. So, Elder Stegall needs to tack on another condition for the sinner to perform in order to be regenerated.
Elder Stegall makes the word of God in verse 17 the written or preached word. This is not correct. The Greek word is ramah, and means the speech of God. The faith the apostle is here treating of comes by hearing. But how does hearing come? How does one get the ability to hear? The unregenerate do not have that ability. In speaking to unregenerate sinners Jesus said, “Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.”—John viii. 47. Such persons who are not of God do not hear (understand) God’s words; they cannot hear, and therefore cannot understand. “How can ye believe, which receive honor one of another?”—John v. 44. This is a stronger way of saying that persons in such a condition cannot believe, and it is the language of Jesus. If they must believe in order to be regenerated, and the Son of God told the truth, then it is impossible for an unregenerated sinner to ever be regenerated.
How does one receive the ability to hear, or how does hearing come? It comes by the power of God’s speech. God speaks, by the power of His Holy Spirit, to the dead faculties of the soul, and thus He imparts life to the sinner who was, before that, dead in trespasses and sin. In the same way that the Father will raise the dead in the resurrection at the last day, even so the Saviour [pg 157] raises poor sinners now from a state of death in sin to a state of life in Christ. See John v. 25 and 28. Does Elder Stegall expect the Father to send him out on the morning of the resurrection to preach to those who are in their graves, in order that they be resurrected from that dead state? If the Father will not do that, then neither does He send Elder Stegall, or any other preacher, to preach to unregenerate sinners in order that they be raised out of that state of death into a state of life in Christ.
It is the voice of the Son of God that raises out of death into life; it is not the voice of Parson Stegall, or any other Softshell preacher, or any other man or preacher. Being raised out of death into life is the how that hearing comes. They then have the ability, the power, to hear the preacher, and to believe the gospel of Christ, the good news of salvation by the power of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. The gospel message is a spiritual message. One can no more hear a spiritual message without first having spiritual life, than he can hear a natural message without first having natural life.
Parson Stegall’s doctrine will exclude every infant from the portals of glory who dies in a state of infancy. He would necessarily leave them out, or else he must say that the hour-old infant is capable’of believing what he preaches. If one must believe what he preaches in order to be regenerated,, then the infant dying at one hour of age would be eternally damned, unless that infant could hear and believe the preaching of Parson Stegall. Or, will he say that God has another plan for the infants, different from that of the mature and sane adult?
[pg 158] Parson Stegall is simply advocating the same blasphemous heresy that was invented by Rome and has been advocated by her and her kinsfolk all along the line. It is contrary to God’s Word, and is not the original Baptist teaching or doctrine. Rome invented it, and from that doctrine sprang her inventions in missions and machinery for the conversion and salvation of the world. It is the teaching of Romanism. C. H. C.
FROM BELSHAZZER
TO ROOSEVELT
January 16, 1936
The above is the title of a book published by the Rail Splitter Press, Milan, 111. It is the last production of William Lloyd Clark, who spent many years of his life as a publisher and lecturer. He was editor of the Rail Splitter, which paper was, and is, devoted to exposing Roman Catholicism. He was a man who spoke against Romanism, without fear or favor. This book, his last production, contains 207 pages, good clear type. He has not “minced” words in this book. No matter what your political preferences are, this book is worth your reading, and the facts stated and proven are worth considering. If you will but give the work a careful reading, and at the same time endeavor to make the application of things found in the Book of books, it might be worth your while. You may not agree with the author in all that he says, but you may get something worth while. The price is reduced to $1. Send your order to the Rail Splitter, Milan, 111.
C. H. C.
RADIO SERMON
February 6, 1936
A few nights ago we listened to a sermon over the radio. We did not get the name of the speaker. If we correctly understood the announcement, the broadcast came from some other church by a hookup through Frank Norris’ church in Fort Worth. The preacher was strongly urging the unregenerate to get right with God, and to get saved before it is everlastingly too late. He told a number of things which might happen to one who is unsaved so that his salvation would be utterly impossible—it would be everlastingly too late for him to ever be saved. One thing he told his listeners that would make it absolutely impossible for them to ever be saved was that they might lose their right mind; they might become insane; their reason might be dethroned. And he said, “When reason is dethroned your opportunity for heaven is gone.”
We do not know what denomination this man is identified with, nor do we know his name. We failed to get his name. But as we understood he came through the church of Frank Norris, we suppose he is of the Missionary Baptist or Fullerite persuasion. He is not a Primitive Baptist—of this we are fully aware. But from his discourse and statement we get the idea that he holds that God cannot save an insane person; God cannot save a person whose reason is dethroned. What , a poor idea this man has of the God of the Bible; the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob; the God of Israel.
We thought of the two who were possessed of devils that we read about in Matt. viii. 28, And when He was [pg 160] come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met Him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass that way.” Here were two persons who were so fierce and so insane that “no man might pass that way.” Here were two fellows that no preacher could get to. The preacher could not get to them by radio in that day. They had no radios then. They were in a deplorable state—so deplorable that they could not be reached by the preachers or any of the devices of men. And according to what the preacher said over the radio, the Lord Himself could not save them. Their reason was dethroned, and their opportunity for heaven was forever gone. It is true that so far as the efforts of men are concerned they had no opportunity for heaven. So far as the works and efforts of men are concerned, no man would have any opportunity for heaven. “With men this is impossible.” With men it is impossible to be saved. “But with God all things are possible.” It is not impossible with God for men to be saved.
While, with these two lunatics, “no man might pass that way,” yet the Lord was equal to the occasion. Jesus passed that way. He did not do so accidentally. He passed that way on purpose. He always did His work on purpose. He intends to do what He does before He does it. He intended to pass that way. He had a work to do there which men could not do. It was a work that the preacher could not do. “No man,” not even the preacher, “might pass that way.” But they were not beyond the reach of the Lord. Though they were in such a deplorable condition, and they were so wild that “no man might pass that way,” yet their “opportunity for heaven” was not “forever gone.” The [pg 161] God of the Bible is able to save the idot; He is able to save the poor beggar; He is able to save the poor heathen; he is able to save the infant, even the youngest; He is able to save the old man, the young man, the old woman, the young woman; He is able to save in every age and in every clime; He is able to save in every station and every condition of life, even to the uttermost parts of the earth— in all the habitable parts of the world. If God could not save the poor heathen, the condition of that poor preacher we heard talking over the radio would be deplorable indeed.
What ignorance displayed over the radio! But such rot suits the world, and they pay a big price for it. The truth does not suit their taste. Lord, pity such ignorance. C. H. C.
POOL HALLS
February 6, 1936
We have been asked what we think about a member of a Primitive Baptist Church playing pool, or having anything to do with the running of a pool hall. Well, we do not think it very becoming in a professed follower of the Lord to engage in pool playing, or to fre- quent pool halls. Neither do we think they should own or operate one, or have one operated. It has an appearance of evil. In our young days pool rooms were almost always run in connection with saloons. Such places were not considered as the best in those days. The influence is not good. The world expects better of the Old Baptists than they do of other people, and we should not disappoint them. The members of the [pg 162] Lord’s kingdom are instructed to “abstain from every appearance of evil,” and we should strive to do that C. H. C.
JOHN XIIL 14, 15 AND 17
February 6, 1936
In October, 1931, Brother J. H. Hamrick, Unadilla, Ga., asked us to give our understanding of the signification of the words ought and should in John xiii. 14, 15, and to explain what things are referred to in verse 17. Turn and read the verses. We will not take space to copy them here.
The word ought means to be bound in duty or by moral obligation. The word should has almost the same meaning as there used. It is given in Webster as a synonym of ought—that is, the words may frequently be used as synonymous, or as meaning the same thing. They both express obligation. Ought commonly suggests duty or moral constraint. Should usually expresses the obligation of fitness, propriety, expediency and the like.
In verse 17 the things meant are the things the Lord commands or requires. “If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.” That is, if you know and do the things the Lord commands and has commanded, happiness follows as a result. Happiness is here promised to those who do the things the Lord requires of them. Read James i. 25 in connection with this. C. H. C.
FIRST BAPTISTS IN MISSISSIPPI
February 20, 1936
We have before us a copy of the Baptist and Commoner, edited by Ben M. Bogard, of Little Rock, dated January 27, 1936. This seems to be a special Mississippi edition of that paper. On page 3 there appears some history of the early Mississippi Baptists, by Elder E. C. Gillentine, of Laurel, Miss. The author tries hard to make it appear that those early Baptists of Mississippi were identical with the present day anti-Board Missionaries—the Bogard stripe of Missionaries. The writer states the matter correctly that those early Baptists did not affiliate with boards and conventions. There were none to affiliate with. He states correctly that the first Baptist Church constituted was called Cole Creek, and was near Natchez, Miss. He states that the first association was the Mississippi Association, organized in 1807, which is also correct. But he took particular pains not to tell the readers the doctrine that the association stood upon in its organization. We find by consulting Griffin’s History of the Mississippi Baptists that this church was called Salem, and was located on Cole’s Creek, in Jefferson County. Elder Gillentine says the church was later called Salem. This history by Griffin was published in 1853—eighty-three years ago. Pretty old book. On page 74 we find the following language:
It will be necessary, here, to take some notice of Dr. James Mullen, a Baptist preacher, who moved into the territory about 1797. The Doctor preached and contended for the general atonement system, which was so contrary to regular Baptist doctrine, and the articles of faith, on which the Baptist churches in the territory had been constituted, that he was unable to obtain membership. He, however, succeeded in drawing away from the churches some [pg 163] followers. But, after an unavailing effort for several years, not being able to realize his expectations, he left the territory, without ever constituting his adherents into a church.
How did our author (Griffin) know about this matter? Was it hearsay with him? Let us see about that. On page 75 he says:
The foregoing information was obtained principally from the writings of Joseph Erwin, who was born in Rowan county, N. C, in 1774, and emigrated to the vicinity of Natchez, in 1783. He was a member of the first Baptist Church ever constituted in the Mississippi territory, and was a delegate for forming the first associa- tion. He has been a member ever since, and is now living in Holmes county, and enjoying as good health as is usual for his age.
What information do we gain from this? Here was an eye witness that a preacher who advocated the doctrine of a general atonement could not get membership in this first church that was organized on Cole’s Creek, near Natchez, Miss., in 1794. Joseph Erwin moved to that country from North Carolina in 1783, eleven years before that first church was organized or constituted. A man preaching the doctrine of universal atonement could not get membership with that first Baptist Church, organized in the state, or the other churches which were soon after that also constituted in that territory. Who ever heard of such a thing as a man not being able to get membership with these modern so-called Baptists because he preached the doctrine of a general atone- ment? That general atonement doctrine among the regular order of Baptists was an invention of Fuller, Carey & Co. But this man could not get membership in these old churches of that day and section because he advocated that doctrine. We wonder why Elder [pg 165] Gillentine did not tell his readers about this? If he knew about it, he knew it would not do to tell it. That would disprove the very thing he wanted the reader to believe was the truth.
Joseph Erwin was still living, at the age of 79 years, when Griffin’s History was published. Griffin had a living witness to the truth. Those early Mississippi Baptists were not modern Softshells.
But here is something more from the pen of Joseph Erwin, written in 1839. On page 76 he says:
Well, another Babel or Castle built in the air, was the Mississippi Baptist State Convention; when and where all the churches belonging to the different associations must annually send up their delegates, with their pecuniary remittances to support theological schools, for the purpose of educating young men in and for the ministry.
After the same had progressed a little, and got so it looked like it might stand on its legs, its features and forms could be more minutely discovered. And then the old Regulars, or some of them, did not like its shapes. They saw the impropriety of such a line of conduct —that it was not congenial with or to the gospel plan— believing that God called and qualified His ministers for and to the work. And now down comes the building to the ground, because it could not live without money. The Old School boys being now twice bit, began to be a little more on their guard, and to stand aloof to things which they did not understand.
Well, from some part of the state in pours the general atonement doctrine, with its multifarious doctrines, that Christ tasted death for every man equally alike, that all mankind are in a salvable state. The old Regulars opposed that doctrine strenuously, believing it to be false when weighed in the balance of the sanctuary.
The Missionary System with all its multifarious train, were pressed upon the churches. But the old Regulars cannot submit to such measures, not believing them to be apostolic. My remarks turn particularly on the above mentioned associations. There are others of recent date, where the isms prevail abundantly, with their gigantic strides.
[pg 166] The Primitive Baptist Association to which I belong has closed her doors against the above train of speculative notions, or moneyed institutions of the day; and I hope the day is not far distant, when all God’s children will listen with attention to that solemn and pathetic invitation, “Come out of her, my people.”
Here we have it plainly that these original Baptists of Mississippi would not have the doctrine that these modern Softshells advocate. Are these “Blowhard” Softshells the same as those old Baptists of Mississippi? They are no more alike than swamp mud is like pure gold or a diamond.
Yes, the Mississippi Association was organized in 1807 —the first Baptist Association organized in the State. Joseph Erwin was a member of the first Baptist Church organized in the State and was a delegate for forming this first Baptist Association organized in the State in 1807. We already have from his pen above that these Baptists would not have the doctrine these modern Softshells now advocate. That doctrine was advocated by a man who came among them at that early date, but he could not get membership in any of the churches. But what was the doctrine upon which this old association was organized or constituted? The fourth article of their faith reads as follows:
We believe in the everlasting love of God to His people; in the eternal unconditional election of a definite number of the human family to grace and glory.
How does that article of faith agree with these modern money-hunters? Do they preach that doctrine? Do they preach anything that even sounds like it? No; a thousand times, no. They ridicule and vilify and slander the Primitive Baptists today because they do preach the sentiment and the doctrine contained in and set
[pg 167] forth by that article of faith. The Primitive Baptists stand today upon that same eternal truth. The Missionary so-called Baptists will assert that if that doctrine is the truth it bids a premium on sin and makes God meaner than the devil. But let us have another article of the faith of these old Baptists. Article 6 reads:
We believe all those who were chosen in Christ, before the foundation of the world, are in time effectually called, regenerated, converted and sanctified; and are kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation.
These modern Softshells tell us that this doctrine that God chose persons or people in Christ before the foundation of the world is heresy; that it makes God unjust; that it does not give everybody a chance; that it makes God meaner than the devil. Shame on a people who will so denounce the doctrine those old Baptists advocated, and then have the brass and the gall to try to make it appear to the readers in this day that they are the same people! You need not say that these modern Softshells have not so denounced this doctrine. We have it in black and white from their own papers.
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron.”—1 Tim. v. 1, 2. “And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of [pg 168] her delicacies. And I heard another voice from heaven, saying. Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. “—Rev. xviii. 2-4. May the good Lord help His little children to see the truth and to come out from error. C. H. C.
FIVE SMOOTH STONES
February 20, 1936
In June, 1933, Brother M. R. Kuykendall, of Fulton, Miss., asked what we think the five smooth stones represent, which David took from the brook when he went to meet Goliath in battle. We think they represented the five fundamental principles of the doctrine of God our Saviour—eternal, personal, and unconditional election and predestination to salvation of all who will ever be saved; special atonement; direct and immediate and effectual work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration; final preservation of all the saints in grace to glory; and the final resurrection of the dead at the last day. In combating error one needs to keep and have all these truths together; he may not use them all, but he needs to keep them all in mind. David did not use all of them on Goliath; he used only one, but he had all of the truth. This is the way we have thought to apply this, though we may be wrong about it.
C. H. C.
I. CORINTHIANS XI. 19
February 20, 1936
We have received a request twice, quite a while ago, from Brother J. T. Monfort, then of Buena Vista, Ga., now of Columbia, Ga., for our views of 1 Corinthians xi. 19, which reads, “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” This text has been used to endeavor to prove that God determined or predestinated that there should be heresies introduced and advocated among them in order that His true disciples be made manifest. This is not the teaching of the apostle at all in this text, nor does he teach that idea in any other place. The true and correct meaning of the word translated heresies in this text is strictly a choice or option; hence, a sect, faction; by implication, discord, contention. See Bagster’s Analytical Greek Lexicon. There is no better authority on the definition of the words used by the inspired writers in the original language. Now, the question arises why must there be a choice or option, a sect or faction, or discord or contention among them? Read the preceding and some of the following verses and you will see that there had been and were departures from the true teaching of the Lord, especially in regard to the Lord’s Supper. Some true followers of the Lord must oppose all departures. The introduction of departures in the Lord’s kingdom, either in doctrine or practice, must always result in discord and contention, and hence result in divisions and factions. C. H. C.
[pg 170]
II. KINGS XX. 1-7 AND JOB XIV. 5
February 20, 1936
In July, 1933, Brother R. A. Ford, of Harrisburg, Ark., asked us to harmonize 2 Kings xx. 1-7 with Job xiv. 5. The text in Kings reads, “In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amos came to him, and said unto him. Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live. Then he turned his face to the wall, and prayed unto the Lord, saying, I beseech thee, 0 Lord, remember now how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight. And Hezekiah wept sore. And it came to pass, afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying, Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people. Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the Lord. And I will add unto thy days fifteen years; and I will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria: and I will defend this city for mine own sake, and for my servant David’s sake. And Isaiah said. Take a lump of figs. And they took and laid it on the boil, and he recovered.” The text in Job reads, “Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass.” This expression of Job cannot be construed to mean that each man has just so many days to live on earth, because the Lord has determined that each man shall live just so many days, and no more. That construction upon that language [pg 171] could not be harmonized, as we see it, with the language above in Kings regarding Hezekiah. But man’s days are numbered in the sense that the bounds are set so that man cannot pass over the bounds. Let us read, just here, David’s language in Psalm xc. 10 (90:10), “The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.” Here we have it that “the days of our years are threescore and ten.” This does not mean that no man can live longer than that, or that no man does live longer than that. Not many do live longer than that. We may say that is the average old age. But some live to be a number of years older. We received a note recently from Elder John M. Thompson, Tipton, Ind., a man who is much loved among our people, that he was 91 years old last September. By reason of strength, which the Lord mercifully gave him, he has lived twenty-one years more than the average old age already.
So the Lord gave strength to Hezekiah, and healed him, and his days were prolonged. Without the Lord’s intervention, and healing, and giving strength, he would not have recovered. Sometimes we have seen people so low in sickness that no one could see how in the world they could ever recover, and yet they did. The Lord in mercy intervened, gave strength. But the old human machine will wear out and finally go to the grave. But the Lord knows where the bodies of His saints lie, and the Lord Jesus will come back to earth again some day for them, and He will raise them and change them and make them immortal, and they will see Him as He is and be like Him. We are hoping for that. C. H. C.
[pg 172]
ELDER STEGALL HEARD FROM
March 5, 1936
In our issue of January 16 we commented on an article in the Baptist Examiner from Elder W. T. Stegall. The elder seems to be somewhat ruffled at our comments, or at us. We have a letter from him in regard to it. The following is his letter in full just as he wrote it:
Pontotoc, Miss., Route 1, Box 60,
Feb. 9, 1936.
Dear Brother Casey: I did not know, until last Thursday, through a letter, forwarded to me, from J. H. Keaton, Huntington, W. Va., of, to say the least of it, your seemingly unkind sarcastic attack on me on the front page of “THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST” of Jan., 16, 1936. I went to Pontotoc (8 miles from my home) yesterday, and borrowed a copy of it, from a sister up there. On consulting with some fine Old Baptists up there about it, who know that your attack on me therein is false, and a misrepresentation of what I have been preaching and writing; suggested that I first write you, and give you an opportunity to correct it in “THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST,” which it seems to me you ought to be willing to do, before I replied to you in the “Baptist Examiner. So as there is sometimes so much room for misunderstanding, I have taken the time, and gone to the trouble and taken special pains, to copy an extract from an essay that I have recently written, which I hope to have published in tract form, entitled: “The Absolute Sovereignty of God’s Holy Will and Abject Bondage of Man’s Carnal Will Versus Free Moral Agency and Accountability of Man in or as to His Own Eternal Salvation or Damnation, “also an extract from a letter I wrote to Eld. Lytle Burns, 406 Viola St., Florence, Ala. dated Jan., 30, 1936, which, it seems to me, ought to show you clearly, that I do not believe that an unregenerate sinner has to hear the gospel of Christ and believe it, in order to induce God to born him again, and that I do not believe at all in conditional salva- tion. All of my writings, fairly construed, certainly prove beyond a doubt that your accusations against me in said attack, are false, and a misrepresentation. If you have been informed by anyone that they are true, they have simply falsified to you. I feel sure [pg 173] that Elders J. D. Holder and J. W. Hardwick, will not affirm that they ever heard me preach conditional salvation on the part of the unregenerate sinner. If you wish to know the facts, if you do not already know them, read my articles that have been published in The Messenger of Zion and The Advocate and Messenger. Elders N. T. Easley of Stewart, Miss, and J. M. Palmertree of Walnut Grove, Miss., two of the oldest ministers among Old School Baptists and great and good men, who sincerely desire in their hearts, to be fair and just, will, I feel sure, tell you, or write you, if asked, that I never in their presence preached, or argued any such heresy as you accuse me of. I denounce it as a falsehood, and now you certainly ought, since you have thus attacked me, to be interested enough to investigate the facts to see if your accusations against me is true, and if not, be man enough, and honest enough to retract them in “THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST” in which they were made. I will wait a few days, to see what you will do about it, before replying to you in “TheBaptist Examiner.” I would be glad you would write me a personal letter about it if you wish. If I know my heart, I want to do right, and be fair and just with you, as I desire you to be with me. God certainly will not bless us in slandering and butchering each other to the detriment of His bleeding cause. Yours in good hope behind the blood of the everlasting Covenant.
W. T. Stegall.
Pontotoc, Miss. Route 1, Box 60.
P. S. As much as I have written in The Messenger of Zion for the last seven years, against conditional election and salvation, I was astounded when I read your attack on me. Surely you did not do it ignorantly, if you did, then you are to be pitied, and if I knew that you did, I could feel much better toward you. W. T. S.
Elder Stegall, as the reader will observe, is wrought up because we charged that he advocated a conditional system of eternal salvation. Perhaps he does not intend to advocate such a system. We are sorry that we did not keep the article upon which we based our com- ments. In that article, as well as other articles which he has written, he has contended that no one is born again where the gospel is not preached. His contention [pg 174] is, if we understand him, that divine life is imparted through the proclamation of the gospel; that no one is regenerated where the gospel is not preached; that gospel preaching is necessary in order to a saving faith in Christ Jesus. If this does not involve the idea of a conditional salvation, then we do not know what would involve that. We may be as ignorant as Elder Stegall intimates. But whether we be as mean or as ignorant as he intimates, if none are saved where the gospel is not preached, then no infants or idiots can be saved, for they cannot be reached through the gospel. That is what got Elder Stegall tangled up with our people when he had membership with them, as we understand it. Elder Stegall sent us a copy of some of his writing, as mentioned in above letter. If we know what words mean he has said some things in this writing which cannot be harmonized with what he advocated in the article we replied to.
Not only so, but there are some statements in this writing sent us which are contradictory with themselves, if we can understand simple language. Here is one: “A man naturally dead to natural things cannot possibly hear, believe in and accept any natural truth whatsoever; just so, a person spiritually dead to spiritual things cannot possibly hear, believe, or accept any spiritual truth whatever, and all Scripture confirms it as true.” If this is true, and it is, then it follows that no sinner can be regenerated through gospel preaching. Gospel preaching has nothing whatever to do with regeneration, or being born again. In order that one be regenerated through gospel preaching, it would be necessary for that person to hear the gospel before he was regenerated. But Elder Stegall says one dead in [pg 175] sins cannot hear it—and truthfully, too. Then, if the unregenerate cannot hear the gospel, they are not regenerated through the gospel—they are regenerated without the gospel, if regenerated at all.
But Elder Stegall continues right on with this expression: “That is why one must be born again, and given eternal life, and be effectually and irresistably brought by the drawing and bringing power of the Holy Spirit and divine truth, into the saving knowledge of Christ, as effectually revealed in the gospel to the one thus being operated upon, before they can truly believe in and accept Him, because of, and not in order to; all of which is the work of God on them and in them, and, entirely and altogether of His super-abounding sovereign grace and mercy.” Here he has truth, connected with the gospel, tacked on to and in connection with the work of regeneration. He makes both the work of the Spirit and divine truth necessary in regeneration. Then he quotes the Saviour’s language in John vi. 47 and inserts comments as follows: “He that believeth hath (not going to get it, provided he as a dead man will not shut his eyes and ears to it, and will decide to hear and believe, and receive it when he believes) eternal life.” The text here proves that one who hears the gospel is one who has already been born of God. He was born of God before he heard it. If he was born of God before he heard it, he was born of God without it. Then he quotes John v. 24, and inserts comments as follows: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on Him who sent me, hath (not is dead and will receive it when he believes) everlasting life, and cometh not into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.” According to this text the man or [pg 176] person who hears the gospel is one who has already been regenerated, has already been born of God. Then why try to mix the gospel up in this work of regeneration? One must be regenerated in order that the gospel reach him. If one must be regenerated in order that the gospel reach him, as this text, as well as others, proves, then God does not use the gospel in regenerating persons. A saving knowledge and faith in Christ does not come through the gospel; but one must have that before he can be reached through or by the gospel. God does not reach them in the work of regeneration through preaching. If He does, then that involves the idea that their eternal salvation is conditional. Elder Stegall may not argue that it is conditional, as he did not in this writing sent; yet he involves himself in this dilemma, as we see it.
We could quote a lot more from this writing, but this is sufficient to show that while he argues in this writing that salvation is not conditional, yet he involves himself in inconsistency. When we received the above we involuntarily thought of some experience we had soon after we moved to Thornton. There were some goats wandering around town every day and night, getting into yards and bothering folks. They would get into our yard, too. One night just before we retired we heard them in the yard. Wife ran out the back way to frighten them away. We said, “Wait, I will scare them away.” We turned and went through the house, picking up a gun as we went. We went on out on the front porch, raised the gun and fired, thinking to frighten them away. Immediately we heard the loudest and worst squalling we ever heard “in our born days.” We do not say Elder Stegall is a goat, for we believe he is a [pg 177] deluded child of God. We just thought of that incident. Well, that goat business was funny to our wife—the way we did, but it was not funny to us then. May the Lord bless you, Elder Stegall, and we pray that you may be able to see the whole truth more clearly. But, please do not bother our people with your idea that the gospel has any place in God’s work of regeneration.
C. H. C.
ELDER FISHER PASSED AWAY
March 5, 1936
On the morning of February 15, we received a card, which will be found elsewhere in this paper, from Elder 0. Strickland bearing the sad news of the passing of Elder J. H. Fisher at 5 o’clock on Thursday morning, February 13. It was a sad stroke to us. We dearly loved Elder John H. Fisher. For several months we had entertained a special desire to go to see him. At different times we stopped our work and looked up train and bus connections as best we could from our place to Newcastle, desiring to make a trip just to see and visit Brother Fisher. At last we wrote him he might make some appointments for us for a few days, that we wanted to go to see him. He responded at once with a list of appointments for three weeks, or a little more, the appointments to begin in about two or three days after the last hearing from him. It seemed to be impossible for us to leave home that quick to be gone that long. Some things had to be done in the way of preparing manuscript for the paper, and such like work, before we could leave for that long a stay. So we just
[pg 178] moved the appointments up for a month, and let them stand as Brother Fisher had arranged them, with that one exception. We had to do this or fail to meet some of them—make the trip shorter. So, after much thought, this is what we did—just moved the dates up. But now, we are sorely and grievously disappointed. We will not get to see Brother Fisher. We are just heartbroken. Perhaps the last thing this dear servant did in the way of service was to arrange this list of appointments for us. Before this paper gets to the readers, we will, if not providentially prevented, be on the trip trying to fill the appointments this dear servant of God arranged for us. We expect to start on the journey with a heavy heart and a bowed down head. It is some comfort to us to believe that when he arranged the appointments he prayed to God to bless our going to the comfort of His children and to the good of His cause. Lord, grant it. Brethren, especially the brethren in the ministry, will you be with us as much as you can on this trip—as many of you as possibly can? And each one please pray the Lord that we may be enabled to speak in such a way as to be a blessing to the cause of the Master.
Elder Fisher was a true man. He was not a meddler. He was plain and quiet and unassuming. We will miss his writings in the paper, and we will miss the work he did for the paper. May the Lord grant to give us more such men. Many of our old faithful soldiers are being called home. Not long until others of us will go. Farewell, precious brother. And may the Lord bless and comfort and sustain his dear wife and all his loved ones, is our prayer. C. H. C.
[pg 179]
A FALSE ACCUSATION
March 19, 1936
On September 24, 1935, a clipping was received in our office from the Bel Air Times, published in Bel Air, Md., which was an article signed by W. W. Linkous, under the heading, “Discusses the Baptist Religious Denomination and the Split.” We were requested to pay some attention to the statements contained in the article. Our wife opens all the mail coming into the office, and such as requires our personal attention is laid aside for us to attend to it as we can get to it. We are just now getting to this. We do not know really that the writer of the article is worth the attention and the space in our paper that it will take for his article and a reply to the same; but for the satisfaction of some Primitive Baptists in that section of the country, as well as elsewhere, we will copy the part of his article just as it appeared in the paper, capitalization, spelling, punctuation, and all, which has special reference to the Primitive Baptists, and will pay some respects to the same. The gentleman says:
My father was a primitive Baptist Preacher and my brother also, and I was born among Baptists and raised up among them, therefore I should know something about them. There are several kinds of Baptists too numerous to mention here and I wish to say to all Baptist people that should read this article that if I make any mistakes I want them to correct me. Of course, it is a well-known fact that almost all the Baptists in this county are from the south either North Carolina or Virginia and, as far as I’m concerned, proud to be numbered among them. The primitive Baptists or hard shells as they are nicknamed believe in Election and predestination, that is that each and every individual that is born into this world is born for Hell or Heaven and those that are born for Hell, will go there, worlds without end, no matter how much praying [pg 180] they may do or how good they may live. And those born for Heaven will get there no matter how much meanness they may do. Almost seventy years ago or shortly after the war between the states some good people began to think better and conceived the idea that men and women went to Heaven or Hell, according to the way they lived in this world and that Christ gave his life for all who was willing to give up their sinful lives and follow him and that not a single soul was left without a chance to be saved if they would only look to him as their savior. So there was a division among them and a split followed. The old side still keeping their name of primitive Baptists and the new side naming themselves regular or union Baptists, this being the same group who held this meeting. The little group of believers began to prosper and grow until now by reading the minutes of proceedings of their work we find there are several different associations corresponding with each other.
REMARKS
The first thing we wish to call attention to is this statement: “I wish to say to all the Baptist people that should read this article that if I make any mistakes I want them to correct me.” Does the gentleman mean that? Was he sincere when he made that statement? If so, why did he not stand corrected when he was corrected? Now, do not deny that you were called on, and that you were corrected, and that you still insisted that you correctly stated matters. If you do, we might prove it on you—we have the proof all right. After being told, you still contended that the Primitive Baptists preach and advocate what you accuse them of in that article. But you misrepresented them. They do not preach what you say they do. They never did preach it. You say your father preached for them until he died. Then you have slandered your dead father; for your father never preached what you say Primitive Baptists preach. Not only has the gentleman slandered his [pg 181] father, but he has made a grand display of his ignorance. Poor soul! He wants folks to think he is intelligent and smart; but we would not miss it far if we were to say that he is as ignorant as a Hottentot.
Here is a sample of his wonderful intelligence: “The Primitive Baptists or Hardshells, as they are nicknamed, believe in predestination and election”—but what is election and predestination? Sure, the Primitive Baptists believe in election and predestination. But what is election and predestination? Here is what this great “Solomon” says it is: “That is, that each and every individual that is born into this world is born either for hell or heaven, and those that are born for hell will go there, worlds without end, no matter how much praying they may do or how good they may live. And those born for heaven will get there, no matter how much meanness they may do.” Now is that not a wonderful definition of election and predestination? We wonder if this great and wonderful Linkous has begun the little task of making a new dictionary—one just for his own use! Shades of Demosthenes, Cicero, Solomon and Paul! What a wonderful scholar we have over in Maryland! Is it not a wonder of wonders that he has remained in such obscurity for these years! Is it not passing strange that the people have not learned about such a wise man being so near the seat of government of the Union, and all marched together and had him placed at the head of the government? It is a wonder Roosevelt has not called him in long before now and put him at the head of his great “brain trust!” Surely if some “wise guy” will get an audience with Mr. Roosevelt and get him to read the wonderful production from the pen of this great “fountain of wisdom” he will go [pg 182] at once to interview this great man, and get him into his cabinet at once—and put him up as “head over all things” to this great nation of ours. Well, say, it is funny.
Primitive Baptists do not believe people are born into this world for either heaven or hell. Man was not put here in this world for either heaven or hell. Primitive Baptists believe on this just what the Bible says about it. “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth. “—Acts xvii. 26. Man was created and placed here to dwell on the earth, and not for either heaven or hell. This one man, one blood, brought death and ruin upon himself by his own transgression. He violated God’s just and holy law, and he did that without compulsion; he did it of his own will; he was not deceived. Eve was deceived, but Adam was not. “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”— 1 Tim. ii. 14. “For the wages of sin is death.”—Rom. vi. 23. Sin is the transgression of the law (1 John iii. 4). Wages is what one gets for what he does. What man did was that he transgressed the law; he sinned; what he got for it, and what he gets for it, is death.
Man is not only a transgressor of God’s law, but he is a wilful transgressor; he transgresses willingly or wilfully. One command of God is that “thou shalt not bear false witness. “—Matt. xix. 18. A false witness is one who testifies that a thing is true which is not true. This fellow Linkous testifies that a thing is true which is not true, and we suppose he has no desire or inclination to correct the statement. The reader may judge the rest of the matter, without it being necessary for us to mention what these facts show.
In a state of nature, as all men stand related to Adam and under the law, all are condemned by and under the law. They are justly condemned, for the law was just. “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.”—Rom. iii. 19. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” —Rom. iii. 23. ‘ ‘For we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.”—Rom. iii. 9. Here we have it very plainly taught that the whole race is under sin, and justly condemned under the just law of God, and for the plain and simple reason that the just law of God was and is wilfully violated; and man is the transgressor. Without the intervention of divine mercy and grace- without the intervention of the work of the eternal God —all are eternally lost. Man could not remove his own guilt; and his guilt must be removed, and satisfaction rendered to divine justice, if man is ever saved, or if he ever lives with God in heaven. Not one sinner of all the race could ever enter heaven without that. What is election? Linkous says Primitive Baptists believe in election. What is it? It is the act of choos- ing; choice; selection. See Webster. Did God elect anybody? Did He choose anybody? Did He make a selection? Linkous denies that God made any selection or choice, and contends that the whole thing rests—not upon what God does or has done, but—solely upon the work and choice the sinner makes. What he advocates is either what the inspired Book teaches, or else it is not. If it is what the Book teaches, then it is the doc- trine of God. If it is not what the Book teaches, then it is a doctrine of men or devils. Now, let us see what [pg 184] the Book teaches about this matter. Did God elect, select, or choose anybody from among the posterity of Adam? Answer: “According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love.”—Eph. i. 3. Here the inspired,apostle most emphatically states that persons were chosen before the foundation of the world. The expression, “before the foundation of the world” literally means, in our present day English, “before the ages of time began.” Hence, before the ages of time began, and before persons existed, God chose persons; He selected them; He made choice of them. He did this that they might be holy and without blame before Him in love. He did not choose them because they were holy and without blame; not because they made a good choice, as Linkous teaches; but the end and design of His choice of them was to make them holy and without blame before Him. They are made holy and without blame before God as a result of God’s choice. Without that choice not one would ever be made without blame before God in love.
“Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.” —1 Thess. i. 4. Paul here said, “Knowing * * * your election of God.” Did he know it? He either did, or he did not. If he did not, then he was either mistaken or deceived, or else he falsified. Did he lie about it, and say he knew it, when he did not? Was he mistaken about it? If he was mistaken, he was not inspired to pen the language. If he knew they were the elect of God, did he not also know that the doctrine of election is the truth? “Knowing your election of God.” They did not do the electing, the selecting, the choosing; but they were the ones elected; they were the ones chosen; [pg 185] they were selected. God did the choosing; the electing; the selecting. Their election was of God, not of themselves. Paul knew that this doctrine of election was the truth, and the Primitive Baptists teach it. Linkous and his stripe do not teach it. We, therefore, teach the doctrine of God, and the other fellow is teaching the doctrine of the devil. What Linkous (and his stripe) teaches gives the lie to the doctrine of God, to the doc- trine taught by Paul, as plainly left on record by him, and as now taught by the Primitive Baptists. Well, we prefer to be on the Lord’s side, rather than lined up with Linkous and his theological daddy—the devil.
Elect means chosen; taken by preference from among two or more; chosen as the object of mercy or divine favor; set apart to eternal life. See Webster. Does God have a chosen people? Does God have a people whom He has taken by preference from among others? Does He have a people who were chosen by Him as the objects of mercy or divine favor? Does He have a people whom He has set apart to eternal life? Answer: “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect?” —Rom. viii. 33. Here the inspired apostle tells us that God has an elect; they are God’s elect. They are God’s chosen ones; God took them by preference from among others; He has made choice of them as the objects of His mercy or divine favor; He made choice of them and set them apart to eternal life. Yes; Primitive Baptists believe and teach what God has said by His inspired penman. But they do not believe or teach what Linkous, and others of the devil’s cohorts, say they teach.
What about predestination? Linkous says Primitive Baptists believe in the doctrine of predestination. Is that doctrine the truth? It either is, or it is not the [pg 186] truth. How about it? And what does predestination mean? It means to “Hmit or mark out beforehand; to design definitely beforehand, ordain beforehand, predestine.”—Bagster’s Analytical Greek Lexicon. It means “to appoint or ordain beforehand by divine purpose or decree. “—Webster. Did God purpose before- hand to save anybody? If He did, the doctrine of predestination is the truth. If the doctrine of predestination is not the truth, then God did not purpose beforehand to save anybody. Linkous contends that the doctrine of predestination is not the truth. If his contention is the truth, then God did not purpose before- hand to save anybody. If God did not purpose beforehand to save anybody, then He does not save anybody —or if He does. He does it without any intention beforehand of doing so. If He saves without intending beforehand to do so, and yet does save somebody. He does it accidentally or against his will or intention— one or the other. If Linkous believes God saves anybody, we wonder which way He thinks He saves them— whether accidentally, or against His will or intention!
Did God predestinate anybody unto the adoption of children, or unto eternal life? “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself.”—Eph. i. 5. Here were some people whom the Lord marked out beforehand to the adoption of children; they were appointed beforehand by divine purpose or decree to be adopted into the heavenly family. Yes, if the Bible is true, the doctrine that God predestinated to save a portion of the human race is true; and the Bible is true. Any doctrine contrary to that is false, no mat- ter if Linkous does deny what the Bible teaches. To deny the Bible or its plain teaching is infidelity. [pg 187] Linkous denies the plain teaching of the Bible. Then what is Linkous?
Linkous admits that the doctrine of the Primitive Baptists is the old doctrine; but a few fellows, like Linkous, got wise above what was written; they learned better. Hence, they learned that the teaching of the Bible is not true. Wonder where they got the information. Did they get it from an almanac? How won- derfully smart and intelligent such fellows are—in their own estimation.
The poor fellow says some conceived the idea that men and women went to heaven or hell according to the way they lived in this world. They conceived an idea, then, very different to the inspired idea the Apostle Paul had. He said, “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. i. 9. Paul had an inspired idea that people were saved, not according to their works; but Linkous says some conceived an idea that they are saved according to the way they live while here in this world. We wonder which idea is the truth. We are inclined to believe Paul had the right idea about it. These poor deluded folks conceived a lie; so they teach a lie, and believe a lie; and seemingly they take pleasure in it. See John viii. 44.
Linkous also says that Christ gave His life for all who were willing to give up their sinful lives and follow Him. Where did he get that? He did not get it in the Book, for it is not there. Jesus said, “I lay down my life for the sheep.”—John x. 15. To some people He said, “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep.”—John x. 26. We presume Jesus knew better [pg 188] than these self-important Pharisees whom He laid down His life for. He said it was for His sheep, and the record in the same chapter tells us He told some folks they were not of His sheep. If He laid down His life for the sheep, and those folks were not His sheep, He did not lay down His life for them.
To some people Jesus said, while here on earth, “And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. * * * But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.”—John v. 40-42. People who do not have the love of God in them do not will to come to Christ; their will is to not come. That being their will, if they have to will to come, as Linkous says, then not one would ever be saved. These poor dupes advocate a system that will not reach a single one of all the race of Adam. According to their teaching hell will be running over and heaven will be empty and to rent out for a calf pasture—if you will excuse us for using slang.
But the poor fellow says not a soul was left without a chance to be saved, if they would only look to Him, etc. How under heaven could they ever look to Him unless they first hear about Him? The doctrine of these dupes says they must first hear about Him in order to look to Him. But multiplied millions have lived and died without hearing about Him. They never saw a preacher, nor heard one preach; they never saw a Bible. The teaching of these folks is that multiplied thousands are dying every day and going down to eternal and irretrievable woe and misery because they do not have the gospel preached to them. And they do not have the gospel, so they tell us, because the people who do have it are too proud and too covetous and too stingy to give of their money to send the preachers who are ready and willing and anxious to go. Thus, multiplied millions are dying annually and going down to an eternal hell—not because of something they have or have not done, but because these hypocrites who claim to have and to preach the gospel are too stingy to give the money to send the gospel to them. Their doctrine is fathered by the father of lies. It came from hell, and will go back there.
We understand Linkous had a brother that preached for the Primitive Baptists. So he says. But his brother was excluded. Perhaps this is one reason why this fellow would make such false charges against them. He may be trying to get revenge. Perhaps so. Judge for yourself.
Well, some may say we have been rough. Perhaps so. Dogs have slick tongues. An oxen has a rough tongue, and God’s book represents His servants as oxen. We do not know whether they are muley or have horns. If they are muley, they can butt such things as Linkous out of the way, and go on pulling the load. If they have horns, they can easily gore to death such varmints as wrote that article in the Bel Air Times. Requiescat in pace. C.H.C.
MAKE THE PAPER A WEEKLY
March 19, 1936
Elder C. H. Cayce:
I do love to hear my husband read our paper. I was just thinking of our good paper coming just twice a month. I want to make a suggestion through the paper. Why can’t we have a weekly paper? It does look like we could all send dear Brother Cayce 25 cents each. If 1,000 would do that it would be $250, and I believe [pg 190] Brother Cayce could then make it a weekly paper. I don’t know what about this. Dear saints, pray for us; we feel so little. Your little sister, if one at all, Callie McDow.
Dilley, Texas.
REMARKS
We appreciate Sister McDow’s suggestion, and we would be glad to send THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST out every week if we could possibly do so. The good sister seems to think that if the readers would send us 25 cents each that we could get the paper out weekly. She says if 1,000 would do that it would amount to $250, and she thinks we would then send the paper out every week. Perhaps a great many others may have an idea like that. We are sure that very few of our readers really know just what it costs us per issue to get the paper out and mailed to the subscribers. We are going to tell you, here, candidly, just what it cost us on an average for every issue of the paper last year—twenty-four issues mailed out during the year 1935. Now, let us ask you to brace yourself for “a jolt,” and do not let the “lick” knock you down. The average cost of each issue for the year 1935 was just $236.55—a total of $5,678.30 for the year. How far would $250 go toward getting out a weekly paper? How about what so many say, that the price is too high? We just say this because we want the readers to know the fact in the case. C. H. C.
[pg 191]
ROMANS VIII. 1
April 2, 1936
In May, 1933, we received a request from Elder John R. Whitfield, Salida, Calif., for our views of Rom. viii. 1, which reads, in our King James translation, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” We hesitate to write on this text, because our view of it is different from the view held by so many of our good brethren. They may be right, and we may be wrong. If we differ as to what this text teaches, the brother who holds a different view from ours has as much right, in one sense of the word, to his view as we have to ours. If a brother does not look at this text as we do, we do not think any the less of him on that account. Brother Whitfield asked for our views, and we will try to give what little we have.
We are aware that many brethren think this text teaches that there is a condemnation which we escape by walking after the Spirit. We believe the Bible teaches that there is a condemnation which God’s people escape by living after the Spirit. It is taught in verse 13 of this chapter: “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.” There are conditions in this text, and the living there mentioned depends upon the child of God mortifying the deeds of the body through the Spirit. By the help of the Spirit he can mortify the deeds of the body, and he should do that. But we do not think that is what the apostle was talking about in verse 1.
In verse 25 of chapter 7 the word then is translated [pg 192] from the same word as therefore in the text. “So then” (therefore) “with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” “Therefore,” for this reason; what he has previously said being true; for this reason “with the mind I myself serve the law of God,” etc. Then in verse 1 of chapter viii. he again refers to what he has already set forth by again using the word therefore. The original word translated therefore denotes, first, transition from one thing to another by natural sequence; secondly, logical inference; in which case the premises are either expressed, or to be variously supplied. Therefore, then, consequently.” See Bagster’s Analytical Lexicon. The language, then, is a conclusion drawn from a previous premise—it is not a looking forward to something that will result in consequence to be laid down hereafter; but a consequence of a premise previously stated.
In order to fully get the premise the expression rests upon it is necessary to go back far enough to get the matter the apostle starts out with. To do this begin with the first of chapter vii. There he starts out with his reasoning on the matter of law. That was something which the Romans knew something about—and it is something we know a little about—”how that the law hath dominion over a man so long as he liveth.” Then he illustrates the principle he is starting in to set forth by the fact that a woman is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth. Then he tells us that “ye are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh,” (that is, in an unregenerate state—before this work of grace was [pg 193] performed in our hearts) “the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.” Now, here we have the key to the matter. Here is the premise laid down, and his reasoning through the remainder of the chapter is based upon this, as well as also the first part of the next chapter is based upon the same. The word therefore brings us back to this premise. This premise being true, then what he says after using that word follows as a consequence of this.
The Lord’s children in regeneration are delivered from the law. The law has been killed; its strength against them has been taken away by the body of Christ. He has satisfied the law for them; He has met all its demands, and so far as they are concerned the law has been killed. The application of the benefits of this is made to them in the work of regeneration. In regeneration they are killed to sin and the love of it, and are made alive unto God. In this work of the Spirit in regeneration, which is an inward work, called giving a new heart and a new spirit, a washing, a purifying, etc., there is given a new and higher order of life—the spiritual, divine life, and a new nature which belongs to that life. In this work the old or natural life which we have by reason of the natural birth is not taken away. The child then has two natures, and a disposition still remains in him which belongs to the old sinful nature. While he still has that old sinful nature and disposition, he also now has a divine nature and disposition. The apostle shows in the remainder, or most of [pg 194] the remainder, of the seventh chapter how these natures or dispositions are at war in him, and how that he is often brought into captivity by the sin which still remains in him in that old nature. This is where the warfare continues in and with the little child of God while he lives in the world. There is a warfare within, which will not end until we come to the end of the way.
Though this be true, yet we have been made free from the condemning power of the law, which law without the work of grace in our hearts, and without the work of Christ, held dominion over us. We have now been delivered from the law. See chapter vii. verse 5. Hence, having been delivered from the law, and having received this divine life, having received a new heart and a new life, a new seat of affection; having received the mind of Christ; all this being true, it follows as a consequence, as a “therefore,” “with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” This law of sin, this sinful disposition and nature had not been taken away from Paul. See verse 23. This sinful nature and disposition still remained in his flesh. And it remains in all of us. That is why you are so often in trouble and sorrow about yourself.
You often feel that if you were a child of God you would not have so many sinful and wicked thoughts, or so many times do the things you would not or should not do. Instead of this being an evidence that you are not a child of God, it is clear evidence that you are the Lord’s child. The unregenerate do not have such a warfare. You did not have the warfare until a change was wrought in you.
But, the foregoing mentioned work having been done for you and in you, “there is therefore,” (for this [pg 195] reason; following as a consequence of it) “now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.” The next clause, “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit,” is not in many of the ancient Greek manuscripts. It is in some of them, but not in all of them. Anyway, there is no change in the teaching of that verse and the connecting verses, for that expression comes farther down, in verse 4, “that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” To our mind the expression is descriptive, and does not express a condition to be performed. We are aware that good brethren think that clause in verse 1 expresses a condition, and they make some good arguments that way; and we do not fall out with them because we do not see this text alike. If we are wrong, they are right. There is nothing in it for brethren to “fall out” about. C. H. C.
EPHESIANS V. 25-27
April 2, 1936
In 1932 a request was received from Elder
S. A. Dawson, Kansas, 111., for our views on Eph. v. 26. Poor health has been the main reason for the long delay in answering these.many requests which we have received. We are trying to answer them now as fast as we can, and as best we can. Verses 25, 26, 27 of this chapter read as follows: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it; that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to [pg 196] Himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” We quote here both verses 25 and 27 so that we may have the connection. It may be necessary to know what is referred to by the word it in verse 26, and we find that in verse 25. It is the church. Christ gave Himself for the church. Those He gave Himself for are here denominated as the church—the whole family of God. These are they which will form and compose His complete body in the heavenly world. They are the whole number, the complete number, of the redeemed. Hence, He gave Himself for a definite and complete number. He did not give Himself for the race of mankind; but He gave Himself for the church— those that He saves. And He saves those He gave Himself for. He gave Himself for it—for the church; for those the Father had given Him; for the objects of His love. “But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” —Rom. V. 8.
He did not give Himself for them with no definite end in view. The final end of it was “that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” He gave Himself for it “that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.” “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”— Heb. x. 10. To sanctify is to set apart to a holy or religious use. They were all set apart through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once. . He made just one offering, and will not make another; for the one offering which He made is sufficient for all [pg 197] time, and was sufficient to accomplish the object for which it was made.
He gave Himself for it that He might also “cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.” When He was crucified and the Roman soldiers pierced His side, “forthwith there came therefrom both blood and water.” The blood was to satisfy for the sins of His people; to satisfy for the sins of the church; and it was sufficient for that end. The water was to purify and cleanse. Water is to use in washing. “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.”—Titus iii. 5. He regenerates, by the work of His Spirit, and cleanses and purifies, all that He gave Himself for. He does this by speaking to them by the power of the Holy Spirit. “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are Hfe.”—John vi. 63. It is by the power of His speech that sinners are regenerated, and in this work there is an inward washing and cleansing. In this the Lord begins a good work in them, and He will carry it on to perfection. He will finally land them on the sunny banks of sweet deliverance, where they shall be fully and finally glorified, and enjoy eternal bliss and happiness, and be like Him. They will then be without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing.
We have just given a few thoughts in a brief way. May the Lord bless the same to the good of our readers. C. H. C.
[pg 198]
OUR TRIP IN TEXAS
April 16, 1936
We left home on Wednesday night, February 26, to fill the appointments which had been made and published for us in Texas. Appointments were filled at the following named places: Dallas, Fort Worth, Joy, Wichita Falls, Munday, Throckmorton, Median Chapel, Harpersville, Cisco, De Leon, Bosque. Also one night at a place near De Leon, the name of which we cannot recall just now. We never left home with a sadder feeling than when we left for this trip. When we agreed to make the trip we expected to meet and to see Elder J. H. Fisher, but he passed away, so we could not get to see him.
The first appointment was in Dallas on Thursday night, February 27. We had a very pleasant meeting at this place, and there was one addition to the church, a sister, whose baptism was to be attended to at a later date. Elder Fowler is pastor here. Elder W. L. Barrett met us and conveyed us to his home after meeting, where we spent the remainder of the night and the next day. On Friday night we enjoyed a very pleasant service with the church in Fort Worth. Elder Barrett is their good pastor, and they esteem him highly. They are counting on building a new meetinghouse at an early date, and we wish them success in the undertaking. May the Lord bless their labors and efforts. Elders Fowler and Paine were present at this service.
Saturday morning we went to Bellevue, where we were met by Brother Hammond, son of Elder T. C. Hammond, who conveyed us to the church. Elder Hammond was sick and confined to his bed, and was [pg 200] not able to be at the meeting. He had been real sick, but was some better. The last word we had from him he was improving. We trust he may soon be fully recovered. We enjoyed a very pleasant meeting at Joy, Saturday and Sunday.
On Sunday Brother S. H. Holt conveyed us to his home in Wichita Falls. We had service in Wichita Falls Monday and Tuesday nights. At that time Elder H. L. Ceilings was living in that town, and it was agreed on Monday night to hold the service on Tuesday night at the home of Elder Collings, as he was sick and not able to attend the meeting. Tuesday Elder 0. Strickland came in and was with us there that night.
Wednesday morning Brother Holt conveyed us to Munday, where we had a pleasant service that day. Thursday morning Elder Strickland conveyed us to Throckmorton, where we enjoyed another very pleasant service. Elder V. F. Lowrance met us here. Elder Strickland went on with us to the home of Elder Lowrance.
Friday afternoon we went to see Elder Broom for a little while. He is staying at Eden Home, near Graham, and he seems to be well cared for and contented. Saturday afternoon we held a little service at the home for Brother Broom’s benefit, which he and others seemed to enjoy. On Saturday and Sunday we were with the church at Medlan Chapel, which church was so well and efficiently served for so many years by Elder J. H. Fisher. Elder Lowrance is the pastor there now. He is a devoted brother, and the brethren there seem to esteem him highly, which they should do, and should care for him, and this they seem to do with delight and pleasure. Elder Strickland left us here and [pg 200] returned home, and we were sad to separate from him. We love the man. Elder Jackson met us here from Cisco, and conveyed us to the home of a Brother Roberts on Sunday afternoon, near Harpersville, and was with us at Harpersville on Monday. At Medlan Chapel there was one addition by relation. On Monday we had a very pleasant service at Harpersville.
Elder Jackson conveyed us to Cisco Monday afternoon, and here we met with Elder J. W. West, who is pastor of the church in Cisco. He had an appointment at the home of a Brother Akers for Monday night, and we were there with him and heard him preach a sweet discourse. Elder J. W. M. Pharr was living there, or staying there, at that time. Sister Akers is his daughter. The dear old brother seemed to enjoy the service. Since we came home we have received word that he has gone to his long-sought rest. May the Lord bless and sustain his bereaved loved ones. We enjoyed a pleasant service at Cisco on Tuesday. Several brethren in the ministry were present, but we cannot give their names, as we failed to note them down.
Wednesday we were at De Leon. The appointment was supposed to have been for that place both Wednesday and Thursday, but there had been a change made. Instead of having meeting there Thursday an appoint- ment had been made for another place (the name of which we cannot recall at the time we are doing this writing). Several brethren in the ministry were present Wednesday. We may not be able to recall the names of each one, so we will not try to name any of them. Elder
E. P. McNeill is pastor, and he was present, as also Elders S. L. Rives, S. W. Short, and others. [pg 201] There was a good crowd present here, as well as at the night appointment. We were met here (at Cisco) Friday morning by Elder J. L. Collings and wife, who conveyed us to Bosque Church, near Hico, where we had service Friday, Saturday and Sunday. A good crowd was present Saturday, but a much larger one on Sunday. On Sunday a brother united with the church; his baptism is to be attended to later. This was a delightful meeting.
Sunday after service Elder Collings and wife conveyed us to Dallas. Elder Collings expected us to meet Dr. Fowler at Cleburne, and for us to be brought by him on to Dallas, but when we reached that place we received word that Dr. Fowler did not show up there as he was sick with mumps. We have not heard from him since, but trust he is getting along all right. So Brother and Sister Collings came on with us to Dallas. We left that place at 6 o’clock and arrived home at about 2 o’clock in the night. Our whole family met us at the train, and we feel thankful that we found all well.
We had good congregations and good attention where we went, and the Lord was good to us, and permitted us to enjoy some pleasant seasons, although we were sad at the passing of Elder Fisher, so that we did not get to see him. We saw Sister Fisher at the Chapel on Sunday. The brethren and sisters were good to us— far better than we feel to deserve. May the good Lord bless them, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
[pg 202]
REVELATION XX. 4
April 16, 1936
We have been requested to give a definition of the word souls in Rev. xx. 4. That is, we have been asked to tell through the paper what that word means. The expression containing that word says, “And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them; and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God,” etc.
The word soul in this text is the same word as is used for the word soul in Matt. x. 28, where the Saviour said, “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.” This is sufficient to show that the soul is something which is separate and distinct from the body—that the body is one thing and the soul is another. This is evidently and emphatically true when simply the body or the soul is spoken of or referred to. It is true that the word soul sometimes means living beings or persons—such as “man became a living soul;” or “the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” But when the body, in the abstract, is spoken of, it does not mean the soul; or when the soul is spoken of, in the abstract, it does not mean the body.
The word soul in Rev. xx. 4, means breath, the principle of animal life, the life; the immortal soul; the soul as the seat of moral and religious sentiment; the soul as a seat of feeling; the inner self, and so on. See Bagster’s Analytical Greek Lexicon. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon gives it as “the soul freed from the body, a [pg 203] disembodied soul,” and cites Rev. xx. 4. The word cannot possibly mean anything else. For a person to try to twist it to mean the body is to twist into our Lord’s teaching something the Book does not contain. C. H. C.
ANDALUSIA PEACE MEETING
May 7, 1936
We attended the peace meeting in Andalusia, Ala., on the first Sunday in April, and Saturday before. On Saturday a committee was appointed to draw up a statement, resolutions, etc., as a basis for settlement and adjustment of the matters concerning the disturbances which had existed for several years. Two brethren were appointed from each “side,” and then by unanimous vote they requested us to serve with the committeethat is, by unanimous vote of all the brethren concerned in the matter—which we tried to do.
The committee met together Saturday afternoon and drew up the following, which was presented to the meeting on Sunday morning, and was read three times:
We, your committee, appointed by you, or requested by you, to draw up a statement, resolutions, etc., looking to a full settlement and adjustment of all the differences which have recently existed, do hereby submit the following:
Recognizing the fact that when troubles and divisions come in the Old Baptist Church that it is almost, if not altogether, always true that there is more or less wrong on both sides; therefore, we who were, or have been, involved in the recent trouble in this section, do hereby, as individuals and churches, forgive and ask forgiveness for all wrongs committed, whether by word or deed, realizing, too, that some of the trouble may have been, and [pg 204] probably was, on account of misunderstanding. But, be that as it may, we hereby mutually agree to forgive all errors, wrongs, or mistakes, and to bury the past in oblivion.
We also agree, so as to avoid friction and to straighten out any “kinks” that might arise on account of this adjustment and coming together, that the same shall embrace the following, namely: That this means a restoration to fellowship any who may have been withdrawn from, such person or persons to retain membership where the same is now, who may have their membership transferred by letter as though the trouble had never existed. This part of our confession and act to be put on our records, with the foregoing and following, in order that all records may be straight, and showing a full and complete settlement to have been made.
We hereby re-affirm our belief in and adherance to the articles of faith and principles upon which our churches were constituted, and we desire to beg the Lord to help us to be faithful and true and steadfast in the same, and that we may have His help to walk the good old way, and to bear with each other’s weaknesses, and to strive for the things that make for peace. May the Lord help us so to do. Respectfully submitted for your adoption or rejection. C. H. Cayce,
W. R. Walker,
J. K. Everett,
W. R. Cross,
D. W. Nall,
Committee.
Read and adopted by Union Church, Andalusia, Ala., Sunday, April 5, 1936, by unanimous vote, and approved by unanimous vote of every Primitive Baptist present.
After the third reading and adoption by unanimous vote, as above stated, some of the good old songs of Zion were sung and the hand of fellowship extended to each other. While this was going on shouts of praise and thanksgiving to God went up from different parts of the congregation by brethren and sisters. Hearts were made glad, and the love of God was plainly and [pg 205] visibly manifested, as brethren embraced each other who had been estranged. May the Lord be praised for His goodness and wonderful mercies and blessings to His humble poor.
It is delightful to see brethren and sisters bury and forget their little differences and come together in peace and fellowship and love. Troubles can be settled when brethren want to settle them. “How good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.” May the Lord’s richest blessings continue with those good people, is our humble prayer.
C. H. C.
WHO DIED IN ADAM?
May 7, 1936
A brother asks us if all who died in Adam will be made alive in Christ, and refers to 1 Cor. xv. 22. He says someone is advocating the idea that all are made alive in Christ that died in Adam, and refers to this text as proof. If the text proves that, it will prove the doctrine of Universalism. But it does not come within a thousand miles of proving it—it does not even begin to sound like proof of it. In the first place the apostle is treating in this chapter of the resurrection of God’s people. The Bible teaches that there will be a resurrection of all the offspring of Adam, the just and the unjust, the righteous and the wicked, the sheep and the goats, at the last day; but in this chapter the apostle is treating upon the resurrection of the bodies of the saints only. Now let us read verses 21, 22 and 23, “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in [pg 206] Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at His coming.” It was by man that death came—the one man Adam; the first man; and it is by the one man Christ Jesus that the resurrection came. By virtue of the work of Christ all His children will be raised in His hkeness and in His image. “But every man in his own order.” What every man? “Christ the firstfruits.” He was the first to rise from the dead as the firstfruit of the harvest. Then what about the others? “Afterward they that are Christ’s at His coming.” The text here does not say that “as in Adam all died”—but “as in Adam all die.” ‘ ‘All died” and “all die” are two different expressions altogether, and do not mean the same thing. “All died” is in the past tense—something which transpired in the past. “All die” is in the present tense, and denotes something that is going on now, in the present time. They are dying in Adam every day and every hour; they are dying naturally, physically, corporeally, now—every day and hour. They are going down in death all the time. But they—the same people he is talking about in this chapter—all God’s children, will be raised again at the coming of Christ. He is coming back to this world, not as a sin bearer, but without sin unto salvation; and He will raise the sleeping bodies of all His saints, all His children, and fashion them like unto His own glorious body. Precious promise, and glorious hope. C. H. C.
KIND OF DEATH ADAM DIED
May 7, 1936
Brother D. R. Loyd, Arkoma, Okla., asks us to give I our views as to the kind of death Adam died when he transgressed the law in the. garden, and asks, “Was it a corporeal death, or was it a spiritual death, or did he die to the stewardship of the garden?” It was not a corporeal or physical death, for he lived a physical life for several hundred years after that; but the Lord said he should die in the same day he transgressed. It was not a spiritual death, for he was not a spiritual man—he did not have spiritual life. He was simply a good natural man, a good man from a moral and physical or natural standpoint. It is true that he was driven out of the garden in the same day that he transgressed, and was deprived of the privileges and blessings of the garden. But the death that he died was a moral death. He lost all moral standing with God. He lost all moral uprightness. He lost his innocence. He became guilty before God. It was a moral death.
C. H. C.
THE FIRST MAN
May 7, 1936
We have a letter from a brother asking us if there were any people before Adam; that a certain brother is advocating that there were another people before Adam and that Cain married one of them. If there were any people before Adam, then the Bible is not the truth, for it says, “And so it is written. The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a [pg 208] quickening spirit. “—
1 Cor. xv. 45. Here the inspired apostle plainly says Adam was the first man. If he was the first man, there was no other man before him; and if’ there was no other man before him, then there were no people before him. Again, the same inspired man said, “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth,” etc.—Acts xvii. 26, If there were any people before Adam, and Cain had a wife from among that people, then they are not all of one blood; some of them would be of the blood of Adam combined with the blood of that other people. It could not, then, be true that God made all nations of men of one blood. If the man believes the Bible he should quit such speculation and stop contradicting the Book. C. H. C.
TRIP IN ALABAMA
May 7, 1936
We attended the peace meeting in Andalusia, Ala., on Saturday and first Sunday in April, and then filled appointments as arranged for us by Elders R. W. Cross and R. D. Dodgen, except two appointments. We were billed to be at New Home Church on Monday and Tues- day after the first Sunday, but were rained out on Tuesday. We were billed to be at Consolation Church on Thursday, April 9, but were rained out at that place. Besides at Andalusia and one day at New Home we filled all the other appointments, as they were published.
A large crowd was at the peace meeting, especially on Sunday, at Andalusia. We had good congregations at all the other places, or most of them. We met several [pg 209] brethren in the ministry, most of whom we had met in days gone by. We enjoyed good meetings at each place. The brethren were good to us, and were much better to us than we feel to deserve. We would be glad to give a more extended account of the trip, but time and space forbid. We are due to leave home again in a few days for another long trip, and we have to be in a hurry to get ready to go. May the Lord help us to speak such things as will be to the good of His people and to the advancement of His cause and to the glory and honor of His holy name. Brethren, pray for us, to that end, and pray the Lord to keep our loved ones while we are away from them.
C. H. C.
TOUR IN ALABAMA
July 2, 1936
We left home on Friday morning, May 1, for Frisco City, Ala., to fill appointments which had been made for us by Elder J. W. Jones in the Antioch Association, and by Elder S. W. Etheredge in the Choctawhatchee Association. We arrived in Frisco City Saturday morning at about 5:30. Elder J. W. Jones met us at the train. We filled appointments every day, as they had already been made, and as they were published in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of April 2 and 16. Appointments were made at the following places in the Antioch Association: Mt. Pisgah, New Home, Ramer, Gravel Hill, Sardis, Corinth, Pine Level, Spring Hill, Union, Little Flock, Pensacola, Concord, Pleasant Grove, Antioch, Elizabeth, Bethel. The weather was fine, and we were able to fill the appointment at each place. We had the [pg 210] pleasure of meeting and being with the following brethren in the ministry: Elders J. W. Jones, W. N. Etheredge, G. B. Nail, S. A. Nail, Jas. H. Jones, A. J. Parrish, and J. C. Davis. These brethren are all in the Antioch Association.
At the meeting at Pine Level on Sunday, May 10, Elder W. A. Shutt and wife, who have recently moved to that section, were present, and placed their membership there by letter.
Elder R. W. Cross, of Andalusia, was with us at Bethel, the last appointment in this association, as was also Elder Parrish, who is the pastor there. We appreciated all these good brethren in the ministry named above being with us, and enjoyed associating with them.
At Bethel we were met by a son of Sister Farris and conveyed to her home, where we tried to talk for just a few minutes that night. Then Wednesday morning. May 20, he conveyed us to Ozark for our first appoint- ment in the Choctawhatchee Association, as arranged by Elder S. W. Etheredge. Brother Etheredge baptized a brother there that morning, just before we reached the place.
We filled appointments in this association, as arranged by Brother Etheredge, as follows: Pleasant Grove (Ozark), Bethel, Antioch, Ramah, Mt. Enon, County Line, Piney Grove, Union and Little Vine. In addition to these. Brother Harrison met us at County Line and conveyed us to his home, near Bluffton, Ga., in the neighborhood of Mars Hill Church, where he had an appointment for us and Elder Etheredge that night, and then conveyed us to Piney Grove next morning. In this section we met and were with the following named [pg 211] brethren in the ministry: Elders S. W. Etheredge, W. I. Kelly, A. A. Garrett, T. E. McGowan, T. R. Craw- ford, R. K. Blackshear, L. Z. Folmar, J. K. Everett, R. D. Dodgen and R. W. Cross. We are giving these names from memory, and if we have left out any it is wholly unintentional. We enjoyed being with all these good brethren.
On Saturday, May 23, Sister Winnie Hardin came to the church at Ramah asking for a home with them. She was joyfully received; and at her request and the request of the church and pastor we baptized her on Sunday morning. Brother Etheredge is the pastor here, and they all love and esteem him highly—as do the other churches which he serves. Brother Etheredge baptized a brother on Thursday morning, May 28, at Union Church (Midland City). We did not put the brother’s name down, and cannot recall it now while doing this writing.
The last three days we were at a union meeting at Little Vine, near Dothan. It was a delightful meeting.
All the meetings were pleasant to us. The Lord was good to us, and we were able to meet each appointment. The brethren were all good to us. We were never more kindly received or more heartily endorsed. The brethren gave evidence all the way around that they heartily endorsed our little efforts in trying to preach peace by Jesus Christ and to encourage the Lord’s dear children to walk in the good old way, where we may find rest to our souls, for so hath the Lord promised. May the good Lord bless those good people. We beg an interest in their prayers. Many of them we will never see again in this world of sorrow and trouble, but we hope that [pg 212] by the grace of God we may meet in that blessed home above, where sorrows never come. We left Dothan on Sunday afternoon. May 31, at 4 o’clock, and arrived at home on Monday afternoon at 2:30—our wife and all the children meeting us at the bus station—and found all well at home, for which we trust we are thankful to the good Lord. C. H. C.
OBITUARIES
July 2, 1936
In the last issue of this paper we had sixteen obituaries and resolutions of respect. We are doing this writing on June 17th and the paper is dated (last issue) June 18th. Today we have thirty-five obituaries and resolutions of respect on hand for the paper. Some of them are rather long—as some of them were in last issue, and as some have been all along. Now, please tell us what we can do about this ? We have repeatedly requested that these things be short, but it seems that our requests are little regarded. There is only one thing we can do about this, as we see it—and that is simply this: We will have to “boil them down”—cut out a lot of words, and make them shorter, in order to get them in the paper. That is what we will have to do with these we have on hand. We will be compelled to limit obituaries and resolutions of respect to 300 words. Here- after, you can put no more words than that in an obituary. You know what you want to say most of all, and what you would rather have left out. Govern yourselves accordingly. If you put more words in than that, we will have to do the culling ourselves, and we might [pg 213] leave out something you would prefer to go rather than something else you have said. So, please remember that these things are limited to not more than 300 words. We are sorry to have to adopt this rule—but something must be done, and this is the best we know to do. C. H. C.
CHURCH SOVEREIGNTY
July 16, 1936
When Fuller, Carey & Company introduced their new doctrines and new measures among the Baptists about the year 1792, and then in the years following advocated those new measures, and pressed them to the division of the Baptist family, they did so under the plea of church sovereignty. If one will read the history of the church during those times, he will see that the followers of these men claimed that each church was a sovereign, and had the right to engage in those new-fangled measures, and that no other church had a right to object. Their claim was that if one church desired to engage in such practices, she had the sovereign right to do so, and that no one had a right to interfere or to object.
When Burnam, Pence & Company introduced their new departures among the Baptists they made the same plea. They made the same claim—that each church had the right for herself to have a Sunday school, and the other new measures they introduced, and no other church had any right to object or to interfere. Their claim evidently was that each church is a sovereign.
When the Progressives introduced the organ and their other measures, they made the claim that each church [pg 214] is a sovereign, and had a right to do as she pleased, and no other church had a right to call the matter in ques- tion. Their claim was that each church had the right to decide the matter for herself as to whether she would have an organ in her worship or not, and that no other church had a right to object, or to say a word against it.
If there is any such thing as the church being a sovereign, then the claim of all these people was right, and the old-fashioned Baptists who protested against these new measures were in the wrong. If that doctrine is the truth, then we better go, “boot and baggage,” the whole “pile of us,” over to the Missionaries, and confess to them that our people were wrong; that they had no right to object; that the Missionaries were right in contending that they had a right to introduce their new measures; that each church had a right to decide for herself; and that we departed from the Scriptures in denying that right. What do you say? Are you ready to give up what our fathers contended for? We are not —we can only speak for ourselves.
No church has a right to disregard the rights of her sister churches. Each church has rights of her own— but she does not have the right to disregard the rights of her sister churches. No church has a right to do that which is injurious to the cause in general. No church has a right to retain in her body that which is detrimental to her sister churches or detrimental to the cause of Christ.
The church has no right under heaven to do anything else only what the Lord has taught and commanded in His blessed Word. The Lord is supreme, and the only Lawgiver in Zion. The church has no right to make or [pg 215] to enact laws, and she has no right to do anything else but to administer the laws the Lord has given. The apostles themselves did not enact laws. They explained and told how to administer and to execute the laws the Lord had given. They were judges—not legislators.
There is a sisterly relationship between churches. This is a fact which has been recognized by the Old Baptists all along the line. Sisters in a family are not sovereigns. They have rights which are theirs by reason of the relationship which exists. But one has no right to do a thing that is grievous to another. One does not have a right to do a thing that is disreputable, for that injures the other sister, because of the relationship which exists. Hence, a church does not have a sovereign right to do as she pleases, regardless of her sister churches. The Lord has given no such right, that we have been able to find.
It is true that each church is responsible to the Lord for her conduct. But so is a minister responsible to the Lord. While the minister is responsible to the Master, so is he responsible to his church for his conduct and for what he teaches. Hence, the fact that a fehurch is responsible to her Lord does not release her from the responsibility she is under to the sister churches.
If a church does not act according to the commands of the Master, the sister churches have rights, too, as well as she does. They have a right to cease affiliation and association with her until she sets herself in order —and they should do that. One good way to bring a church to consider her course and her conduct is to leave her alone—cease recognizing or affiliating with her, and leave her to herself until she reforms and sets herself in order. If all would observe this, and simply “keep [pg 216] hands off” when a church oversteps her bounds and fails to do as the Lord commands and requires in His Word, troubles would be kept at home, where they belong, if you have a dirty thing among you, remember that others have some rights too—keep your dirty business at your own home, if you want it. Others have a right to reject your dirt, and to not receive it. If one church has the right to have something, and no other church has a right to object, then the other church has the same right to reject, and you have no more right to complain about it than you say the others have to complain about you having the dirt.
Each church has the God-given right to say who is not entitled to membership in her body. But God has not given her the right to retain that in her body that is a disgrace to the cause. She is commanded to withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly. If a church has a disorderly member in her body and she will not, or refuses to, withdraw from him, then it is the duty of orderly churches to withdraw from her. To persist in retaining that which is a disgrace to the cause, is to walk disorderly; and the command is to withdraw from such.
If all churches would strive as hard at all times to do what the Lord requires and to obey His requirements, as they sometimes strive to justify themselves, and to hide behind “church sovereignty” in order to retain something that they should not retain, or to retain some man whose walk has not been orderly, and to justify themselves in so doing, there would be less trouble among the Old Baptists. We are too apt to “have men’s persons in admiration.”
God’s servants should be esteemed, and appreciated [pg 217] as such; but they should not be upheld or shielded in ungodly conduct. May the Lord help us to observe His laws and to administer them, as we are taught to do in His blessed Word. There is no appeal from that. C. H. C.
GALATIANS VI. 7
AND EPHESIANS V. 6
July 16, 1936
Sister Alma Pate, Avant, Okla., has requested our views on Gal. vi. 7 and Eph. v. 6. Gal. vi. 7, 8 reads as follows: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.” This language was written to the church at Galatia. It is not addressed to alien sinners. But it is true in nature, that “whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” We know that this is true in the vegetable kingdom. If a man sows wheat, he will reap wheat, if he reaps anything. If he sows oats, he will reap oats. If a young man or a young woman sow their “wild oats,” they will reap the same. It is sure to bring sorrow to them some day—when the reaping time comes.
A person cannot sow something he does not possess. He must have wheat in order to sow wheat. If he sows wheat, he will reap wheat. He not only reaps what he sows, but he reaps from the same field where the sowing was done. If he “sows to his flesh,” he “shall of the flesh reap corruption.” He does the reaping from the same field where he does the sowing. In order to [pg 218] do the sowing, he must first have both the seed and the field, to which he does the sowing. If one sows to the Spirit, he must first have the Spirit. It cannot be true, then, that he must do the sowing in order to obtain the Spirit; but he must have the Spirit, first, in order to sow to the Spirit.
One reaps the same thing that he sows. In this case, “he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.” As one reaps what he sows, if he reaps life everlasting he must have life everlasting and sow that. That is what he sows, if he reaps life everlasting, because he reaps what he sows. Hence, one must have life everlasting in order to do the sowing and reaping here mentioned by the apostle. The sowing here mentioned is the doing of the things the Lord has commanded, for the ninth verse says,’ ‘And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.” The sowing to the Spirit is doing the things the Lord commands—”well doing.”
Eph. v. 6 reads, ‘ ‘Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.” To see what “these things” are, get your Bible and read, beginning with the first of the chapter. Here is a plain warning that the wrath of God will be poured out upon His children who walk after and engage in the things that the apostle mentions in the preceding verses. It is a sowing to the flesh, and they will sure reap corruption. They will reap what they sow.
May the Lord help us turn from the weak and beggarly elements of the world, and help us to live in such a way as to honor and glorify His name while we live in the world. C. H. C.
[pg 219]
AN ABSOLUTER
July 16, 1936
We had an article clipped from the News and Observer, of December 9, 1935, printed in Raleigh, N. C., and signed by Elijah F. Pearce, in which he advocated the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things that come to pass, and that man does what God tells him. We did not know who the writer could be. So we sent the article to Elder R. H. Pittman and asked him who this E. F. Pearce is. Elder Pittman wrote us he was not sure as to who he is, and sent our letter, with the clipping, to Elder B. S. Cowin, Williamston, N. C., with the request that he write us. Elder Cowin wrote us under date of March 31, 1936: “Elder E. F. Pearce is moderator of the Little River Association, and I am well acquainted with him. He was at the last session of our (Kehukee) association, and preached on Sunday; and his writings show that he is in line with Wyatt and all other Absoluters, but I never mistrusted such a thing from listening to his preaching.” We give this information to our readers, so that they may know what is what in regard to the matter. We think our brethren should have such information given to them. C. H. C.
1. PETER IV. 18
August 6, 1936
We have been requested by Sister P. E. Meelear, of Texas, to give our views on 1 Peter iv. 18. Verses 17 and 18 read as follows: “For the time is come that judgment must
begin at the house of God: and if it first [pg 220] begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” This judgment is at and in the house of God, the church. There is no reference to the unregenerate. The whole thing is evidently dealing with gospel worship and service. There is a certain punishment to be meted out to God’s people for their disobedience and wickedness. “He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose’ ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know Him that said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge His people.”—Heb. x. 28-30.
There is no scarcity in the grace of God. By His grace His children are more than conquerors. His mercy and grace are abundant, though we may not always feel and realize it. But there is a scarcity in our service and in right doing. Sin is mixed with all that we do. Evil is always present, so that we cannot live a life of sinless perfection, as we desire to do. When we have done the very best that we can, then “we are but poor unprofitable servants; we have only done that which was our duty to do.” When we have done the very best that we know how and can do, we barely or scarcely “get by.” We are then just scarcely saved from the chastening rod, the punishment that is sorer than death. Some things are worse than death. The disobedient cannot [pg 221] escape that severe punishment. May the Lord help us to serve and obey Him. C. H. C.
THE HOLY CALLING
August 6, 1936
John D. Tate, Rutherford, Tenn., asked us in April, 1935, what is the holy calling, in
2 Timothy i. 9, and when does it take place? It is the calling out of nature’s night and darkness into the marvelous light and liberty of the children of God. It is the calling out of a death in sins to a state of life in Christ. It is the hearing of the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. It is the quickening of the dead sinner into a state of life in Christ. It is done by the Lord, by the power and work of His divine Spirit; and, hence, a “holy calling.”
He also asked, “Is the highway mentioned in Isa. XXXV. the gospel way?” We think it is Christ. He is the way, the truth, and the life. He is the way that poor sinners are saved. No others are saved by Him, only those the Father gave to Him. C. H. C.
TOUR IN MOUNT ZION
August 20, 1936
We left home on Tuesday afternoon, June 30, to fill appointments in the Mt. Zion Association in North Alabama, as arranged by Brother S. E. Copeland, of Guntersville. Our train was late, so we missed connection at Memphis, and on this account we failed to reach the [pg 222] first appointment, which was at Rocky Mount on Wednesday, July 1. We met all the other appointments, as arranged. On account of missing this first appointment we agreed to stay one day longer than was arranged for and to be at Rocky Mount on Monday, July 27.
Elder R. 0. Raulston, of Chattanooga, Tenn., was with us several days on the trip. We were glad to be with this dear old servant those several days, and felt sad when he left us on the 15th and returned to his home.
If we are not mistaken we met the following named brethren in the ministry who are in this association while on the trip: Elders G. E. Graves, W. B. Talley, J. D. Putman, W. L. Kitchens, H. P. Copeland, F. B. Moon, W. T. Cook, J. J. Herring, M. 0. Lucas, J. L. Burk, M. Sparks, R. J. Holcomb and J. N. Bobo. Some of them were with us several days. They are all sound and humble ministers, and seem to be of one mind.
At Harmony Church, on the 18th, Brother H. M. Reid joined by letter, and his wife joined by experiehce and baptism. She was baptized Sunday afternoon by Elder Talley.
We were in three communion meetings. One at New Clear Creek; one at Liberty, and one at Gum Pond. They took the bread and wine in commemoration of the broken body and shed blood of the blessed Redeemer. Then they engaged in washing each other’s feet, following the example given by the Master. These were especially good meetings. Tears of joy were shed, and they all seemed to desire to continue on in the good old way. There were none, and are none, in that association who desire to leave off the following of this exam- ple; and they are satisfied to continue on just as our [pg 223] fathers have in the past. They see no use of having trouble over a matter that all the Primitive Baptists in the South are practicing.
We had good congregations at most every place. The congregations were good, considering all the circumstances—weather, crop conditions, etc. They were good and kind to us—much better than we feel to deserve. May the Lord continue His blessings upon and with them. We love the good brethren of the Mt. Zion Association, and trust we may have an interest in their prayers.
Our father-in-law. Brother B. B. Lawler, and wife, Brownsboro, Ala., with Brother Dave Jett, met us at Rocky Mount on Monday, July 27, and we went home with them. His son and wife (Ben W. Lawler) conveyed us to Huntsville that night, where we took a train at 1:40 for home. We arrived home at 1:10 p. m. on Tuesday and found all well, for which we trust we are thankful. We felt that the Lord was good to us.
We are doing this writing on Wednesday, August 5, at home. We are due to leave tomorrow to fill other appointments that have been made, expecting to close the trip at the Indian Creek Association at Princeton, West Va., on Sunday, August 30. Please pray the Lord to bless our labors to the good of His cause and people, and to care for our loved ones at home while we are away. C. H. C.
I. TIMOTHY IV. 1-3
August 20, 1936
In January, 1935, Brother J. R. Nichols, Booneville, Miss., requested us to write on
1 Timothy iv. 1-3. Get your Testament and turn to it and read it, as we do not have space to copy it here. The expression, “latter times,” refers to a later time in the gospel dispensation. Some shall depart from the faith, or from the true doctrine of God. They will give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. The seducing spirits are evil spirits which seduce the Lord’s children and deceive them, thus leading them away from the truth. And many of the Lord’s children give heed to them. Doctrines of devils are doctrines that men and devils invent. Such doctrines are always contrary to the doctrine of God. The teachers of such doctrines speak lies in hypoc- risy. They are hypocritical teachers. They teach for hire and divine for money. They make merchandise of the people. They teach for filthy lucre. Papal Rome is evidently clearly brought to view in this, for they for- bid their priests to marry, under a pretext of great purity and sanctity. They command to abstain from meats. With them it is a great sin to eat meat on certain days. This is but Rome’s invention. False doctrines are borrowed from Rome. Rome led the way in modern missions. Rome invented sprinkling for baptism. Rome invented the practice of infant baptism. Rome invented the doctrine of eternal damnation without water baptism. Rome invented the doctrine that the preacher or priest is an instrument in eternal salvation of sinners. Many of the Lord’s children have been deceived by the false teachers of the world.
C. H. C.
[pg 225]
FUTURE IDENTITY
August 20, 1936
In May, 1935, we were asked to write an article on future identity, the person making the request stating that some were advocating the idea that we will know each other in heaven just as we know each other here, even by the same name, etc. If that be correct, we wonder how the different John Joneses and the different Sam Smiths will be distinguished there? Wonder if some will be called the young John Jones, or little John Jones, or old John Smith, etc. Such is simply speculation. We do not know now how much we shall know hereafter. Why people desire to speculate on such things we cannot understand. For speculation is all it is. The Bible does not tell us plainly about this. What difference does it make? If it is any comfort or consolation to one for him to believe this, let him alone. After all, he does not know any more about it than we do, and we do not know anything, for the Lord has not told us. We shall know God as our heavenly Father, and know Jesus as our Elder Brother, our Saviour, our Prophet, Priest, and King; and shall know the Lord’s children as the redeemed. If we know that when we get there, it seems to us that is enough for us now. Let us be content with the things the Lord has revealed in His Word that are for the comfort and consolation of the Lord’s humble poor here in the world.
C. H. C.
[pg 226]
MATTHEW XVIII. 8, 9, 15, 16, 17
September 3, 1936
We have been requested to give our views on Matt, xviii. 8, 9, 15, 16, 17. We gave our views on this language, therein recorded, in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of April 15, 1923. We do not suppose it is necessary for us to publish that article again. The language recorded in verses 8 and 9 is as follows:
“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.” The question was asked as to the meaning of the word offend, as here used. The word offend is translated from a word that primarily means to scandalize. If one commits a scandalous act, which is a disgrace to the body, or to the church, the plain and unequivocal instruction of the Master is to cut such a one off. This simply means to amputate the member—no matter how important that member may seem to us to be; no matter how influential the member may be; no matter how important an office he may hold —if he commits an act that is a scandal and a disgrace to the cause, the plain instruction of the Master is to cut that one off.
In verses 15, 16, 17, the matter of trespass is a matter of difference between persons or individuals, and is not a matter of scandal and disgrace to the cause and to the church. Now, these are the facts of the Saviour’s teaching here, and to disregard this teaching is simply [pg 227] to go the road that leads to trouble, strife, discord, confusion, distress and division. Such a course as disregarding this teaching and distinction and dealing has always brought trouble in Zion, and always will. C. H. C.
EPHESIANS II. 8, 9
September 3, 1936
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.—Eph. ii. 8, 9.
Here is text enough for a long article, but we will make just a few remarks. In this the apostle emphatically tells us that we are saved by grace. That expression positively excludes all works of the creature in his salvation. But the apostle does not stop at that, but says, most emphatically, “Not of works, lest any man should boast.” To suit modern theology, the theories taught by worldly religionists, the apostle would have said, “For by works are ye saved through the act of the creature; and that of yourselves: it is not the gift of God: it is of works, therefore let every man boast all he can.” The reason why the apostle did not say that is because salvation from sin is God’s gift through what Christ has done and does do for poor sinners. All boasting is thereby excluded. C. H. C.
[pg 228]
MISSIONS
September 17, 1936
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word. The heathen must hear before they can call on the Lord; but they cannot hear without a preacher, and a preacher cannot preach that does not realize God has sent him and is with him. Rom. x. Yea, he goes because the Lord says “Go” (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20), and because the blood of the heathen will be required at the hands of the church and preacher if they fail to go. God has said, “The wicked shall be turned into hell with all the nations that forget God.”—Psa. ix. 17. This should make missionaries out of every church in the land, and cause fathers and mothers, to pray God to send their sons and daughters to the lands of darkness. About one million die in China . each month and probably not more than 5 per cent of this number are saved. God is going to bring America and England, with all the other nations that have the gospel, to account for their neglect. “To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not to him it is sin.”
REMARKS
The above is copied from the Baptist and Commoner of December 18, 1935, and appears to be from the pen of Elder W. L. Randall, of Somerset, Ky., who is a missionary in China, and who was in the States at the time.
If “about one million die in China each month and probably not more than 5 per cent of this number are saved,” and the “blood of the heathen will be required at the hands of the church and preacher,” is it not a foregone conclusion that the church and preacher will go to hell with the Chinks? The very doctrine of the Missionary fanatics condemns them. If their doctrine and teaching is the truth, the whole pile of them will land in an eternal hell. There is no escape for them, if the above statements and teachings are the truth. On the other hand, if the “church and preacher” are [pg 229] saved in heaven, then the doctrine is not the truth. If their doctrine is not the truth, then it is an invention of men and devils. Hence, they must be advocating the doctrines of men or devils if they ever enter heaven. Poor fellows! We are glad their doctrines are not the truth. God can and does save poor sinners in China, and in all the habitable parts of the world, without the help of these false teachers and blind guides.
These Missionary Baptists profess to teach the doctrine of the final preservation of the saints—once in grace, always in grace. Yet, if the preacher—a child of grace—does not do all in his power to get the gospel to the Chinaman in order that the Chinaman may be saved, then God will require the blood of the Chinaman at the hands of that preacher. So, if the Chinaman is sent to hell because he did not hear the gospel, he is sent to hell for something he could not help, and the preacher will be sent to hell with him. Wonder if that will be any comfort to the poor Chinaman in hell?
Will these Missionary fanatics please tell us upon what principle of justice God will damn the heathen Chinaman in an eternal hell on account of the failure and neglect of the so-called Christian preacher and church?
Is it a sin for the Chinaman to not believe the gospel, since he never heard the gospel, or had an opportunity of believing it?
Are people sent to hell for rejecting the gospel?
Can a person reject a thing that he has never heard tell of? If so, how?
Then the heathen Chinese have not rejected the gospel, have they?
[pg 230] Is it a sin for a person not to believe a thing he has never heard tell of? If so, how?
Is not sin a transgression of the law? What law requires one to believe something he never heard tell of? Citation, please.
Is not the “rich man in hell” the first case on record of one wanting persons to be warned to keep them from going to hell? Where is any case on record prior to that?
Did not your doctrine have its origin in hell, then?
Did God’s doctrine have its origin in hell?
“It is, however, a very remarkable circumstance, that in modern missions Papal Rome has led the way.”— Minutes Philadelphia Association, 1806, page 429. This mission business is an invention of Rome, and is not from God. It gets money from the people under a false pretense. We are sorry for the poor deluded children of God who are blinded by these false teachers.
C. H. C.
ANOTHER NEW BIBLE
November 5, 1936
New York, Aug. 5.—(AP)—The Holy Bible will look different after next October. At least the edition being published by one of New York’s younger publishers will look different.
Their product will be, it is said, a completely “rethought” presentation of the ancient text, designed to make reading the Bible once more a popular diversion.
The publishers remark that although the Bible is esteemed as literature more highly today than at any time in the past, it is read less. Part of this neglect is traceable, they believe, to the somewhat forbidding form in which the text normally appears.
Forty years ago Richard G. Moulton attacked the same situation [pg 231] with his “Modern Readers Bible.” The new edition will go still farther than Moulton, however, and will try to use every device of modern typography and design to make the product seem readable and attractive.
The Book of Job, for example, is headed “A Philosophical Drama.” There follows a cast, as in an ordinary published play, two in fact.
One is headed “Characters in the Prologue and Epilogue,” and the other “Characters in the Drama.” The voice out of the whirlwind is one of the latter.
The text itself is paragraphed without particular regard for the plan of the original. In the Book of Job, as well as Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, the revised version is used. For the rest, the editors have chosen the King James version.
All the books have been placed in chronological order, with punctuation modernized, and genealogies, repetitions and some of the minor epistles omitted. The whole of Chronicles also is left out.
Ernest Sutherland Bates is credited with developing the editorial plan, and Phillip Van Doren Stern designed the book. Bates’ latest book is a biography of William Randolph Hearst, written in collaboration with Oliver Carlson.
The above, from the Atlanta (Ga.) Journal of August 5, 1936, was sent to us by E. B. Steadman, of Fort Valley, Ga. It was in that paper under the heading, ” ‘Re- thought’ Bible to Be Offered To Popularize Its Reading.” Evidently it is a “rethought” affair—and, at that, a thought emanating from the lower regions—a thought prompted by the very devil himself. It is simply another effort to detract from the beauty and the worth of the Bible—the inspired Word of God.
Note that the effort is to make “reading the Bible once more a popular diversion.” It is not to inspire or to encourage reverence for the Book as the Word of God, but simply to read as a diversion—simply for pastime and recreation—just to idle away time.
[pg 232] Note that the getter-up of this new outfit thinks that our Bible appears in a “forbidding form.” Hence he must make it all over. The things which he does not like are to be eliminated, and it must be made over to suit the devil and his cohorts. It is to be made to seem readable and attractive to the generality of mankind— to the world. In order to do that, it must be made over. The world has never been pleased with God’s teaching, and never will be. Professed religionists have always despised God’s blessed truth, and the effort has always been made by the world to destroy the good Book, and to “turn the truth of God unto a lie.”
Note, also, that the Book of Job is to be brought down on a common level with filthy opera house plays, and that some of the books of the Bible are to be left out entirely.
Were it not for the fact that our God is long-suffering, it seems to us that this wicked world would have long since been destroyed. What blasphemy and brazen effrontery, that men will thus avowedly tamper with the inspired Word of God. The Bible is not simply a book—it is a whole library. No better code of moral laws have ever been written than it contains. It is a complete guide for human kind in all their dealings. If a man wishes to know how he should treat his wife, the Bible tells him. If a woman wishes to know how she should treat her husband, the Bible tells her. If the parents wish to know how they should bring up their children, the Bible tells them. If children wish to know how they should treat their parents, and how they should honor and respect them, the Bible tells them. If young folks wish to know how they should respect the older folks, the Bible tells them. If old folks [pg 233] wish to know how they should treat the younger ones, the Bible tells them. If one wishes to know how he should treat his neighbor, the Bible tells him. If one wishes to know how to make of himself a good citizen, the Bible tells him. If we wish to know how we may have a good community in which to live, the Bible tells us. If we wish to know where mankind came from, and how they got here, the Bible tells us. If we wish to know where we go when we leave this world, the Bible tells us. If we wish to know how nations and governments may be perpetuated, the Bible tells us. If we wish to know what things are bad, and where they came from, the Bible tells us. If we wish to know why everything produces after its kind, the Bible tells us. If we wish to know why one loves God and holiness and righteousness, the Bible tells us. If we wish to know how to honor and serve the God that we love, the Bible tells us. If we have sorrows and trials along the way, and wish to know where and how we may obtain sweet rest and comfort, the Bible tells us. If we desire more evidence that we are the Lord’s children, and that sweet rest awaits us beyond this life, the Bible gives it to us. If we wish to know some of the evidences of a gracious state, the Bible gives them to us. If we wish to know what we should be engaged in doing, as good works, the Bible tells us what the good works are. If we wish to know how to follow the blessed Master, the Bible tells us how and what to do, in order to be the followers of Him. If we wish to know whether there is anything to be gained in this life by following the Lord, by walking in obedience to Him, the Bible tells us. If we wish to know if there is anything lost by walking in disobedience, the Bible tells us. In fact, the Bible is a [pg 234] thorough furnisher. In that Book the Lord has given everything we need. Everything good, as to how we should live, either as citizens, in the moral realm, or as His children, in the spiritual realm, is laid down and furnished in that Book. It also contains ample warnings as to what will be the result of wickedness and walking contrary to the teachings therein given. Let us beware of tampering with the Holy Book. If translators have made some little errors in translating it, let us not, on that account, fall in with and follow after such blatant tampering with the blessed old Book, which has been a guide and comfort to the Lord’s humble poor all along the past ages. It has been sufficient on the above lines during the past ages, and will be sufficient through the ages to come. May the Lord help us all to respect it, and to observe and follow its teachings. C. H. C.
A DELIGHTFUL TRIP
December 3, 1936
It is late now to write about our last trip East, but “it is better late than never”—so we have heard it said. But we will have to make another apology, which is nothing new for us to have to do. When we returned home from the trip we were completely worn out, and for a few weeks we were barely able to be up and stay on our feet. We had expected to attend the Mountain Springs Association at Little Rock, embracing the first Sunday in September, and the Salem Association, embracing the second Sunday in that month; but we did not feel well enough to attend them—not having [pg 235] regained our strength. So we have delayed writing anything about our trip. It was not on account of not enjoying the trip, nor because we were not well treated.
We first attended the Sequatchie Valley Association on that trip, which was held in Chattanooga, Tenn., embracing the second Sunday in August. Then we filled appointments in the section around Knoxville, visiting and filling an appointment near Cleveland, Tenn., on the way, until the meeting of the Powell’s Valley Association, embracing the third Sunday in August. Then we filled appointments for a few more days in that section, then attended the North District Association, held this year in Casey County, Ky., embracing the fourth Sunday. Then we filled two appointments in Kentucky—one at Richmond and one at Goshen, near Winchester. Then we went from there to Newark, Ohio, and filled an appointment there, and one at Hebron and one at Thurston. Elder J. H. Keaton, of Huntington, W. Va., met us at the North District Association, and conveyed us from there on through the remainder of the trip.
From Thurston, Ohio, we went to Brother Keaton’s home, where there was an appointment for us, for the night of August 26. From there we went to Little Vine, near Beckley; and from there to the Indian Creek Association, embracing the fifth Sunday in August.
It was our intention to write about this trip some time ago, and to give the names of all the ministers we met on the trip; but it has been so long, we will omit that now. Thirteen ministers were present at the Sequatchie Valley Association, including their home preachers. Twenty preachers were at the Powell’s Valley Association, including their home preachers. [pg 236] Seven ministers were at the North District Association, including one licentiate. In Ohio, besides Elder Keaton being with us, we met Elders T. W. Osborne, Corvin Dove, M. 0. Curp and U. G. Porter, and we think we had met all of them years ago. There were forty-two ministers and four licentiates at the Indian Creek Association.
We never enjoyed a trip better in life, and never have we been more heartily received, and never have our feeble efforts in trying to preach been more heartily endorsed than on this trip. We met many dear brethren whom we had never met before, and many others whom we had met in the years gone by. Many of them we will never meet again in this world of sorrows, but we have a blessed hope of meeting them in that land where there is no night. May the good Lord bless them for their great kindness to us. They were so much better to us than we feel to deserve. Especially do we desire to mention the great kindness of dear Elder Keatoh in meeting us at the North District Association and staying with us until we had to separate at the Indian Creek Association, when the time came for us to return home. We shall not forget him and his good family and home.
We trust those who may feel an interest in this matter will not think for a moment that our delay in mentioning this trip is because we felt slighted in any way, for we never felt that way. May the Lord’s richest blessings rest upon and with each one, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
[pg 237]
WHISKEY DRINKING
December 17, 1936
If there is a member of the Old Baptist Church who spends his money for intoxicating liquors and his family, perhaps, half clad, and neglects his church, he is not fit for membership and should be excluded unless he will quit it at once—and no delay. Such folks are not fit to associate with decent folks of the world, much less fit to have membership in the Lord’s kingdom. Now, reader, get mad at us for saying this and somebody will think you are guilty. C. H. C.
CLOSE OF VOLUME LI.
December 17, 1936
One more year is gone. Another milepost in the path of life is reached, and we are one more year nearer to our eternal home. One more year’s work is done. The trials and conflicts of another year have been met and encountered. The trials have been varied, and the conflicts have been trying at times. But, thank the Lord, these things are not the only things we have had to meet and encounter during the year. There have been some joys and pleasures, too.
Sometimes we have been discouraged, but we have not felt like we wanted to ground arms and quit. Sometimes we look back over the life we have lived, and the efforts we have made in trying to serve the Lord and His dear people, and we can see so little accomplished, if anything at all, that we feel discouraged and cast down. Our whole life has been given in trying to [pg 238] speak in His blessed name and in trying to publish the truth in the columns of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. We have endeavored to let these things be first in our whole course of life for nearly fifty years. We united with the Primitive Baptists in August, 1889, and began trying to speak in the name of the Master on January 4, 1890. We have been connected with the printing and publishing of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST since September 1, 1886—our father having begun the publication of the paper January 1, 1886. We do not wish to quit the field (be a deserter) until the time comes to receive an honorable discharge.
During the past few years, especially, we have come through some trying times—and they are not done yet. The N. R. A. was hard on us, and would have been almost absolutely destructive to our carrying on the paper had we not been fortunately situated so that we could put the little business at least partly out of the jurisdiction and reach of the code affair. But now we are facing another measure that is going to cripple or put many a little fellow out of business—the so-called Social Security Act. This puts another tax on us and on our workers, if we shall have any workers. All steps of our government are pointing toward a religious persecution. The time may be nearer than some of us think when we will have to go to jail for the principles of justice and freedom which our fathers stood for and which have been handed down to us. When we consider the trend, and consider the history of the past, we cannot help shuddering. May the Lord help us, and give us grace for our day and trial.
Yet, in the face of all these things, brethren continue to bite and devour one another. Brethren have asked [pg 239] us to give our views in regard to matters in the Scripture, or in regard to church affairs, and we have tried to give our understanding of the matters asked us about. Then some brethren have been pleased to shoot at us through the columns of some other paper. No, they did not call our name; but they were careful to be plain enough for us to know who they were shooting at. We wonder if they got any pleasure out of doing such a thing. Do you think the Lord will bless you, or bless His kingdom and followers, because you pursue a course like that? Brethren, we pray the Lord may enable you to see the evil of such a course, and give you grace to enable you to turn from it. We have no desire to shoot back at you. May the Lord be our judge, and take care of the situation, is our prayer.
Our year’s work for 1936 is ended. We have tried to be faithful and true. We are free to still confess that we have made mistakes; but they were errors of the head and not of the heart. In the midst of it all the Lord has been good to us. His mercies still endure. Will you who read this please remember us in your prayers, that the Lord may direct us in the right way, and give us grace for every trial? May His richest blessings rest upon each of you, is our humble prayer. For the present and for this year we bid you farewell in the Lord. C. H. C.
[pg 240]
INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME LII.
January 7, 1937
Another new year has now been ushered in, and with it we begin on another volume of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. The fifty-first volume was completed with the last issue, and this begins the fifty-second volume. What shall we now say by way of introduction to this volume? The present editor may not live to finish the volume. No human being knows about that. And yet we may be spared to live several years yet. We are not as strong physically as we once were, but we believe that we believe the truth as strongly as we ever did. We are just as confident now that the principles contended for in our columns are the principles of truth as we have ever been. It is our desire now to earnestly and lovingly contend for those principles, as much so as ever before. We have no desire to forsake those principles now.
The principles for which THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST has stood, and which have been contended for in the columns of this paper, ever since the paper was started by our father on January 1, 1886, are contained in and set forth in the Abstract of Principles which have appeared in most every issue of the paper from the beginning. The article in the Abstract of Principles which is really the keynote and the foundation of all the others, as we see the matter, is the second article. The article reads as follows:
That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God, written by inspiration, and that they are the standard of faith, and the only rule divinely authorized for Christian practice, teaching, as they do, all that we ought to believe, know, or practice religiously.
[pg 241] By the help of the Lord, if our life is spared through the year 1937, or even more than through this year, we expect to continue to stand on what is contained in that article of the faith. In the past we have opposed the introduction of things and measures not authorized by the Word of God, and we expect, by the grace of God, to do the same thing during this year, if the good Lord spares our life and blesses us with a sound mind. What the Bible teaches is enough, and is good enough. It was good enough for our fathers, and is good enough for us and for our children.
The Lord was wise enough to know what would be good for His children in every age of the world when He inspired His chosen servants to write what is contained in His Book. Circumstances, customs, conditions, improvements in living, have never arisen to make it necessary or better to adopt something unauthorized by the Word of God. It contains a rule sufficient for all time, and sufficient for all conditions and circumstances of life. It is a perfect rule of faith and conduct for all time—whether past, present or future.
Contending for what the Bible teaches has never brought trouble or distress among the Primitive Baptists. Practicing what the Bible teaches that the Lord’s children should practice has never brought distress or disturbance in the church of God. It is what the Bible does not teach that brings trouble among them. When there is strife, confusion, trouble, distress and division among us, you may know, for a certainty, that it is because somebody has brought something other than what the Bible teaches. And it is a universal fact that the fellow who is responsible for the trouble is the [pg 242] fellow who has brought in what the Bible does not authorize.
Some folks will talk about and cry loudly that they want peace, and yet continue to advocate things that the Bible does not authorize. Some of them will try to bring those things in on the sly. Some of them are not so very open and free. They will talk those things up in private which they desire to introduce. If you find it out on them and raise a warning cry, as the Lord requires you to do, then you are denounced as an alarmist and as a disturber of the peace. And those fellows are sure to “have it in for you.” If they have the opportunity, they are sure to “stab you in the back.” And if they do not have the opportunity otherwise, they will make the opportunity. There are such persons living, and we know it, for we have had experience with them in the past; and we expect them to keep up their nefarious work, unless the Lord works in them in a way that He has not yet done. Boys, we know who some of you are. But, we again say that, no matter what men may do or say, by the grace of God, we expect to continue to stand just where we have stood during the years that are now in the past. If you want peace, quit your departures and behave yourselves.
If our days are about ended, by the grace of God we can say, “I have kept the faith.” May the Lord help us to still “fight the good fight,” while He spares us to stay upon earth.
To those who love the principles of truth which have been contended for in our columns during the past fifty-one years, we say, please remember us in your prayers, that the Lord will give us grace for our day and trial.
C. H. C.
[pg 243]
HOLIDAY REMEMBRANCES
January 7, 1937
During the holidays we have received a great many remembrances. Many sent us Christmas cards. Many sent gifts and presents—some of them extremely nice and valuable. Words fail us to tell how much these things are all appreciated. It is so much encouragement and consolation to us to know that we have so many good and true friends and brethren and sisters who remember us. These things all show to us that we have your Christian love and fellowship and confidence and esteem. We feel unworthy of it all, but we trust that we appreciate it. Please let this little note be a per- sonal message to each one of you, and be assured that we appreciate your remembrance, whether it be a card, or whatever it may have been. May the good Lord bless you according to His loving kindness and tender mercies, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
BARN BURNED
January 7, 1937
On Thursday afternoon, December 24, while the editor and wife were in Fordyce on some business, our barn caught fire and burned down. It was totally destroyed. We had a little more than enough hay therein to run us through the winter, and a lot of good lumber stored therein. All were destroyed. It was a total loss. But we felt thankful it was no worse. We felt thankful it was not our dwelling or office, and that none [pg 244] of the children were in the fire. The boys were left at home, and we felt thankful they were not hurt or burned. In the midst of misfortunes and hardships the Lord has been good to us. The little troubles we have to encounter are insignificant in comparison with the Lord’s mercies and blessings. C. H. C.
WONDERFUL ORDER
January 21, 1937
On another page in this paper will be found an article from Brother J. T. Foster, West Blockton, Ala., containing a brief statement of affairs in that section, and some of the proceedings of Elder S. F. Moore. We hap- pened to know just when the trouble started at Cluster Springs Church, for we were present. It started over a person being received. * * * * No church can receive a member without a unanimous vote of the members present. The course pursued * * * * was like throwing ice on a hot fire. The meeting had been good—just fine—up to that time. It was communion time, but that matter blocked the communion, and the meeting was dismissed in coldness, as though the north pole had been suddenly moved into their midst. * * * * Elder Streetman contended, * * * * divided the church and destroyed the peace and fellow- ship of the body. * * * * now, Elder Moore and the Trumpet folks have some more of that sort lined up with them. They are welcome to them, so far as we are concerned. But the ridiculousness of the matter is that they will [pg 245] cry “ORDER, ORDER, ORDER,” in the ears of the brotherhood, and pose as simon-pure, while going over the country and scraping up everything they can gather together that orderly Old Baptists have excluded, and recognize them as orderly, and then refuse to recognize orderly folks in the southwest under the pretense of “ORDER.” Their cry of “order, order, order,” reminds us of a lot of frogs in wet weather alongside of ponds and creek banks. It seems to us that our people have gone on bearing with them in their nefarious work about long enough. It seems to us that it is about time for us to recognize the bars they have put up, and treat them as their conduct deserves. May the Lord have mercy on their poor benighted souls.
C. H. C.
EXPLANATION WANTED
February 4, 1937
Dear Brother Cayce: My brother is a subscriber to your paper, THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, and I have access to its pages and read most of each issue. I have become very much interested in the doctrine of predestination as taught by you. I have not been able to understand clearly what you teach; nor can I understand Paul’s teaching in Eph. i. 5 and Rom. viii. 29, 30. What I want to know is: a plain and concise interpretation of these Scriptures. Do they harmonize with John iii. 16, 17, 18; John v. 24, and other Scriptures having similar import? Are there two plans of salvation—one by predestination, the other by faith in the only begotten Son of God? What is God’s plan of saving a soul who was made a sinner by Adam’s transgression? Does plan of salvation and His covenant of grace mean the same thing? Are there two active parties in the covenant, or only one? When God created man did He give him power, as a distinct individual, to choose between good and evil? and did He not hold [pg 246] him responsible for his choosing? What is the significance of “Whom He foreknew?” You say Christ died for the elect only. He loved all; why did He not die for all? What was the basis of God’s election? If God so loved the world (without any distinction) that He gave His only begotten Son to die for them, why did He then elect only a few of them to eternal life and leave the rest of them to their doom in a devil’s hell? If Christ died for the elect only, why did not John say, “For God so loved the elect that He gave His only begotten Son that all of the elect should not perish, but have everlasting life?”
These are some of the questions that confront me when I try to harmonize the Scriptures referred to in this article. I have asked these questions, not to stir up controversy, nor that you should answer each one directly, but that you may know just what my difficulty in understanding these Scriptures is, and be able to explain to my satisfaction, and harmonize John iii. 16, 17, 18, with Eph. i. 5 and Rom. viii. 29, 30, in an article in the next issue of your paper, or as soon as it is convenient thereafter. I am writing this for my own desire for truth and a knowledge concerning these things which have interested me for sometime, but have not been able to find a satisfactory conclusion. Thanking you in advance for this favor, I remain, yours in search for truth,
W. P. Miller.
Boise City, Okla.
OUR ANSWER
Since the writer of the above says he is asking the above for information and with a sincere desire for the truth, we will try to offer some remarks on the matters he mentions. We will take it for granted that he is honest and sincere in this statement, and will try to explain some of the things mentioned, as best we can. We do not promise to answer his questions to his satisfaction. They might be answered correctly and according to truth, and yet he might not be satisfied with it. To begin with we will say that the Scriptures do not contradict themselves. If one statement therein seems [pg 247] to us to contradict another statement therein, the trou- ble is that we are making a wrong application of one or both of the statements. If each statement in the Book is applied where it belongs, then there is no contradiction, but a perfect chain of harmony, beauty and truth, all the way through. There is nothing wrong in or with what the Book says, or what it teaches. The wrong is with us, in making a wrong application of what it says.
Now, the brother admits that he cannot harmonize the Scriptures referred to. No man on earth can harmonize them and make the application of John iii. 16, 17, 18, that the brother does. The trouble is that he makes a universal application of the word world in that text, as well as in many other places, where it must have a limited meaning, or else there is a contradiction, and no man can thus harmonize the Book, or show the harmony therein. As evidence that the word world is often used in the Bible in a restricted sense, let us read Luke ii. 1, “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.” Evidently the word world here does not embrace all mankind—it is used in a restricted sense. Again, read 1 John v. 19, “And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.” Here it is very plain in the text itself that the word world does not embrace all mankind; for “we,” a part of the race of mankind, “are of God,” and are not lying in wickedness, or in the wicked one. Here it is very evident that there is such a thing as the world of the godly, or the godly world, and the world of the ungodly, or the ungodly world. Keep this fact in mind, please. There is no disputing it.
With that fact in mind, which is proven in the [pg 248] foregoing paragraph, we can make an application of John iii. 16, 17, 18, which harmonizes with other Scriptures. The word world therein is used in a restricted sense, and has reference only to the world of the godly, the elect world.
Another fact is this: God does not, and did not, love all the race. Read Romans ix. 13: “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” God did not love Esau; but Esau was a part of the race. Then God did not love all the race. God loved Jacob; but He did not love Esau; so He passed Esau by, and bestowed the blessing upon Jacob. This was said before they were born—notice the context in Romans ix. So, your application of John iii. 16-18 is wrong. That is the reason you cannot harmonize that with the other places. You just cannot harmonize your application with other plain statements in the Book. The Book is right, but the application is wrong.
Some covenants are conditional, but some are not. God made a covenant with Noah that He would never again destroy the earth by water. That was not a conditional covenant, depending upon the obedience of Noah or any of his descendants for its fulfillment. It depends alone upon the power and faithfulness of God for its fulfillment. Read Gen. ix. 11. Then we will read Jere. liv. 9, 10, “For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee. For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee.” Here the Lord tells us [pg 249] that the covenant of His peace is like the covenant He made with Noah. As the covenant made with Noah and all flesh that the earth should never again be destroyed by water was an unconditional covenant, and the covenant of His peace was like it, then the covenant of His peace was an unconditional covenant. The covenant of His peace is the covenant of grace. In it His mercy is promised; grace is promised. And the promise was like the promise to Noah—unconditional upon the part of humanity.
In Romans viii. 28, 29, we have this language, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.” That there is a sense in which God foreknew all persons, actions, and things, we do not suppose the writer of the above letter will deny. If that is admitted, then we have only to say that the language itself shows very plainly that there were some persons foreknown by Him in a peculiar way in which others were not foreknown. Those who were foreknown in this peculiar way were predestinated to be conformed to the image of Jesus, His Son. As those thus peculiarly foreknown were predestinated to be conformed to the image of Jesus, others not thus foreknown were not thus predestinated. Now, there is the Bible doctrine of predestination; and every place you find the word in the Book it has reference to the redemption, salvation, and final glorification of those the Lord thus foreknew. In what peculiar sense were they foreknown? They were known beforehand, before they existed, before time was, in the covenant of His [pg 250] grace. That covenant was an everlasting covenant. See Heb. xiii. 20, 21.
This is just one plan or way that God saves poor sinners from eternal ruin. There is no other way. The Lord has made conditional covenants, it is true, but the obedience of the parties of the second part in the conditional covenants did not procure eternal life. One conditional covenant God made with Israel, in ancient times, was, “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. i. 19, 20. Here is a conditional covenant or promise, in which the Lord covenanted that they should eat the good of the land; but it depended upon their being willing and obedient. He did not promise eternal life on the condition that they be will- ing and obedient; but that they should eat the good of the land. They did not have to be willing and obedient in order that they become Israelites; for they were Israelites already; but they had to be willing and obedient in order to eat the good of the land.
In John xiii. 17, Jesus said, “If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.” Here is a happiness promised by the Saviour which depends upon doing the things He has taught. It is a happiness to be enjoyed here, and is not a promise of eternal life or of happiness hereafter. Of course, this belongs to the children of God—belongs to Israel. There is a happiness and peace in the moral realm which is enjoyed by those who walk uprightly in that realm; and there is a happiness and peace enjoyed by the children of God who walk uprightly in spiritual service. Our happiness and well being here in this world depends much upon the way we [pg 251] live; but our home in heaven does not depend upon that. That is something which depends alone upon the work of the Lord. It is dependent upon what the Lord does for us, and is not dependent upon what we do for the Lord.
This is a great subject, and we have only hinted at it here, and the article is growing too long. We must stop here. We suggest to Brother Miller that he get hold of a copy of the Cayce-Penick debate and read and study that work. We have one copy, second hand, which he can get for the small sum of $1.50. They are scarce and hard to get hold of. May the Lord bless these thoughts herein written to the benefit of all our readers. C. H. C.
UNIONISM
February 18, 1937
There has been some question in the minds of some of our brethren as to the members of our churches holding membership in trade unions. Up to the present time we have had but little to say in regard to the matter. Yet we have had our own opinion as to whether we, ourselves, would operate a union shop. We believe we should inform our readers as to what, at least, some unions require of their membership.
We have before us a blank application for membership in a certain kind of union. Here is the obligation one signs who makes the application for membership in that union:
I hereby solemnly and sincerely swear (or affirm) that I will not reveal any business or proceedings of any meeting of this or any [pg 252] subordinate union to which I may hereafter be attached unless by order of the union, except to those whom I know to be members in good standing thereof; that I will, without equivocation or evasion, and to the best of my ability, abide by the Constitution, By-Laws and the adopted scale of prices of any union to which I may belong; that I will at all times support the laws, regulations and decisions of the Union, and will carefully avoid giving aid or succor to its enemies, and use all honorable means within my power to procure employment for members of the Union in preference to others; that my fidelity to the union and my duty to the members thereof shall in no sense be interfered with by any allegiance that I may now or hereafter owe to any other organization, social, political, or religious, secret or otherwise; that I will belong to no society or combination composed wholly or partly of printers, with the intent or purpose to interfere with the trade regulations or influence or control the legislation of this union; that I will not wrong a member or see him or her wronged, if in my power to prevent. To all of which I pledge my most sacred honor.
That is the obligation one signs in making application for membership in that union. We do not presume this to be radically different from others. There are some things in this to which we wish to call particular attention. One is that the applicant signs a pledge that he will belong to no society or combination composed wholly or partly of printers, with the intent or purpose to interfere with the trade regulations or to influence or control the legislation of the union. In this the person signs away all his right of having a word to say about any legislation the union may make. The person thereby signs away all his liberties, and solemnly obligates himself to be governed and controlled absolutely, without any voice or objection, by those who are the “higher ups,” or by the head officers of the union. What liberty- loving child of grace wishes to thus surrender all his rights and privileges as to his own working conditions?
[pg 253] No person on earth can do what he obligates himself to do in this and at the same time do as the Lord requires in His blessed Book. In fact, when he signs the above pledge, he absolutely signs a pledge that he will not do what God has commanded in His Book. Here is what the Book says: “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.”—Gal. vi. 10. Here the express command is to do good “especially unto them who are of the household of faith.” God’s Book requires the first obligation be to the brotherhood—the brethren and sisters in the church. But the obligation above requires the first obligation to the members of the union. The obligation places the union above everything else in the world, “social, political or religious.”
To every member of the church our Lord has set up here in the world for the comfort and benefit of His humble poor, we would propound this question, and would have it sink down deep in your heart: What is higher, what is above the church our Lord has set up? True Primitive Baptists have always claimed that the church of Christ is the highest institution in the world, and that it is above everything else in the world. We think so yet. Will you belong to and affiliate with any institution where you have to sign away that belief and fundamental principle of our faith?
Will you sign a pledge that you will procure employment for another in preference to your brother in the church? Do you think more of those who belong to the union, and who may not be as moral and upright as they should, than you do of your brother in the Lord? Which do you think should be given preference in the matter of procuring employment for—your brother in [pg 254] the “household of faith” or the member of the union? Both cannot have the preference. God’s Book says, “especially to them who are of the household of faith.”
Let us try to do our duty as best we can, and as the Lord has commanded, and let such things of the world alone. You may rest assured that none of them are or can be for the betterment of the Lord’s dear children. As for what we think about such things, we are free to say that we absolutely would not run a union shop. From the Bulletin of the Employing Printers’ Association of America, the January-February, 1937, number, we copy the following concerning the strike in General Motors Corporation:
Revolution by physical force is what we have witnessed in the “sit-down” strike of employees in the plants of the General Mo- tors Corporation.
The strikers have forcibly seized machinery, equipment, and buildings, which they refuse to relinquish except on condition that they receive certain supposed gains.
Their plan and action plainly constitute a form of extortion.
An injunction issued by a Michigan court to protect the constitutional rights of the property owners has not been enforced by local authorities.
General Motors thus has not been able to avail itself of the legal protection to which it is entitled under our government.
The constitutional right of the great majority of the employees to continue in their work, as they wish, for the corporation that desires to employ them, has been flagrantly violated.
Law and property rights have been flouted, the judical system of the state defied, and citizens have been subjected to a reign of anarchy.
If the labor-union forces win the present strike, the “check-off” will be instituted. The employer will have to deduct union dues regularly from the pay envelopes of all workers and remit the deducted funds to the racketeers who have the industry under their heels. The employing corporation thereby will be compelled to [pg 255] coerce its employees into becoming and remaining members of the union controlled by a union dictator.
For many years we have published warnings that labor unionism’s ultimate objective is a labor-union political dictatorship! To many who have read them, these warnings may have seemed far- fetched, but not so in the light of the latest developments!
Unless the American people awaken to what is going on and rise in righteous wrath to put down the revolution, they will soon live, not as citizens, but as subjects of the labor-union leader who is engineering the present strike.
We copied quite at length above, but it was necessary in order to get the full force of the matter in this article. Read carefully, ponder well, and if you prize your liberties, then humbly serve the Lord and pray and labor for the peace of Jerusalem. C. H. C.
MUTUAL RIGHTS
March 4, 1937
It seems that some of us “old teachers” have had some very “apt” scholars in our day. It seems that some of our young students are very “apt” to take something which we have said and apply it to anything they want to, whether we applied it there or not. Perhaps our cause would get along a little better if some of our pupils were not quite so “apt.”
We have said, for years, and yet say, that if our church should withdraw fellowship from us, no other church, no council, no association, no tribunal on earth has any right to call the matter in question, or has any right to restore us, or to take us into the fellowship of the Primitive Baptists. Each local church or congregation has the God-given right to say who is not entitled [pg 256] to membership in her body. If our church should wrongfully exclude us, other churches have the right to endeavor to labor in love with her to show her the error—but they have no right to go any farther than that. The reason why this is so is because our church is holding to and harboring nothing that is injurious to the great and general body of Baptists, and is staying within her own God-given rights.
But if our church should hold us in her fellowship when we are guilty of a thing that is a shame and disgrace to the cause of the Master, and which is, therefore, a disgrace upon her sister churches, then she is going beyond her God-given right. God has not given her the right to hold, and to harbor, and retain, in her body, anything that is a disgrace to her sister churches or a disgrace to the cause. In such case the sister churches have a right to enter their complaints to our church, and if she persists in retaining in her membership that which is a disgrace to the general body, they have a right to withdraw affiliation with her, and have a right to refuse such affiliation until she corrects her wrong, or ceases such practice.
If our church here in Thornton has the right to retain whom she pleases, regardless of the conduct of such person retained, and regardless of the cause in general, then the sister churches also have a sovereign right to reject.
Once upon a time a notice was sent to us for publication that a certain person had been restored to fellowship in a certain church. We returned the notice with the statement that we did not care to publish to the world that such a person had been restored to fellowship in a Primitive Baptist Church. And we told them [pg 257] this, also: If you folks want him, we are not going to dictate to you as to what you shall do in regard to the matter. If you want him, you are welcome to him; and for God’s sake, keep him, and do not send him down this way, for we do not want him. While they may have had some rights in the matter, we had some rights, too.
Unless these principles are recognized and observed, there can be no such thing as union and fellowship to abound among our people in general. Otherwise than the recognizing of the bond of fellowship and sisterly and brotherly relationship that exists, or should exist, between and among the churches, each local congregation would be a denomination within itself. May the Lord help us to observe and to contend for the things that make for peace in our beloved Zion. C. H. C.
QUESTIONS ON SCRIPTURE
March 18,1937
We have seen and heard so many things advocated by brethren along the line that we have felt, for quite awhile, it might be profitable for the cause and for some of the brethren for us to write a lot of questions, and put them in the paper for our readers to consider. We do not feel inclined to answer the questions ourselves, but feel it would be best for us to leave each reader to answer each question for himself. Perhaps this may cause someone to think about and to study some points they have not considered before. We are not putting these questions in the paper for them to be answered through the paper, but for each reader to study the [pg 258] questions for himself, in the hope that it may help some individual reader to arrive at the truth upon some point about which his mind may not be entirely clear.
Can any person of the race of Adam, whether a child of God or not, make an atonement for one sin of his own, or even one sin of another person?
Is it necessary that blood be shed in order that atonement be made?
Will the blood of a sinner make atonement for one sin of that sinner?
If there is one sin for which a person can, himself, make atonement, why could he not make atonement for all his sins?
Which is the worse sin—one which is committed wilfully or one which is committed ignorantly?
Did not the Lord make provision, under the law, in the cities of refuge, for His people that sinned ignorantly?
Was any such provision made for those who sinned knowingly?
Does it not appear, then, that the Lord, in dealing with His people under the law, made a distinction; and that the ignorant sin was not so grievous as the sin committed knowingly?
If it is worse to sin wilfully or knowingly than to sin ignorantly, and one must atone for his own sins that he commits knowingly, why could he not atone for the lesser sins, or for his sins committed ignorantly?
When Paul said, in Heb. ix. 22, “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission,” did he not mean the same as to say that “without shedding of blood is no atonement?”
[pg 259] Is it not a fact that atonement is made by the shedding of blood, and that there can be no atonement made for sin except by the shedding of blood? See Lev. xvii. 11.
Can one enter heaven without one sin being atoned for by the shedding of blood?
If one must atone for his own sin, how can he do it, seeing that atonement is made by the shedding of blood?
Does not the making of atonement require a spotless sacrifice?
Then how can a sinner make atonement for his own sin, seeing his sin is a spot on him?
Is a child of God in danger of eternal damnation?
If a child of God is in danger of eternal damnation, then how can he be in any better condition than an unregenerate sinner?
Is there not a difference between chastisement and atonement?
If chastisement is atonement, then are not some sins put away by chastisement?
If some sins can be put away by chastisement, why could not all sins be put away by chastisement?
If sins can be put away by chastisement, then why was it necessary for Christ to die in order to put away sins?
These are just a few questions we felt like submitting for the benefit of our readers, and we trust you may study them in the light of the teaching of God’s blessed Book, and meditate upon the same. May the Lord bless them to your good. C. H. C.
[pg 260]
THE ORGAN QUESTION
March 18, 1937
The following article was published in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of December 17, 1912. It was copied from the Messenger of Peace. It is a letter written by Elder Walter Cash, who was then the editor of the Messenger, to a brother in Georgia, and was dated May 3, 1912. It was written especially concerning the question of organs in Old Baptist Churches, but the principles Elder Cash contended for in that letter are just as true and just as good on any matter of Scriptural doctrine or practice. We heartily indorsed the sentiment of that letter then—nearly twenty-five years ago—and we still indorse it. We recommend that all our readers prayfully study and consider the contents of the article now. May the Lord bless the same to the good of Zion.
C. H. C.
THE ARTICLE
(The following is a copy of a letter written to a brother in Georgia, who asked us to propose something for the settlement of the trouble there over having organs in the churches. We are not privileged to give his name.)
May 3, 1912. Dear Brother—I have been thinking over your letter asking me to suggest something that might help your condition in Georgia, but with my present understanding of the situation, the outlook is anything but bright. I shall not attempt to discuss the matter from a Bible standpoint, except to say. If there is no Bible commandment for it, then to seek to introduce it at the sacrifice of the peace of the church is wrong. There is no passage of Scripture which leads to the conclusion in any direct way that instrumental music was used in any New Testament church.
Fact 1. Instrumental music cannot be introduced among [pg 261] Primitive Baptist Churches without making trouble and division. (This fact has been demonstrated.)
Fact 2. The supposed benefits are superficial and not spiritual, and do not justify making trouble among churches. A church that can sing well with the organ, with the same practice, can sing well without it. The only difference is the sound (noise) of the organ which may serve to drown possible discord.
Fact 3. With other denominations the tendency has been to choir singing instead of congregational. What reason is there to suppose that it would be different with us?
I preached in a town where there were few of our people and a choir furnished the music. I said at the close of the sermon, “I would like to have the congregation sing the last hymn and I will lead it.” I spent the night with a Presbyterian. He asked me: “What is the objection of your people to instrumental music in the churches?”
I said in reply: “Which hymn did you enjoy most tonight—the singing of the choir or the last hymn by the congregation?”
“Oh, “said he, “there is no comparison; the last by the congregation.”
I asked: “Do you remember when your church first put in an instrument? and what has been the tendency since?”
He said in reply: “I had not thought of it, but the tendency since has been to replace congregational singing with the choir. There are quartets, and solos, and new pieces, and this part is an advertised feature calculated to draw a crowd, but it is not as much like worship as congregational singing.”
I said: “Really, is not that answer enough to your question?” and he agreed with me.
It may be said in reply to this that our people who use the organ still maintain congregational singing. So did others for a while, but the desire to “feature” the music grows and grows, until a service I attended a short time ago employed a full orchestra, con- sisting of organ, piano, violins, wind instruments and drum. And why not? If the organ is an improvement, why not the other instruments?
Fact 4. If there is no Scripture arguments against it, in my mind, and evidently in the minds of a great majority of our people, it would be a blow at spiritual service and congregational singing. [pg 262] and lead in greater or less degree to “featuring” that for an attendance, rather than to preach Jesus and Him crucified. In my mind and in the minds of many others, for the above reasons and for reasons based on Scriptural reference as to the nature and character of the church service, and the manner in which it was carried on in the first churches as nearly as can be ascertained, there ought to be a firm, and yet positive, stand taken against the introduction of instrumental music in our churches:
First—Because it will tear them up and make division.
Second—Because it is in no manner necessary, as the expression by individuals embodies the true sentiment of praise. The praise is in the words, properly, and not in the tune, though harmony in expression is not barred by the Scriptures.
Third—Because the tendency among other people who have gone into this practice is to please a worldly and sensual congregation rather than to uplift the spiritual element, and to lift up Jesus crucified. It is an open question whether our people could withstand this tendency. And after a trial, if it proved they were not, it would be too late to save them.
Now as to the present situation. Can we get along and let each church do as it pleases about this matter? I feel that this would be a dangerous attitude indeed. Though we take the stand that the “organ” is not a matter for a declaration of non-fellowship, the persistence and determination of the minority against the great majority as to the prudence and wisdom of this practice is. A minority of a church might want a fence built around the church house, while a majority thought it not necessary. Fence or no fence is not a matter of fellowship, but this minority might show such contempt for the majority, and such determination to have their ideas prevail that it might become necessary to exclude them. The, real situation is likely to be lost sight of in the struggle, and the minority might seek to have it appear that the majority excluded them because they believed in a fence—had non-fellowshipped the fence in fact, when it was not the fence, but the action of those who are for the fence.
What is the situation of our people now as to the organ? I will be real plain with you. Brother , so that there will be no misunderstanding. I will not undertake to justify all that has been done by those who have opposed the organ in Georgia, but only [pg 263] speak of the situation as it is right now without regard to how it became so. Our people out here see so much danger, disruption and final division in the introduction of the use of instrumental music in the churches that they are likely to take a stand against all persons who encourage it in any way. There is no use in arguing over how we reached the condition we are now in, but at this time I see no indication that churches using instrumental music can be treated as in good standing. I have studied the matter carefully since receiving your letter, but I can think of nothing to suggest that would have any show of adoption by the churches generally, which would put those churches in favor with our people while they still persisted in a course that our people believe and know will cause trouble and division. To recognize them is a tacit indorsement of their course, if nothing more. Then if one church may be recognized as pursuing a right and proper course for the good of the whole cause that uses instrumental music, no limit can be placed on the number of churches, and so the advocates of instrumental music are free to work and increase. But this condition can never continue (that is the multiplication of churches) and have peace, so there is no use to try to settle on a proposition of that kind.
All this talk of churches being sovereign in such sense that they may take any kind of course, and other churches may not protest, and show their protest in withdrawal, is the merest drivel. This can never be true in doctrine or practice. No church may control another church, but it may protest against the action of another church, and if there is no amendment may refuse to walk with such church in fellowship. Especially is this true in case a church took such course as would by its influence affect other churches by leading to division of sentiment among them.
Frankly I do not know what could be done now to bring about peace, since the introduction of the organ has become a well defined dispute. You say there is no hope that all the churches will abandon instrumental music, and as plainly say that other churches not using instrumental music will stand by those who do and affiliate with them. From what I can see of the situation I think that it is as well made out on the other side to show dis- approval of the movement by not walking with those who use instrumental music, nor with those who encourage them by [pg 264] walking with them, because the result would be to spread the cause of trouble and draw other churches into the discussion of it, resulting in friction. After studying your letter I see you firmly take a stand that instrumental music in churches is Scriptural and right, which is putting it too high, I think, and I do not see how you could do much against a movement that you really thought Scriptural.
I have never written as much before upon this subject to anyone. If we have anyone in this state advocating the use of instrumental music in the churches I do not know of them, and I hope there will never be any movement in that direction. If you brethren in Georgia love peace and fellowship with the great majority of Primitive Baptists better than you do instrumental music I think you will find a way out, but if you think more of instrumental music, I think you will keep the instruments. I have written very plainly so that you would understand, because when you write me you have a right to expect that I will do that. Sincerely yours, Walter Cash.
LAND, A TRUST, AND MUST BE PRESERVED
April 1, 1937
I don’t know whether any of you get the implication carried in the model soil law passed by the Legislature at the request of the president or not. The law passed as a method or means of the state and the farmers of the state participating more fully in the national soil conservation program. But it goes further than that.
The time is not far distant when if a man lives on a piece of land it will be his duty to himself and it will be a duty imposed by the state to follow sound farming practices and methods so as to preserve and build up the fertility of that soil.
There is as much constitutional authority and legal right to force a man to conserve his soil as there is to force an oil company or a lumber company to preserve and protect those resources. Courts have held in many instances that a state has a right to force [pg 265] people under penalty of law to preserve the oil and timber rights of a state or a community.
Civilization existed for centuries without oil or even coal and such resources. The soil is one resource without which no civilization can exist. It seems logical then that the time is not very far off when you as a farmer will be told to terrace your land, you will be told to plant soil building crops and you will do just those things or you will not farm.
That sounds drastic, does it not? Well, read the law we have just passed here in the Legislature and you’ll see that the state of Arkansas is just about in position to do that thing right now.
We are pretty independent, ourselves. We do not like for folks to tell us we have got to do anything, but the police department of our city can make us clean the ditches in the ravines in front of our house; it can compel us to cut weeds on a vacant lot which belongs to us. It can do many things that would have been out- rageous years ago.
And as I said before, we suspect when we get a farm, and we are going to buy one some of these days, and they go to telling us what we must do on that farm to preserve the soil, we’ll kick like a bay steer. On the other hand, when we drive across places in Arkansas and some other states and we see whole sections actually destroyed and desolate just because some fellow insisted on farming the way he wanted to and neglected that soil we are not so sure but what this new way of making us do things we should do is not so bad. At any rate, we’re going to see a lot of things new in this farming scheme in the next decade.
The above is an article copied in full from the Arkansas Farmer of March 15, 1937, under the large heading of “The Editor Speaking.” We feel that the obligation rests upon us—and it does rest upon us if the Lord has put us in the ministry—to sound again the alarm. It may be too late now; but we sounded the alarm before it was too late. If the people did not take warning, then their blood rests upon their own heads and not upon us. If we fail to give the alarm, then the Lord would hold us responsible. Stop right here, please, and [pg 266] give the above article another careful reading before you proceed farther in reading our “little say” in regard to it. Let what it says “soak in” real good. Think about it; ponder it well. Note carefully that the law referred to, the editor says, was passed by our State Legislature at the request of the president.
Just here let us say that we do not intend to make THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST a political sheet. We do not desire to take stock in politics, especially through the columns of this paper; and we are not going to do so. But when we plainly see a trend in matters of state and the nation toward the destruction and overthrow of our liberties, for which our people have always stood, and for which our ancestors laid down their lives on the bloody battlefields, it is our indispensable duty to raise the alarm. Our ancestors came to this country and founded this government to escape the oppressions and deprivations of the old countries. There many of them were deprived of the privilege of worshiping God according to the dictates of their own conscience. They fled from their native lands on account of religious persecution and the oppressions of their governments. Under God they founded this government upon the principle of freedom, and wrote in the constitution the fundamental law and principle which guarantees this right to every man in the nation—no matter how poor, nor what may be his station or condition in life.
Under this government the church has prospered; and in many places and at times they “have waxed fat, and kicked,” as Jeshurun, of old time. In a great measure, and perhaps in different parts of the country, we have sometimes forgotten God. We have grown to feel secure, and to be confident that the privileges which [pg 267] have been ours to enjoy for the past hundred and fifty years (approximately), will not or cannot be taken from us.
The land of Canaan belonged to the Jews—God’s chosen people. God gave that land to Abraham and to his seed after him “for an everlasting possession.” They lived in and enjoyed the land as long as they remembered and obeyed the Lord. But on account of their unbelief and rebellion they were driven out of the land, and have been deprived of its blessings and comforts for about nineteen hundred years. Does it not seem like this should be a lesson for us? May we not well remember these things “were written for our learning,” and that “all these things happened unto them for ensamples to us?”
The trend of affairs in this government of ours for a number of years has been toward depriving the common people of their rights and privileges which are and were vouchsafed to us in the constitution. Take the history of every nation under the sun that has gone down and been destroyed; read and study their history and you will see clearly and plainly that as their rights were gradually encroached upon, and laws enacted dictating to them what they might or might not do, or what they must or must not do, with their own personal property which they had acquired by hard labor under that government, so surely were those things followed by the establishment of laws governing and controlling their religious activities. Religious persecution has always followed. This has been a universal end. There is not an instance on record where the matter did not terminate that way.
Take Russia, Germany, Italy, and Spain today. First [pg 268] they told their subjects what they could and could not do regarding their own property. Then they by law put an end to their religious privileges. You could not erect an Old Baptist meeting house and hold services in it in Russia today; nor in either of the other countries mentioned, we are sure. Consider how the Jews were persecuted and driven out of Germany. Consider how the churches were burned in Spain; and now consider the bloody rebellion that is in progress in that country. Do you want that to occur in this country of ours? Just as sure as matters go on for a few more years the way they are going now, and as sure as God reigns in glory—just that sure these matters will end with just such a rebellion and great bloodshed in this land. It is fast coming. But few of our people, few of our countrymen, realize or seem to comprehend the trend of the times. The storm will break in all of its terrible fury over their heads before they are awake to the approaching danger.
We do not dread it so much for ourself. If it comes in our lifetime, which it will likely do if we live just a little while longer, it will soon all be over with us anyway. We know we do not have many more days to stay in this old world of trouble, anyway. Our race is nearly run. Our battles to fight are nearly all ended already. But our poor heart does bleed for our children, and for your children, if you are growing old, and for you if you are young and not far past middle life. May the good Lord look down upon us and our poor children in pity and compassion, is our humble prayer.
Now consider the law above mentioned. It gives those in authority under the law the right and authority to tell you what you must or must not plant on your [pg 269] little spot of ground. Thus the government absolutely will control and does control you, if you are a farmer, in all you do. You can do, and must do, what they say, or else not farm. The government now requires us to collect one cent out of every dollar we pay our employees to get this paper out, and then to remit that to the collectors who are appointed by the government. Later the amount we are to collect from them will be increased. Then when we remit, each month, to the collector what we have collected from the employees, we must remit a like amount out of our own pocket. Thus, if we collect two dollars from the employees, we must also pay two dollars. This is claimed to be for the purpose of pro- viding an old age pension when the worker reaches the age of sixty-five. Here we are, already past age sixty- five, and never will be eligible for the pension; we are getting old; our health is broken, and we cannot stand the hardships we once did. But no matter about that; we must take our hard earnings and send it to the tax collector for the benefit of fat-salaried office holders, and to pension somebody in the far distant future, when perhaps they have been as able to work, and will be as able to work, as we have been all along. Where are our rights? Where is there the slightest semblance of justice in any such procedure as this?
If the government has a right to tell you what you shall or shall not plant and grow on that little spot of land of yours, they have a right to tell us that the doc- trine we promulgate in our little paper is detrimental to society and to the country; and that we must not wear out the steel, and lead, and iron, and the antimony, and must not use the paper we use, which depletes our forests, because the forests are destroyed to make the [pg 270] paper. They have the same right to stop us, for the purpose of conserving the resources of the country, and for the good of society and the nation. Already bills have been introduced in legislative halls curbing the freedom of press and speech. But, thank God, they have not passed and become laws yet. But, look out!
Yes, it is as the editor of the Arkansas Farmer says, we are going to see a lot of changes and things new, not only in this farming scheme, but in many other things in the next decade. We are right now face to face with the hardest trials and the hardest things to endure that any man now living in this nation has ever had to pass through. The time is close at hand when the two witnesses will be killed and their dead bodies will be seen lying in the street for three days and a half. The time of the worst persecution on account of religion that the world has ever known is right now close upon us. Lord, help us, and give us grace for our day and trial.
We have not said a thing in this article with malice in our heart for any person on earth, living or dead. What we have said has been said with love for the truth and for the Lord’s humble poor, and we have written with tears in our eyes, and because we felt that the time is near for us to lay our armor by, and we do not wish to come to that hour with a feeling that we have shunned to do what the Lord requires of us. May He bless, sustain, keep, and preserve each reader, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
[pg 271]
HISTORY OF
WALKER COUNTY, ALABAMA
April 1, 1937
We have recently finished the printing and binding of a book of three hundred and eighty-two pages, a “History of Walker County, Alabama,” by J. M. Dombhart, of Parrish, Alabama. It is printed in good clear type, on good eggshell paper, and is well and strongly bound in a green cloth cover, with title printed in gold. It is a neat book, if we did do the work. It gives some history of the early days of the state, and the founding of the county, and then of the towns in the county. It gives quite a history of the early settlers, and some of the hardships they underwent, as well as some history of the prosperity of the section. It is a valuable and interesting work. It tells us that Robert Guttery joined the Primitive Baptist Church at Holly Grove in 1824, and that in 1826 he was ordained a minister in that faith, and served as such for fifty- one years. This is on page 212. On pages 38 and 39 we find that “While authentic records are not available, it would appear that as early as 1840 the Primitive Baptists had established churches at Holly Grove, at Old Zion on the Jasper-Russellville road, at Old Sardis on the Warrior River below Lynn’s Park, and at other places.” On page 38 we are told that “In 1842 the first Missionary Baptist Church in the county was constituted at Pleasant Grove.” The book contains some interesting reading and some valuable information. Especially is this true with people whose ancestors lived in that section. The book sells for $2.50. Any who [pg 271] are interested should write to J. M. Dombhart, Parrish, Ala. C. H. C.
SHOULD HAVE PEACE
April 1, 1937
We have observed for some little time that some efforts have been made by some of the brethren for peace to be restored among the brethren and churches in North Carolina and Virginia. And though we are some distance away, yet we are, of course, interested in Zion’s welfare everywhere, and heartily commend such a move for peace. We see no good reason why peace should not, or could not, be restored between the brethren and churches who are agreed in doctrine.
It is almost universally true that when troubles come in the churches and among the brethren there are some wrongs done on both sides. Brethren get wrought up, and in the fiesh, and things are done hastily and in the heat of passion. Wrong steps are often taken. Things are said that should not be said. Frequently a bad spirit is manifested. It is so easy for us to , get in the flesh. It is so easy for us to retaliate when we think a brother has treated us wrong, and it is so easy for us to judge a brother wrongfully.
These feelings should be laid aside. All should be willing to forgive the wrongs of the past. If we are not willing to forgive our brother, how can we expect our Lord to forgive us? How many of us who have engaged in war with our brethren can sincerely say we have done no wrong ourselves?
It seems to us that it would be a good move for the [pg 273] brethren who are divided on account of the troubles that have existed in that section, as well as in other sections, to have a meeting for the purpose of trying to adjust their little differences, if there are any, and see if they cannot come together. There should not be any compromise of true principles of the doctrine and order of God’s house to do this, and no such compromise would be required. The Bible tells us how to adjust and settle our differences. If, and when, we follow its teaching peace and sweet fellowship will be restored. May the Lord help us all to strive for the things that make for peace. C. H. C.
JOHN 1. 1 AND I I TIMOTHY IV. 2
April 15, 1937
We have been requested to give our views on the above citations of Scripture. John i. 1 reads, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” 2 Timothy iv. 2 reads, “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.”
We are going to give a little guess as to why we were asked to give our views on these two passages. Our guess is that somebody has said that the command to “preach the word” means to preach the Bible, and our questioner wants to know if that is the view we have of the text. We just make this little guess about it. In John i. 1, in the original language, it says “In the beginning was the Logos” (Word), etc. Berry’s New Testament Lexicon, in defining the word Logos says it “is used by John as a name of Christ, the Word of God, [pg 274] i. e., the expression or manifestation of His thoughts to man, John i. 1, etc.” The Word was made flesh; and in this God was manifest in the flesh. The Word was God, and as the Word was God, it was God manifest in the flesh. He was and is the second Person in the Holy Trinity. Logos is in the nominative case and singular number.
In 2 Timothy iv. 2 the apostle says, “Preach the word.” In this quotation it is “ton Logon.” This is in the singular number and accusative case. It is the same as in John i. 1, only different case. We know that some brethren think the apostle meant to instruct Timothy to preach the Bible, or to preach the Scriptures. But the New Testament was not then written and gathered together. But if that is really what he meant, it must be modified so as to mean for him to preach just what the Bible teaches. And this is the way the brethren will usually bring it around to mean who say that the instruction was for him to preach the Bible.
The apostle tells us, “For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.”—! Cor. ii. 2. He would preach the Word; he would preach Christ, and Him crucified. Nothing else would he know, in the salvation of poor lost sinners. No other religious instruction would he give, only what Christ has authorized. Paul’s preaching would be a very good example for the Lord’s ministers to follow in this day.
Again the apostle said, “For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.”—2 Cor. iv. 5. In this the apostle tells us that we “preach Christ Jesus the Lord.” In 1 Cor. i. 23 he says, “But we preach Christ crucified.” It was the apostle who did the preaching. What did he preach? He preached Christ and Him crucified; he preached the Word.
If all who are professed Old Baptist preachers would put in their whole time doing this, and behave themselves when they are not in the pulpit, the Old Baptists would not be divided as they are, and more of the Lord’s little children who are out in the world would be seen coming home to the old church, and love and sweet fellowship would abound, and sweet peace would reign in the camps of Israel. The Lord would be showering His blessings down upon us, and this country would be a better place in which to live. We should try to mend our ways, if we have been doing otherwise. Suppose some of us try it and see what the result would be. Do not try it for just a few weeks or months, and then quit; it is a life-time job. Keep at it as long as you live; and that will not be too long, C. H. C.
JEREMIAH XXIV. 1-3
April 15, 1937
We have been requested to give our views on Jeremiah xxiv. 1-3, which you may read by turning to the same in your Bible. It is not necessary to take space here to quote it. Our views can be given in as few words as we know how to express them by giving what Gill says in his Commentary concerning this chapter, [pg 276] which we copy, as follows. By the term good people is meant the obedient ones among the Israelites. C. H. C.
GILL’S COMMENTS
This chapter contains a vision of two baskets of figs, representing the Jews both in captivity, and at Jerusalem. The vision is declared, ver. 1-3; where both time and place are pointed at, in which the vision was seen, and the nature of the figs described, and what passed between the Lord and the prophet concerning them. The explication of the vision begins, ver. 4, and continues to the end of the chapter. The good figs were an emblem of the good people that were carried captive with Jeconiah into Babylon, which the Lord says was for their good; and He promises to own them, and set His eyes upon them for good, and that they should return to their own land, and have a heart to know Him as their God, and return unto Him, ver. 5-7; the bad figs signify the people that were with Zedekiah at Jerusalem, and those that were in Egypt, who are threatened to be carried captive into all lands, and there live under the greatest reproach and disgrace; or be destroyed in their own land by the sword, famine, or pestilence, ver. 8-10.
HEBREWS XII. 6, 1, 8, 12
May 6, 1937
S. L. Miller, of Wray, Ga., has asked us to give our views on the language recorded in the verses cited. Verses 5 to 8 read as follows: “And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of Him: for whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without [pg 278] chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.” This teaches us that the Lord chastises His children for their disobedience, and verse ten tells us that it is for their profit. It is very evident, too, that if one is not chastised by the Lord, that one is not a child of God—has not been born of God. It is also very evident, from the teaching of the apostle, that the Lord’s children all do wrong. They have not attained to a state of sinless perfection here in this life, and do not attain to it here. They fall short of that; yet it is the duty of His children to strive for that, as much as possible. And it is for their good that the Lord chastises them.
Remember, though, that chastisement is one thing and atonement is another thing. The Lord Jesus made atonement for them, and thereby satisfied the law which, without that satisfaction being made, would have separated them forever from the peaceful presence of God in eternity. Jesus was their surety. He took their law place. But now that they are brought into divine relationship with God in regeneration, God deals with them as children. This brings in a parental relationship; and He chastises them for their wrong doing, for their good, to bring them into the path of obedience, and to bring them thus closer to Him. Hence, the instruction given them in verses 12 and 13, as well as in many other places in the Book, to which we do well to take heed. C. H. C.
[pg 278]
MEETING SUGGESTED
May 20, 1937
Some few weeks ago we sent a circular letter under the heading “copies sent to preachers of Wetumpka and Hillabee Associations, also to many deacons and lay members in various sections” in regard to a meeting trying to blend the brotherhood together in Christian fellowship, to which we have received several favorable replies.
We are now making a second appeal in behalf of said meeting, covering more territory than in the first appeal, as we now realize our differences are even greater and more widely spread than we realized in our first appeal.
Dear brethren, do we not fully realize that we are commanded to labor for peace and fellowship among ourselves, in the spirit of love and humility, sacrificing every fleshly notion and personal hobby that tends to confuse the minds of the Lord’s children?
Surely none of us can truthfully say that we have the peace that Jesus left with the church, when many of us continue to agitate the question of feet washing when there is no church among us that does not practice the example. Also the practice of returning old church letters back, after having been received together with the bearer by another of the same faith and order, thereby shirking our duty and laying upon others a task which they cannot Scripturally perform. Also some of us sitting in councils, usurping the authority that belongs solely to the church.
Be it known that we have no axe to grind, nor no personal enmity toward anyone of the Lord’s children, and fully believe when trouble arises in the church it should be confined to the church wherein it arises, for she is commanded by her Head and Lawgiver to keep herself in Scriptural order and is fully capacitated to do so. “Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no tale- bearer, the strife ceaseth.”—Prov. xxvi. 20.
To all who desire peace, may we appeal to you to set the time and place for the above mentioned meeting. If interested let us hear from you. Your humble servants in Christ,
Elder J. C. Justice.
Elder G. S. Justice.
Copies sent the following for publication and editors’ comments [pg 279] appreciated: PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, Baptist Trumpet, Advocate and Messenger, Messenger of Zion.
OUR COMMENTS
The reader will observe that the editors are requested to comment on the above. We are not very well acquainted with the circumstances and conditions concerning which the above call is made. Unless the brethren where trouble exists or where there have been divisions are in a humor to settle their differences and troubles, it is a waste of time to bother with it. It may make bad matters worse to try to get brethren to come together when they are mad and out of humor with each other. But when they are “sober,” and are in a humor to adjust their differences, then some good may be accomplished by laboring with them to that end. But there are some matters mentioned in the foregoing upon which we wish to comment just a little—not to hinder any effort for peace, but to merely call attention to some things.
As to the matter of making feet washing a test of fellowship, we have stated from time to time since we have been editing THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST that it has never been the general practice of the Primitive Baptists to make that a test of fellowship. In THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of January 19, 1909, we said: “The Primitive Baptists of the United States, as a body, have not made feet washing a test of fellowship. As a body, they have contended that it is taught and should be practiced; but as a rule it has not been made a test of fellowship. If every shade of difference, and every different custom, and every different view are made tests of fellowship, the Primitive Baptists would, at this time, in the United [pg 280] States, be divided into more factions than there are states in the Union.” In the issue of March 9, 1909, we made the same statement, in different words, that “as a rule the Primitive Baptists do not make feet washing a test of fellowship.” We heard no complaint then about what we said in regard to this matter. The making of this a test of fellowship in the way that some have been doing is wrong and all un-called for. If they love the brotherhood and the peace of Zion, they should 4 quit that, and get back together and live in peace.
As to returning old church letters will say that when a church receives one on a letter they should not return that letter in order to avoid the unpleasant duty of dealing with such a member. But if a church should make a mistake in granting a letter, and discover that mistake after it was done, we are of the opinion that they have a right, and it is their duty, to acknowledge the mistake and to call for the return of the letter. If the letter I has already been placed elsewhere, they still should do their duty, and ask the church where the letter was placed to return it to them with the party to whom the letter was granted, so that they may deal with the party as the case may demand, just as they should have done instead of granting the letter. We may be wrong about this, but this is the way we view the matter.
Next, as to councils. We have never believed that, councils have any right to usurp authority over the church. But a church has a right, and churches have the right, to call for a council of brethren to meet with them to help them to adjust the differences that may exist. “In the multitude of counsellors there is safety.” | —Prov. xi. 14 and xxiv. 6. The suggested meeting above, it seems to us, amounts to about the same thing [pg 281] as a council. But a council does not have the right to impose their suggestions upon a church. An orderly gospel church is the highest ecclesiastical court on earth; and it is the church that is to execute the laws of the kingdom.
Strife and confusion and division among ourselves is all wrong. Such things come from beneath. Little differences and strifes over words to no profit should not exist or be engaged in. May the Lord help us all to “strive for the things that make for peace.” C. H. C.
AFTER THE FLESH
May 20, 1937
For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.—Rom. viii. 5.
To our mind the apostle here draws a line of distinction and shows the great difference between the unregenerate and those who have been born from above. In his teaching here may also be found an idea of comfort and consolation and encouragement for the tempest-tossed child of God, for it gives an unmistakable evidence of a gracious state.
“They that are after the flesh” are those who have been born of the flesh; those who are the offspring of Adam in their natural state. They are those who have been born of the earthly parentage only. They have been born from beneath, but not from above.
To “mind,” as here used, simply means to love, to care for, to be concerned about. They do not mind or [pg 282] care for the things of the flesh in order to be born of the flesh, but they mind those things because they are born of the flesh. One does not care for the things of nature in order to be born into the natural realm. One has to be first born into the natural realm in order to care for the things that are in that realm.
To be “after the Spirit” is to be born of the Spirit, born from above. One does not have to mind, or care for, the things of the Spirit in order to be born of the Spirit, no more than one has to care for the things of the flesh, the things of the natural realm, in order to be born of the flesh, or m order to be born into the natural realm. We love the things in the natural realm after we have been born into the natural realm. The loving or caring for the things of nature, the things that are in the natural realm, is indisputable and unmistakable evidence that one has the natural life—has been born into the natural realm.
Even so, one minds, loves, cares for, the things of the Spirit because he has been born into the spiritual realm— because he has been born from above. The fact, then, that one loves God, minds the things of the Spirit, cares for and loves spiritual things, loves holiness and righteousness, is indisputable and unmistakable evidence of the fact that he has been born of God, has been born from above. It is evidence which inspiration has given that one is a child of God. The mind is something which pertains to and belongs to life. The carnal mind is a mind that belongs alone to the natural life. The spiritual mind belongs alone to the spiritual Life. “We have the mind of Christ.” —1 Cor. ii. 16. Those who have the life of Christ have the mind of Christ. This mind is not a carnal mind. [pg 283] but a spiritual mind. To be in possession of no other mind than a carnal mind is to be in a state of death; or to be in a state of death in trespasses and sins is to have no other mind than a natural mind, or a carnal mind. One must be born of another parentage than the natural parentage in order to have the mind of Christ, or in order to have a mind for spiritual things. If you have a mind for spiritual things; if you have a desire for spiritual things—if you hunger and thirst after righteousness, it can be for no other reason than that you are “a child of Jehovah, of the seed Royal, a dignified race.” You have been born from above. God is your Father; Jesus is your elder Brother; heaven is your home; and you will live with the Father and with Jesus and all His redeemed family in all the ceaseless ages of eternity. The light afflictions here are but for a moment, and are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in you after a few more seasons of sufferings and distress. May the Lord bless and sustain you. C. H. C.
PHILIPPIANS 11. 12 AND JUDE 3
June 3, 1937
We have been requested to give our views of Phil. ii. 12 and Jude 3. Phil. ii. 12 reads, “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Next verse reads, “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure.”
Verse thirteen shows that it is God which worketh in [pg 284] them, and in verse twelve they are commanded to work out. By their works they are to manifest what God works within them. Note, though, that God works in them to do. God does not do this doing for them, but He works in them to do, and they are to do the doing. God also works in them to will. It does not say that He works in them the will or the doing; but He works in them TO WILL, and TO DO. God gives them eternal or spiritual life, and He preserves, sustains, and keeps them and that life. Will springs from life, and it is a product of life; it belongs to life. Hence God works in them to will, and they have a will for spiritual things because God works in them.
Then they should work out and manifest what God has done and does do for them. In this they glorify God in their bodies and in their spirits, which are His. They show forth His praise in thus working out and manifesting that they are His children, and manifesting their love for Him.
Jude 3 says, “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Then the next verse says, “For there are certain men crept in unawares,” etc. It seems to us that the apostle here conveys the idea that it was necessary for him to write so that they be saved from the teachings of these men who had crept in unawares. We do not think that eternal salvation is called common; however, it may be that the word here used means a salvation common to all God’s people. But if that is what the apostle means, we cannot understand how he brings in the exhortation as applying to it, [pg 285] which he does. Here is a salvation, called common salvation, in which exhortation becomes needful or necessary, and this saves from ungodly men and their false teaching, or is a salvation from that. Exhortation and admonition are necessary in this.
In Heb. ii. 1, 2, 3, the apostle says, “Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward: how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him.” Here we have it in a stronger way of saying it that we cannot escape if we neglect. And here is salvation on one side. What is the opposite of salvation? Condemnation, of course. Then, the child of God cannot escape the condemnation if he neglects the salvation. Does eternal salvation depend at all upon the person not neglecting it? Most assuredly not. But here is a salvation which does depend upon them not neglecting it. For this reason it is necessary for them to “give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard.”
Under the law every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward. The same thing is true now; and that being true then, “how shall we escape,” if we neglect to give heed to and to observe the things the Lord has taught in His Word? There is no escape. In thus neglecting the salvation here mentioned and brought to view, we fail to take heed to what Paul has here written, and to what Jude taught in his exhortation. The result is that we do not escape [pg 286] condemnation. It is certain and sure. “God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” C. H. C.
ELDER CASH PASSED AWAY
June 3, 1937
Today (Friday, May 21) we are in receipt of a card from Elder Leon H. Clevenger, of Excelsior Springs, Mo., stating that Walter Cash passed away the day before and that the funeral would be in St. Joseph on the 21st at 3:30 p. m. Elder Cash was editor of the Messenger of Peace for many years. We do not know his age, but he was growing old. May the Lord bless those who are bereaved.
C. H. C.
PROPOSED PEACE MEETING
June 17, 1937
On another page of this paper will be found an article by Elder Lee Hanks, under the heading, “Can’t All Who Truly Want Peace, Have a Peace Meeting?” We copy the article from the Messenger of Zion of March 15, 1937, by request. We have also copied an article by Elder A. B. Ross from the Messenger of Zion of April 12, by request, under the heading, “Endorses ‘Peace’ Article.”
Some of the brethren in Tennessee, especially Brethren Z. Stallings, A. B. Ross, and J. C. Ross, have been in correspondence with us for some little time in regard to the matter of making an effort to get peace restored [pg 287] in that country. Some of them have urgently requested that we make some suggestion, and to make some move, looking to that end. What we have been doing has been in a private way—we mean, by private correspondence. We do not like the idea of publicly crying out peace, and posing as a peacemaker, and then doing things at other times and other ways that hinder peace. We are sorry to say that we have had some experience with matters of that sort, or some few persons of that kind.
In our correspondence with some of the brethren in regard to the condition of affairs in Tennessee and Kentucky we suggested that the churches interested, where the disturbance exists, call for brethren from outside that territory to come and serve as a committee to hear all the evidence, and then to suggest to them as to what steps should be taken to restore peace so that all might be brought together. Some of these brethren have said they want us to come and serve in trying to get peace restored. We have told them that we will not serve if there is objection. In order for us to agree to serve, the brethren on both sides must be agreed for us to do so.
We have thought it best to labor in a private way for some move whereby the matters might be adjusted and peace be restored, rather than to be airing these matters out in public print. We still think that would have been the better course to pursue; but as these things have been made matters of public print it seems to us necessary now for us to say something that way, too. If we do not, then many who do not know all the circumstances involved would conclude that we do not want peace restored. We do not care so much for our own cause, but we do care for the cause of the [pg 288] Master. Hence, in what steps we take, and what we do, we must have the cause of the Master in view.
In our young days the Baptists of Tennessee and Kentucky were all one people. They were all together. They met together in love and fellowship, and peace and harmony prevailed. They were a happy people. The Lord blessed them in their gatherings together. Their associations were seasons of happiness, joy and gladness. The Lord blessed the ministers to preach sweetly, and in defense of the glorious doctrine of grace, and the beauty of the church. Many shouts of praise went up from the camps of Israel. It ought to be that way now. It should have been that way all along. That things are not that way is known to all concerned.
If brethren want peace, then peace can be restored; but there are some sacrifices to make. It will not do to sacrifice principles nor the truth. To do that would not bring peace, but more confusion. If we should have some little idea of our own, which we did not claim to be a fundamental matter, and it caused confusion, yet if we were not willing to make a sacrifice of that idea for the sake of peace, it could be clear to all that we are not very anxious for peace. If we really desire peace with our brethren, then we would be willing to sacrifice that little idea, and give it up.
Some of the brethren who have been writing us have urged us to take some step looking toward the restoration of peace, and have urged that they wanted us to be in the meeting if one should be had. We trust we have been trying to consider the matter in the right way. We do not wish to suggest a step that would make bad matters worse. But we are going to make a suggestion here. Our suggestion is
this: That a meeting be called for, to be held at a suitable time and place, for the brethren to consider the matters over which they have been disturbed. Let them endeavor to frame up and recommend a course whereby peace may be restored, and the matters of irregularity be eliminated. There are irregularities which need adjusting. If you will meet together in such a gathering, in the Spirit of the Master, you can accomplish the desired end. Peace can be restored. If the brethren on both sides desire it, as they have plainly said to us in private correspondence that they do, then we promise to meet with you, and to help you all we possibly can. If you succeed in this, it will be better than to call a council of brethren from a distance. What will you do, brethren?
Let all the brethren over there, no matter which side you are on, write us and give us a frank expression of your feelings and desire in the matter.
What we have here suggested as a meeting is somewhat after the order of the Dallas peace meeting held in 1926. There are some things which cannot be straightened out by brethren merely meeting together and confessing their faults and mutually forgiving each other. That is good as far as it goes, but that being done will not straighten out things that churches have done. Hence, our suggestion, as above.
Our race is nearly run. We have spent forty-seven years laboring among the Primitive Baptists. We have labored all these years, the best we knew how, for the time-honored principles which have characterized our people as a separate and distinct people from the world in all the ages of the past. We have tried to labor for the things that make for peace. We have, all along the [pg 290] line, tried to plead that we should not be at war among ourselves. If all would do right, or strive for the right things, and try to live right, there would not be so many troubles and divisions in our beloved Zion. Some of us have advocated wrong things—things the Bible does not teach—and have done wrong things. That is where trouble comes from. We should stand for the things that God has authorized in His Word; but we should do that in the right way.
We trust that such a meeting as we here suggest may be held soon, and that peace may be restored, and all matters ironed out in such a way that permanent peace may be the result. Let us hear from you. May the Lord bless each one, and lead us all in the right way, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
FENCED VINEYARD
June 17, 1937
Now will I sing to my well-beloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My well-beloved hath a vineyard in a very fruit- ful hill: and he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will takeaway the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down: and I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briars and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no
[pg 291] rain upon it. For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry. 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 mine ears said the Lord of hosts, Of a truth many houses shall be desolate, even great and fair, without inhabi- tant. Yea, ten acres of vineyard shall yield one bath, and the seed of an homer shall yield an ephah.—Isaiah v. 1-10.
What great and solemn lessons are taught here! The good Lord had a vineyard. He planted the vineyard in a fruitful hill. He chose the place of the planting. He did not select a place of poor soil—not a desert place, nor a salt valley—but a fruitful hill. A fertile and beautiful place. And He fenced it. He put a fence around it that was sufficient for its protection. Nothing wrong, and nothing lacking, so far as the fence was concerned. But somebody must have moved the fence, and joined field to field, or laid field to field, with other people. Surely the Lord placed the fence at the right place. It was not joined to another fence.
The Master gathered the stones out of His vineyard. The ground was made smooth and soft. Nothing there to cause stone bruises on the feet. Surely, a pleasant and a delightful place—a wonderful piece of ground. Then He planted it with the choicest vine. The vine was of His own choosing. It was not a wild vine, or wild grape. He makes the vines good. This is and was His own work. And He built a tower in the midst of it. His children need a tower along life’s rugged way. There they may see the glories and the beauties of the land. They may there be above the troubles of this old world. And He made a winepress therein. From the winepress may be brought forth the fruit of the grapes, or the [pg 292] juice of the grapes, which gives strength to the poor pilgrims as they journey along the pathway of life.
Everything is there that the poor pilgrim needs. Well fenced is the vineyard; all the protection necessary; the soil is good; the elevation is high; it is on a fruitful hill; all things necessary for the good thereof were done. But there was something wrong. The wrong was not with the Lord, nor with what He had done. The wrong was with His people. They did not bring forth the fruit that He required. “Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. “—John XV. 8.
The Lord was not pleased; He was not honored; He was not glorified; His name was not magnified, as should have been by them. Hence, He says, “I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down; and I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briars and thorns.” Evidently this was Israel; and “what was written afore time was written for our learning.” All these things are ensam- ples to us. The Lord also said, ‘ ‘I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it.” What a drouth then ensues. May we not so provoke the Lord by wickedness and rebellion that He will send no more clouds with rain where we are? Ministers are some- times represented as clouds. Some clouds are without water, and bring no rain. How deplorable and desolate it would be to live in a country without gospel rain!
“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.” The Lord’s people were to be a different people from any and all [pg 293] other people. They were to be a separate people from all other people. They were not to adopt the forms and manners of worship of any other people. They were not to join in the worship of, or with, any other people. They were not to lay field to field. They were to take no part whatever in the worship of any of the idol gods of the nations round about. “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God; and Him only shalt thou serve.” To join in with any of the nations round about in any of their worship and service was to worship other gods than Israel’s God. It was to join house to house and lay field to field. The only way not to join house to house or lay field to field was to simply abstain from any and all their worship, and to have nothing whatever to do with the same. This did not mean to have no friends in a worldly way with the people of the world; but to have no friends in a religious way with any others only in the way the Lord required. Worship and serve no other way or place, only in His vineyard; and that worship and service to be absolutely separate from the world and from everything else but the vineyard; just do all the Lord said do, and do nothing else but that.
“Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines: for our vines have tender grapes.”—Sol. Song ii. 15. Foxes are sly and cunning creatures, and those little fellows may look very innocent. But they spoil the vines. They destroy all the tender grapes. They can slip in almost if not altogether unawares. How cunning they are! We may think that they are so little that they will do no harm. But these “little no harm things” destroy the vines. They destroy all the tender grapes. Then, the first thing we know there are no grapes but wild grapes. Wild grapes are not sweet and delicious. [pg 294] They are sour, and put the teeth on edge. When the teeth are on edge, good and pleasant food cannot be enjoyed; and a bad temper is soon manifested.
If we may have one of the little foxes that the world has, why may we not have two? And if we may have two, why may we not have four? And if we may have four, why may we not have eight? And if we may have eight, why may we not have everything the world has? And before we get into our ranks everything the world has, where would there be any Old Baptists? The very things which the world must have in order that their institutions live would destroy the Old Baptist Church. If we had the things the world has, there would be no Old Baptist Church. Where is the fence?
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and I will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”—2 Cor. vi. 14-18. The things which God has not commanded are here called unclean by the inspired apostle; and he commands to touch not. All things the Lord has not taught in His Word are to be let severely alone. Do not touch them. Are we all doing as the Lord here commands? If we mix and mingle with the world in our worship and service. [pg 295] may they not have the right to conclude that we esteem what they have to be as good as what we have? And if they so conclude, how and wherein may the Lord’s children who are out in the world be encouraged to come home to the old church, where they may have that sweet rest and peace that is not to be found out in the world? If there is no difference between the church and the world, may they not do just as well out in the world? Why “come out from among them,” if there is no difference, and if we have what the world has, and if we may join in with the world?
We have many good friends out in the world. They have been good and kind to us. They have proved themselves to be friends to us in matters that pertain to the world and worldly things; but we cannot worship together. We cannot engage in the same things in a church way. They have so many of the little foxes, the little things the Lord has not given in His Book; and we cannot take part with them in those things. Those who are honest and sincere do not think less of us on this account. They admire our honesty and sincerity. They will be the same with you. Let us be faithful and true to our Master.
C. H. C.
PUTTING UP FENCES
July 1, 1937
It is a real nice thing for us to remember that it is easy for us to go to an extreme on most anything. It is easy for us to see a mistake, or a wrong, that somebody does, and be so fearful that we may get off on that side of the matter that we go to an extreme the [pg 296] other way. We might be like the mule that was blind in one eye. While crossing a bridge, he was so afraid he would run off the bridge on the “blind side,” he kept getting farther and farther from that side, until he ran off on the other side. We should not go blind on one side and off to an extreme on the other side. That there are bars to fellowship laid down in God’s Book no one need try to deny. “But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them. For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of dark- ness, but rather reprove them.”—Eph. v. 3-11. We quote at length so that we may have the direct connection, and see at once, very clearly, that here is a command to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness. Here is a bar to fellowship which the Lord Himself put up, by the pen of His inspired apostle. It is by the observing of the bars which the Lord has put up that the church is preserved in such a way as to have the Lord’s approval.
To fail to observe the bars which the Lord has put [pg 297] up would simply be to open the flood gates to all sorts of iniquity and wickedness, and would destroy the indentity of the church where and when it is done. In the first division in the church the Catholic party threw down those bars, and a flood of iniquity came into the church. Novatian and those who stood with him for the purity of the church refused to throw those bars down—they kept them up; and that resulted in the first division in the church, or separation from the church. This is where and when the Catholic party appeared.
The Lord has built every fence and put every bar to fellowship that His people need, or that the church will ever need. We need no other bars than those He put up. But we do need to observe every bar the Lord has put up.
Let us lay down a principle which our father laid down in a debate with a Missionary Baptist. That principle is this: Whatever is Baptistic is Scriptural. To deny this is to deny that our people are Scriptural. If what is Baptistic is not Scriptural, then the Baptist Church is not Scriptural. If the Baptist Church is Scriptural, then what is Baptistic is Scriptural. This being a fact, it will not do to deny that what is historically Baptistic is Scriptural. If we deny it being Scriptural to do as history shows has been the general practice of the Baptists to do, then we deny that the Baptist Church is Scriptural. When we deny that, then we admit that we do not belong to a Scriptural organization. How careful we need to be that we do not find ourselves in a dilemma.
In our contention against bars to fellowship which are not authorized by the Scriptures let us not forget that there are bars to fellowship which are authorized [pg 298] by the Scriptures. Let us not forget that the Lord has put up some bars in His Book. Let us not try to argue our point in such a way as to make people believe we are opposed to all bars to fellowship. If we are opposed to all bars to fellowship, then we are opposed to something the Lord has put in His Book.
In the Throgmorton-Potter Debate on “Who Are The Primitive Baptists,” held at Fulton, Ky., in 1887, Elder Throgmorton laid down a very broad basis of fellowship for the Missionary Baptists, and tried to make it appear that on this account they are the Primitive Baptists. Let us not forsake or leave the position occupied by and contended for by Elder Potter in that debate, and go over to Throgmorton’s position. He was wrong then, and that position is wrong yet. The new means and measures introduced among the Baptists by Fuller, Carey, and others, were borne with by the Baptists for years, though protested against for all those years, until forbearance had long ceased to be a virtue, when they finally withdrew from them from 1832 to 1845. That was the thing they should have done at the very introduction of those new measures and new doctrines. Those things were not Baptistic, and hence a departure from Scriptural teaching. They brought trouble and disturbance in the Baptist ranks. Bringing in of new means and measures will always bring disturbance among them.
Not so long ago a brother who has had much to do, we suppose, in the making of new tests of fellowship over in Georgia wrote us that he had a desire to visit this country, and asked if we would make appointments for him. We wrote him that we would not; that we were having no trouble in this country about the [pg 299] matter they were fussing about; that all our churches engage in feet washing, and we are having no trouble about the question, and do not want any; and that they had put up a fence themselves; and our desire is for them to stay on their own side of the fence which they have put up. The fence that keeps our people out should keep them in. So we just want them to stay on their own side of the fence. In doing this, they will have less opportunity of bringing trouble among us—and we do not want trouble.
If there is smallpox in a house, and a quarantine is established, it is for the protection of those who are not in that house, to keep them from being exposed to the disease. The people who are on the outside are forbidden to go on the inside, for in so doing they become exposed. But if they do violate the law and go inside, they then have to stay on the inside. It is a violation of the quarantine law for those on the inside to go outside among other people who have not been exposed to the disease. So, if those brethren have established a quarantine against all those who do not make feet washing a test of fellowship, they themselves violate their own quarantine when they get outside the fence they have put up. Let us all require the folks to stay on their own side of the fence which they have put up. The same thing is true in every like condition or circumstance. The Trumpet folks have put up a fence. All Baptists everywhere should require them to stay on their own side of the fence. If our folks cannot go among them on account of the fence they have put up, how can they lawfully go among our folks elsewhere? Evidently they are fence breakers or jumpers. May [pg 300] the Lord help us to be consistent, and to observe the things He has given us in His Book.
C. H. C.
ELDER DUNCAN MARRIED
July 1, 1937
We received a request from Elder James Duncan, of Memphis, Tenn., to come there and be with the church on the first Sunday in June, and to preach for them that day and night, and also on Monday night and Tuesday night, and to solemnize the rites of matrimony for him on Wednesday evening at 7:30. As we have had a desire for quite awhile to visit the church there, we wrote Brother Duncan we would be there if not providentially prevented. So we were with the church in their service on Sunday at eleven, on Sunday night, and on Monday and Tuesday nights. The church also desired that we have service on Wednesday night, which was agreed to. So, at 7:30 on Wednesday evening we were at Elder Duncan’s home and solemnized the rites of matrimony between him and Mrs. Rosa P. Nelson (unless we have gotten her name wrong), after which we went to the church and had service. After service we were conveyed to the depot by Brother Pruitt and wife. Left Memphis at 10:35, arriving home about four o’clock Thursday morning and found all well, for which we trust we are thankful.
The meetings with the good brethren, sisters and friends in Memphis were delightful and pleasant. We spent some pleasant hours with some of them in their good homes. On Tuesday Brother S. W. Dearing’s wife and sister went with us to visit Brother [pg 301] W. P. Dearing and family, near Covington. We spent a few pleasant hours with them. We were so glad to see him and his good wife and dear mother once more. His mother is near eighty years of age, but is still strong in the faith, and loves the good old way the fathers trod. This is a precious Old Baptist family, and have seemed like “kinfolks” to us for about forty years.
The congregations were good at each service, and there seems to be a good interest there. We enjoyed our stay with them. They were good to us—so much better than we feel to deserve. May the .good Lord continue to bless them, and to lead them on in the same good old way. They are satisfied to be just plain old- fashioned Old Baptists. We hope to visit them again some day. And may the Lord bless dear Brother Duncan and his companion, is our humble prayer.
We may not be giving her name correct above, as we failed to make a note of it, and we are so forgetful. But her name is Duncan now, anyhow. C. H. C.
(We have the name corrected in this book.)
SHOULD BE MARKED
July 15, 1937
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.—Rom. xvi. 17, 18.
To our mind it is very evident from this language of the apostle that the things which bring divisions and offenses in the church are such things that are not [pg 302] taught in the Book of Inspiration. What men have learned from some other source than God’s Book are the things that bring divisions in the church of God. If there is division and discord in the church any place, and you wish to know, for certain, who is responsible for such trouble and division, just find out, for certain, who is, or has been, advocating the thing that the trou- ble is over, and then you will have the person who is responsible for the trouble.
Nearly all, if not all, the troubles in the Old Baptist Church are started by some of the preachers. The preachers are responsible for the troubles being started. Then the churches are responsible for the troubles not being stopped. When some preacher starts up some- thing contrary to that which you have learned in the Book, or which is not taught in the Book, you may be assured that trouble will result soon, if that preacher is not stopped. Such preachers should be stopped by the church. And there is much more danger that the church will be too slow about stopping the preacher than there is that they will be in too much of a hurry. Such a preacher should be admonished at once, as soon as he begins advocating something not found in the Book; and if he will not desist at once—right now—right then and there—he should be promptly dealt with. He should be marked right then and there. Put a brand on him. And then when he has been branded, be sure to avoid him. If any will not avoid him, then brand that fellow, too.
Such men as are here described by the inspired apostle do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ. They may claim to be in the service of God, and may tell us that the things they advocate are the very things that would be pleasing to our Lord, and necessary for the church to do [pg 303] and to have in order to stand high in the esteem and estimation of the world, and that they are good things to engage in so as to make the church an inviting place for our children, and so on. But the apostle tells us that such men serve their own belly, and not the Lord. There is some motive in view which they have in bringing in things that the Book does not teach.
Such men can make use of good words all right. They can make fair speeches. They can talk one way to you, when present with you, or when writing to you; and then they can talk another way some other place, or to some other person. They know how to use deception, all right. They can tell you that they are longing for and hoping for a better union and better understanding among the Lord’s people, and then they can tell some other party that it will not do to affiliate with some brother who is orderly and who stands for the traditions which we have been taught in the Word of God. He can write mighty nice to you, and he can give somebody else “hail Columbia” for recognizing you as a Baptist.
What a pity that such men creep in; but they do. “For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts.”—2 Tim. iii. 6. The inspired apostle has warned us about such. It is our duty to be on our guard, and to do as the Saviour has warned—”watch.” May the Lord help us to stay awake and to watch, as well as pray. C. H. C.
[pg 304]
REMARKS TO A. H. RODEN
July 15, 1937
The following remarks were made to Brother Roden following a letter from W. D. Griffin and Brother Roden’s reply, in which Griffin personated us. We do not deem it necessary to insert those letters here.
REMARKS—We do not care to spend time with Griffin in our columns. His folks will not publish our articles in their papers. Then why should we be continually giving them space in our paper? Griffin says he wants to be fair. The probabilities are that no one would have known it had he not said so. Is he seeking notoriety? If he wants an investigation of the differences between us, or if he wants a discussion, let his people indorse him as a representative man, able to set up and defend their doctrine, and accept the challenge we put out twenty years ago, and which has never been withdrawn. C. H. C.
REV. CAYCE PENTECOST BAPTIZED August 5, 1937
The baptizing took place at the Dresden Baptist Church last Sunday night when eleven were baptized, including Rev. Cayce Pentecost and family. Bro. Pentecost has for many years been a minister of the Primitive Baptist denomination. He joined the Dresden Baptist Church last Sunday night with his wife and three children. They were immediately baptized. Bro. Pentecost was baptized by Rev. Stubblefield, the pastor, and then he in turn baptized his wife and children. A large crowd was present for the baptizing. Rev. Dewey A. Stubblefield, the pastor, is delighted [pg 305] with the interest manifested in the affairs of the church. He preached to big crowds at both hours last Sunday.
The above item appeared in the “Dresden Items” in the Weakley County Press of July 16, 1937, published in Martin, Tenn. So Elder Cayce Pentecost has joined the Missionaries. His membership was at Little Zion Church, one of the churches which withdrew from the Greenfield Association in 1934. This is sufficient to show whether there has been anything wrong or not.
It seems, from the way the above article reads, that Elder Pentecost was baptized by Elder Stubblefield, and that then Elder Pentecost baptized his wife and children. If that is correct, then Elder Pentecost baptized for the Missionaries without being ordained by them, unless the ordination was performed very quickly, for it seems that the wife and children were baptized immediately after Elder Pentecost was. It seems to us that if the ordination Elder Pentecost had from the Primitive Baptists was good and valid, so would the baptism he had from them be good and valid. If Elder Pentecost had valid ordination by the Primitives, he also had valid baptism by them. If he had valid baptism by the Primitives, then the baptism he received from the Missionaries is not valid. In that case, he has exchanged a valid baptism for an invalid baptism— a baptism that is not valid. Get the pronunciation of that word, invalid, correct, please not in-va-lid baptism, but in-val-id baptism. It is not even an in-va-lid baptism—it is equivalent to no baptism at all, for it is in-val-id.
If Elder Pentecost is not satisfied with the old order of things, just as they were handed down to us by our fathers and grandfathers, then he has taken the right [pg 306] step—he should leave the Old Baptists alone in peace, and go where they already have the new means and measures that the world delights in, and that the churches of the world must have in order to live. We are sure he knows very well that the man for whom he was named—Elder S. F. Cayce—would have none of the new means and measures and doctrines of the Missionary Baptists. And if his parents would have taken in with such things as that, they would never have given him the name Cayce. Peace go with you, Brother Pentecost. C. H. C.
CALL FOR PEACE MEETING
August 5, 1937
After we had the type all set for this issue of the paper and all made up in the pages and on the press ready to run, but just before starting the press, we received the following call, signed by Bethel Church, South College Street Church, and Richland Church, the three Primitive Baptist Churches in Nashville. Some time back we suggested that these three churches co-operate and join in the call for the proposed meeting. We are glad to get this from those churches. So we took the forms off the press, had this article put in type, and the paper made up again, and printed with this article in it.
Now, please bear in mind that all the churches concerned may be represented in the proposed meeting by messengers. Any church desiring to do so may appoint any number of her members to represent her in the meeting. And we think that the churches should [pg 307] represent in the meeting. Also, please bear in mind that this meeting is not to make laws to govern the kingdom or to govern the churches. It is not proposed by us that any more is to be done in, and by, the meeting other than to submit recommendations whereby the troubles may be ironed out and eliminated. True, personal matters may be forgiven, and all who have indulged in such things may have the privilege of confessing their faults, which is right— “confess your faults, one to another.” Personal wrongs should all be forgiven. But there are some things which this proposed meeting cannot adjust. All that they can do is to make recommendations as to how such matters may be adjusted. Some things have been done by churches, and the churches themselves will have to straighten out those matters, if they are straightened out. And it will be necessary, for some things to be straightened out in order that perfect peace be fully restored.
We are glad to see this move made, and an effort started to restore peace among the brethren in that section of the country— Tennessee and a part of Kentucky, where the peace of the churches and brethren has been disturbed. If not providentially prevented we will be at the meeting. May the Lord direct us all in wisdom’s ways, and enable us to labor for the peace of Zion. We should work for peace, as well as pray for peace. Following is the call, as sent to us from the three churches.
C. H. C.
PEACE MEETING
We, the undersigned Primitive Baptist Churches, of Nashville, Tennessee, herewith invite, as our guests, all Primitive Baptists, and especially the preaching brethren, who feel that they would like to see peace restored and all re-united again in one body, as [pg 308] we once were; who would like to attend the much talked of “peace meeting” through the columns of some of our Baptist papers, by private correspondence, and by face-to-face conversations among the brethren.
Said meeting to be held in the Bethel Primitive Baptist Church house, 714 Gallatin Road, Nashville, Tenn., Friday, Saturday and fifth Sunday in August (August 27, 28, 29), 1937. Let all come in the right spirit—the Spirit of our heavenly Master—full of love and forgiveness for each other; and praying that the meeting might be one long to be remembered, in the way of estranged brethren being re-united in sweet love and fellowship; that it might be a great outpouring of the spirit of love.
Bethel Church By John S. Reid, Asst. C. C.
College Street Church, By W. L. Murky.
Richland Church, By C. V. Vandiver.
OUR UNION MEETING
August 5, 1937
Our union meeting—the union meeting of the South Arkansas Association—was held Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, July 16, 17, 18, with Friendship Church, El Dorado, Ark. It was a good meeting, from start to finish. The preaching service was as follows: The introductory on Friday morning was preached by Elder C. M. Monk. The rule of the union is that the pastor of the church where the meeting is held preach the introductory. Elder T. L. Webb is the pastor of the church. But as Elder Monk could be at the meeting only one day, by request of Elder Webb it was agreed that Elder Monk preach the introductory. The Lord blessed him to preach a good discourse, which was both comforting and instructive. After the discourse the privileges of the church were extended, when two dear [pg 309] sisters came forward asking for a home in the church. They were joyfully received.
In the afternoon Elder Black, from Texas, preached. Then at night Elder W. H. Lee was blessed to preach a good discourse.
Saturday morning Elders W. J. Puckitt and John R. Harris preached to the people. The Lord blessed them with sweet liberty. Then an opportunity was given for any to present themselves who desired a home in the church, and two more dear sisters came forward want- ing to enlist in the service of the Master. They were gladly received. Elder E. W. Hargett preached in the afternoon. At night the preaching was done by the writer.
Sunday morning the writer went first, followed by Elder Webb. Then after lunch the ordinance of baptism was administered, the four sisters being baptized, with a brother who had united with the church some time before, and who had been prevented from being at the church for baptism on account of providential hindrance.
It was a wonderful meeting—a union indeed. Not a discordant note was heard. The Lord manifested His presence, and smiled on the assembly at each service. May He have all the praise, for to Him it is due. ‘ ‘Behold, how good, and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.”
The next union is to be held with Mount Paran Church. They are to set the time for the meeting. C. H. C.
[pg 310]
MEETING AT CROSS ROADS
August 5, 1937
As has been announced in our columns, Cross Roads Church, near Henderson, Tenn., appointed a meeting to be held on July 7 and 8 as their fortieth anniversary, the church having been organized on July 7, 1897. We had no idea of attending the meeting, as we thought we could not go, though we desired to be present with them. But we were called to conduct the funeral service of Brother W. S. Baughan, as it had been his request, or his expressed desire, that we should conduct his funeral when he should pass away. The funeral service was held in the afternoon on July 7, the first day of the meeting, which was at eleven o’clock. Brother Baughan’s membership was at that church. He was the last one of the charter members, and he was buried on the fortieth anniversary of the organization of the church.
By request of many of the brethren we agreed to remain over and be with the church in their service on the 8th. Elder W. C. Davis is the pastor, and was present. It was a sweet meeting. The Lord’s presence was sweetly manifested.
Elder J. H. Phillips is buried there. We had the privilege of visiting and looking upon his grave—buried beside his wife. We felt sad, and could not refrain from shedding tears as we stood beside his resting place. Our old friends are crossing over the river, and we sometimes feel lonely and sad. May the Lord remember us all in mercy, is our prayer.
C. H. C.
CALL FOR PEACE MEETING
August 19, 1937
In our last issue we published the following call for a peace meeting to be held in Nashville, Tenn. The meeting is to be held with Bethel Church, but the call was made by the three churches in Nashville—Bethel, South College Street, and Richland. This is as it should be, we think. It shows and manifests that the three churches are willing to co-operate in doing what is right that peace may be restored in that country.
We trust that much good may be accomplished by the meeting. We trust that all the churches who are concerned in the matters that have been disturbing the peace of the brethren in that country will be represented in the meeting by messengers. Let the churches represent, from each “side.” If all go there with prayful hearts, leaving personal grudges behind, and with willing hearts to do what the good Book teaches, no doubt much good will be accomplished. No matter if some have said hard things about us, let us remember what the Lord has said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” Let us go there with willing minds to surrender, or give up, anything but the principles of truth and righteousness, and to be governed by the teaching of the Book—just to do and live as God has directed. The meeting is not to try to see how much wrong we can find; but try to map out, or suggest, what steps need to be taken in order that the brethren may all be brought together upon right principles. Let us lay aside all personal grudges and grudges, and try to labor for the peace of Zion. In our younger days the Baptists in that country were all together, and they [pg 312] should be that way now—and they can be, if all will try to do the right thing. May the Lord direct us all in the right way. If not providentially prevented we expect to be there, as we have been urgently requested to do. C. H. C.
It is not necessary to insert the call again, or here in this place, as it is on another page in this book.
OUR CHURCH PAPERS
August 19, 1937
The following article is copied from the Advocate ‘and Messenger of April, 1937. We think the article is good and timely. Our people where we live know that we are always glad to have brethren in the ministry visit our churches in this section. And Brother Pittman is just with us in this matter, and he is also aware that we are agreed. We do not mean to intimate, by referring to this, or by saying this, that he is otherwise than as he stated in this article. But we do wish to indorse the article. Our readers are aware of the fact that THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST and the Advocate and Messenger are harmonious, because of the fact that the two papers have been offered in a club together for a number of years. We are not afraid for our subscribers to read the Advocate and Messenger. We are glad for them to do so. Then they can see for themselves that we are not the only one who contends for the princi- ples set forth in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. If our readers would all labor together, as our ministers should all labor together, with an eye single to the unifying of the Lord’s people, and to the upbuilding of the cause of [pg 313]
the Master, perhaps our cause would be in better condition today. If any are doing otherwise, may the Lord touch their hearts, and enable them to see the error of their way.
C. H. C.
THE ARTICLE
As I look back to my young days I feel that the church paper in my parents’ home had an influence on me for good. I would sometimes read it, especially matters of an experimental nature. And when I was baptized my pastor advised me to subscribe for a Baptist paper, which I did, to my profit, comfort and instruction. I believe that our Baptist periodicals have generally been a blessing to the cause of truth and righteousness, and I wish every family would take at least one church paper. Sometimes our papers have published things hurtful to the cause, for we editors are very imperfect—we make mistakes. But pastors, deacons, and members make mistakes. And so do churches and associations. And yet all of us, if following the teaching of the Spirit, are striving to serve for the greatest good to the greatest number— striving to unify Primitive Baptists upon the fundamentals of the Scripture.
If there be church papers among us that divide God’s people, or that seek to keep them divided where divisions have occurred, then such papers are not teaching as Christ taught. If there be some editors who want their readers to read no other Baptist paper except their own, then they are narrow and selfish. All we editors, of course, make special efforts to build up our subscription—this is right and proper. But in doing this we should not want to hinder the growth and influence of other Baptist papers. Nor should we be afraid to publish the addresses of our correspondents for fear other editors might send them sample copies and secure their subscription. Personally, I have felt it right to publish the writer’s address— unless there be some special reason for not doing so. I would be glad if the blessed truths about Jesus and the precious doctrine of salvation by grace could be scattered everywhere. And I also want my readers to read other Baptist papers except the one I publish. I want my churches to receive visits from and to hear other ministers preach besides their unworthy pastor. By doing this they have an opportunity to read better articles than I [pg 314] can write, and hear better sermons than I can preach. This will do them good and make them stronger and broader Baptists. And if I am not jealous I will rejoice in that which tends to strengthen and unite our people.
But selfish pastors and editors among us—if there be any—will, by acting selfish and uncharitable, hinder brotherly love and weaken, the tie of fellowship. I am very imperfect—my mistakes are many—but I do not want to be called a selfish or jealous Baptist. In my heart there is a burning desire to see Zion prosper and her broken walls built up, but how to perform that which is good I find not. I know that not long hence I shall lay down my pen for another to take up, and when that time comes I pray that it can be truthfully said that my little labors were performed unselfishly, though imperfectly. And I would delight to see all we editors of the nine Baptist periodicals published in this country laboring more in love to unify our people upon the plainly taught truths of the Scriptures and manifesting less interest in doubtful matters that have brought confusion and division. By walking uprightly, “speaking the truth in love,” and writing in the spirit of brotherly kindness and Christian charity, our papers will wield a greater influence for good and manifest more glory to Him who has called us from nature’s darkness into His marvelous light. R. H. P.
WILL YOU, PLEASE?
August 19, 1937
For sometime we have been asking that obituaries be made as short as possible, but it seems that the writers of them forget about our request, or disregard it. Will you not please remember this request, and have mercy on your editor? It is very disagreeable to us to have to cut down on what you write in these obituaries, and leave out a lot of what you write. It is not at all pleasant for us to have to do this. Suppose you try to put yourself in our place, and try to imagine how you [pg 315]
would feel if you were conducting the paper, and the space limited, and you have on hand enough good material to fill the paper for several months, and then folks send you a great long obituary, long enough to take up anywhere from one to three columns of space in the paper. And yet you have matter on hand that you cannot publish, on account of the space being limited, and matter that is of general interest to the cause any place where the paper might go. And notwithstanding this, some writer takes a lot of space in an obituary—a matter that cannot be for the upbuilding of the cause, but of special interest to only a few. How would you feel? When we thus take up so much space for some matter in which only a few of us can be specially interested, does it not look like it is selfishness on our part? Are we really treating the great majority of the readers right, or as we would wish to be done by, when we do this? We trust that the writers of these things will please remember these things in the future, and govern themselves accordingly. We know that these things can be made much shorter than many of them are. We know, too, that we feel like saying a lot of good things in such articles, but we can refrain from taking so much space. It is unnecessary to give the names and addresses of the surviving relatives. This simply takes up space and is of no comfort or instruction to the great majority of the readers. If we want to say so many good things about people, we should say them while the persons are living. Let us scatter more flowers along the pathway of the living.
The good things you may say of us after we are gone will do us no good. Say more of your good things while we are yet living, and say less after [pg 316] we are gone. Do not keep back your good things to say after we are gone from this world. It is the living that need to have the good things said, and not the dead. May the Lord help us to be helpers one of another. And please remember that we are now giving fair warning that we will limit the space for obituaries. If you make them longer than three hundred words, we will have to leave out some of what you write.
This is not to wound your feelings, or to wound the feelings of any who write; but we are compelled to make them shorter than a great many of them are. You can say all that is necessary in three hundred words, even if you cannot say all you would like to say. We know how you feel in regard to such matters; but we have to consider other matters as well as consider how the writer feels. Remember that we sometimes are called on to write obituaries, too; and for this reason we know the feelings of the writers. Will you now please consider these things, and make these matters short?
C. H. C.
THE NASHVILLE MEETING
October 21, 1937
We should have had some account of this meeting in our columns before now; but after the meeting, which was on Friday, Saturday and fifth Sunday in August, we were filling some appointments, and have been at home very little since the meeting. There were forty-two ministers in attendance at the meeting. The names of all of them were enrolled as being present, without regard to where or how they [pg 317] had stood—without regard to their order or standing among the brotherhood. The object of the meeting was not to pass judgment on the order or standing of any minister or others who might be in attendance at the meeting. On Friday morning it was put upon the writer to preach the opening discourse in the meeting, which we tried to do, as best we could, with the ability the good Lord saw fit to give. After the opening discourse a committee was selected to frame recommendations to present to the meeting, whereby all matters causing the disturbances and the troubles which have lately existed in that part of the country might be adjusted, and the brethren and churches might be brought together, and fellowship restored. However, before the committee was selected, the meeting made choice of Elder H. P. Houk as moderator and Elder C. H. Cayce as clerk. Elder E. S. Frye was requested by Elder Houk to serve as assistant moderator and as moderator pro tem in the absence of Elder Houk from the room, as Elder Houk was appointed to serve on the committee. The brethren selected to serve on the committee were: Elders H. P. Houk, C. H. Cayce, J. A. Monsees, James Duncan, T. L. Webb, R. 0. Raulston, Lee Hanks, John R. Harris, J. D. Shain, and W. A. Shutt, and Deacon G. P. Nail.
The committee labored hard Friday and until afternoon Saturday. On Saturday afternoon they finished their work, and their recommendations were read in open meeting. Then all were given opportunity to ask any questions they desired to ask concerning what was embraced in the recommendations, and the questions were answered. A stenographer was employed [pg 318] to take the questions and answers, which are to be published with the recommendations. After the reading of the recommendations, the same were approved by unanimous vote of all the Primitive Baptists present— and a large crowd was there.
We offered to print the proceedings—the recommendations, with the questions and answers— in pamphlet form for free distribution among our people. A contribution was taken up to help pay the cost of the printing and distribution of the same. The actual cost will be around ten cents per copy. If any desire to help pay this cost, it will be appreciated; but they will be printed and distributed free to any who desire them. Please write and tell us at once how many you would like to have, so we may have some idea as to how many to print. You are not obligated to pay anything for the copies you want. This is left entirely with you.
At this writing we have not received the stenographer’s report. This delay is holding up the work of printing and sending out the report of the meeting. When the proceedings are printed and sent out, it will be expected that the churches involved will either adopt or reject the recommendations of the meeting, as presented by the committee and approved by those present at the meeting; and that they will straighten out and eliminate the irregularities, so that peace may be restored. There are some things which will have to be cleared up in
order to have peace and in order that fellowship exist and abound among the brotherhood. There are some things which will always bring trouble, confusion and distress among our people.
No investigation was made as to the troubles, or as to who was in the right, or who was in the wrong. [pg 319] Not a single witness was called. Not a single question was asked as to whether this or that thing had been done, or as to whether this or that condition existed. Some of the things mentioned in the recommendations by the committee were known by some of the members of the committee to have been done and to have existed. Hence no witness was examined, no investigation was entered into, for the simple reason that this was not a council meeting. Some of the brethren on the committee had been involved in the trouble, one way or another; and they simply unanimously agreed in the committee room as to what would bring about peace and restore fellowship, and how unity and fellowship may be maintained.
It was a wonderful meeting. There was not a jar in the committee room. Everything was done harmoniously and by a unanimous voice there. We never served, on a committee where things went more smoothly. Then when the time came for approval or non-approval of the recommendations as presented by the committee, the vote for approval was unanimous. Not a single vote was cast against approval. Then a song was sung and all engaged in shaking hands and embracing each other, while shouts of praise were heard and tears of joy were shed abundantly. We pray that much and lasting good may come of this meeting. May the Lord help us all to “behave ourselves in the house of God,” and help us to labor for peace, and to strive for the things that make for peace. C. H. C.
[pg 320]
JOHN VIII. 1-11
October 21, 1937
We have been requested to give our views concerning the case of the woman brought to the Saviour, which instance is recorded in John viii. 1-11.
We will not take space here to quote the language recorded concerning the case. Turn to your Bible and read it. We have heard this matter referred to as proof that persons guilty of adultery should be forgiven and retained as members of the church. If this does prove that, then will you please tell us what any person should be excluded from the church for? The matter of adultery is set forth in the Scriptures as the capital crime against the marriage vow and against the marriage bed, and is the only Scriptural ground upon which one may put away the companion and marry another.
Note, here, the language of verses 4, 5 and 6: “They say unto Him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him.” Observe that they said this tempting Him, “that they might have to accuse Him.” The evident fact here is that they thought they had Him “cornered,” so that no matter what He might say they would have Him entangled in His speech. Jesus had said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”—Matt. v. 17, 18. This being true. He was not to sit as a judge, to administer the law. [pg 321] If He should have said for them to do what the law said do. He would have been sitting as a judge, to pass sentence, and to administer the law; and this would have been a contradiction of his statement that He came to fulfill the law. If He should have said that He forgave the woman, that would have been to set the law aside, and not a fulfilling of the law. In either case. He would have been entangled in His speech; and this is just what those Pharisees and scribes thought He would have to do. But in this, as in all other instances when they tried to entangle Him, they were foiled in their purpose, and their efforts in that direction were a failure.
Note that Jesus says, in verses 10 and 11, “Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said. No man. Lord. And Jesus said unto her. Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” In this He does not say that she is forgiven, and the law thereby set aside or dishonored and trampled under foot. Neither does He pass sentence, and thus sit as a judge. Thereby the scribes and Pharisees are thwarted in their purpose and design.
The foregoing all being true, it is a twisting of the. Scriptures to apply this as an example to justify the forgiveness of the sin of adultery by the church. No such lesson is taught in this circumstance, and to apply the matter that way is a flagrant misapplication of the Scriptures. Just as well make a misapplication of the commandments and exhortations in the Scriptures, and give them to the unregenerate and ungodly world, as the religious world does, as to make such an application of this case as is sometimes done. Let us remember to
[pg 322] rightly divide the word of truth, and put a lesson where it belongs.
After writing the above we had the impression that we had expressed our views on this matter once before in the columns of this paper, hence we looked that up. For the benefit of our readers we refer you to page 179 of Volume I of our Editorial Writings—or Selected Editorials, which was the title given to the first volume. That article was written and published in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of May 7, 1907. C. H. C.
EXCUSES
November 4, 1937
We have been gone from home a lot during the past several weeks, about three months, and have had so much to attend to that we have not been able to write for our columns as we would like to do. Besides this, we are far behind in answering letters received. We ask that all be as patient as you can, and we will answer the letters as soon as we possibly can, and will also write some for the paper as soon as we possibly can. For several days we have not been well, but at this writing (Oct. 22) we are feeling some better than for the past few days, and hope to be able to fully carry our work on in a few more days. Remember us in prayer. C. H. C.
[pg 323]
CORRESPONDING EDITOR
November 18, 1937
In August, 1936, we visited the North District Association in Kentucky, where we were met by Elder J. H. Keaton, and who went with us into Ohio and then to his home, and then to the Indian Creek Association. While with him on the trip we heard him preach several times, and had the privilege and opportunity of talking with him, and exchanging views concerning matters that are of importance to our people and to the cause of the Master. Rather, we would say, that we had the opportunity of getting his views on matters of the faith and practice of the Primitive Baptists and in connection with the teachings of the Book. We also had the opportunity to learn something of his standing among the brethren in that country, as well as to learn something of his standing as a man. Hence, we requested that he make a trip west. This he agreed, the Lord willing, to do. So, we arranged a list of appointments for him, as our readers are aware; and we were with him on the entire trip. For several weeks we were with him and his family, and heard him preach almost every day during that time. It is with a great degree of satisfaction that we can say that we never heard him utter a single uncertain sound in the whole time we were privileged to be together.
So, while he was here at our home, in our office, we asked him to let us place his name on our editorial staff. We had made no hint to him before that we would make such a suggestion. He seemingly hesitated for only a moment, and replied that we might do so if we felt that it would be for the good of the cause and would be no [pg 324] injury to the paper. We are thankful to have such men, as we esteem him to be, associated with us in the editorial work on THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. If we know our heart, our desire, in continuing the publication of the paper, is to comfort and to benefit the Lord’s humble poor, and to defend the truth as it is in Jesus our Lord, and for the glory and honor of heaven’s King. This was the desire of our sainted father when he began the publication of this paper, and was so until he laid down his pen in death, when the Master called him up higher. He died in the harness, with his face toward Jerusalem. We trust that by the grace of God we may do the same. We feel that no greater honor could be bestowed upon us than that we might die in the Lord’s service, and in the service of His poor and afflicted people. The reproach of Christ is greater riches than all the treasures of this poor world.
We are glad to have the name of Elder J. H. Keaton, 364 Brandon Road, Huntington, W. Va., added to our list of corresponding editors. May the Lord help us all to labor together for the advancement of the cause of the Master, and for the unifying and building up of the Lord’s dear children. May we all endeavor to extend the circulation of the paper, for these commendable ends, and help us to fill the pages of the paper with such matter as will have a tendency to accomplish these things, and that we may never sow discord among brethren. Will the readers all pray for us, to this end?
Elsewhere in this paper will be found an article from Elder Keaton, under the heading “Salutatory.” May the Lord bless the dear brother, together with his family, as well as the brethren and churches where he labors, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
[pg 325]
HENS FURNISH CHURCH
November 18, 1937
Sharon Church, near Culloden, has three beautiful plush chairs and stand which cost $95. The ladies of the church took all the eggs laid on the meeting days and paid for this furniture. This was a great work and the hens felt better, we bet.—Banner Herald. November, 1937.
Anybody taken the bet, yet? How much did you bet? Who won? Did you find out, for sure, that the hens felt better? Were they “talking hens,” or were they “cackling hens?” Who sold the eggs? Were they fertile, or infertile, when sold? Were they sold as pure and sure fresh eggs? If they were fertile eggs, what would they hatch? Were any of them goose eggs? We ask this question because the article does not say they sold only chicken or hen eggs. Some of them might have been some other kind of eggs, for all we know. We have read in the Bible something about cockatrice eggs. Did they Sell some of that sort? C. H. C.
WOULD BE GLAD TO GO
November 18, 1937
For some time we have been urgently requested to visit the churches in some parts of Tennessee, especially in some of the middle and western portions of the state. We have felt that it was hardly prudent for us to make any extended trip just then; but now we are ready to visit the churches in those sections, the Lord willing, as the brethren may feel would be advisable, and where they feel some good might be accomplished by us going among them. So the brethren may write [pg 326]
concerning the matter, and make their suggestions as to the time they may think best for us to make such a trip, and also make their suggestions as to the places they may especially desire us to visit. Please remember and bear in mind that we are not as strong as we once were, and that it is not prudent for us to try to preach more than once a day, as a rule; and also that we might not hold out, physically, on too long a trip. Anyway, write us your suggestions, and pray the Lord that our labors might be blessed of Him to the good of the cause and His glory, if He should spare us to make the trip. C. H. C.
ADVICE AND ADVISE
December 2, 1937
There is quite a difference between giving advice and giving a command. To command is to direct authoritatively; to bid; order; charge; enjoin. The giving of a command carries with it the idea of having authority to enforce the thing commanded. The one who gives a command is one in authority. Advice carries no such thought or idea.
Advice means a view or consideration of a thing; hence, opinion; judgment. An opinion recommended or offered as worthy to be followed; counsel. To advise is to give advice to; to offer an opinion to as worthy or expedient to be followed; to counsel; warn. For one to give or to offer advice does not signify that the one so doing is above or superior to the one to whom the advice is given. But the giving of a command does signify [pg 327] that the one giving the command is over or above the one to whom the command is given.
If one can really give a command, in order that the command be effectual, or worth while, he must have the power or authority to enforce the command. No such thing as that is implied in giving of advice. One to whom advice is given is under no obligation to heed the advice, or to do as advised. The matter of doing as advised is optional with the one to whom the advice is given. The doing of the thing advised is left to the option, or will, of the one so advised.
The inferior may advise the superior; or one may advise one who is his equal. But the superior commands the inferior. The inferior does not command the superior.
Synonyms for advice are: Opinion, recommendation, instruction, suggestion, exhortation, admonition. Hence, if one recommends that a certain thing, or certain things, be done, he simply advises that. He gives that as his advice. But he has no authority to enforce the same. He can only advise or recommend, unless he is one in authority to enforce the thing proposed or commanded.
For instance: In the peace meeting at Nashville we put forth some recommendations; things we recommended to be done and to be observed and followed. We had no right or authority to command that those things be done, nor any authority to enforce any of them. The churches are free to adopt or to reject the recommendations. The churches may adopt them, and they have the power and authority from God’s Word to enforce them. All that meeting could do was to recommend or to advise certain things to be done. But the [pg 328] churches are to execute the laws which Christ gave to govern in His church or kingdom. Even the church does not have the right or authority to make laws. Jesus was the sole and only Lawgiver in Zion. He gave all the laws, rules and regulations to govern in His kingdom. He delivered all the laws and ordinances to His apostles as the judges in His kingdom. They sat as judges in that kingdom; and that is the Supreme Court. They, as the supreme judges, passed on all the laws, and told how to observe and how to execute them; and they delivered them all to the church for keeping. So the church is the executive body. They are to execute the laws which Christ gave, and they are to do that according to the direction and instruction of the Supreme Court. For them to do otherwise is for them to simply do that which is unconstitutional and contrary to the instruction of the Supreme Court. But the Lord never gave a law that is unconstitutional. Our law making bodies, in temporal affairs, sometimes pass a law that is unconstitutional; but our Lawgiver in Zion never did a thing of that sort. And those who are to execute the laws may do things that are contrary to the law, and contrary to the ruling of the Supreme Court.
God’s ministers should study the constitution and laws which our Lord has given, so that they may be able to rightly advise the Lord’s children how to live, and how to observe the laws which Christ gave. They should be able to advise the church as to how those laws should be observed, or executed, or obeyed, as the case may be. The minister is not the master. He is a servant—if he is a true minister of the gospel. He cannot enforce a single law in the kingdom; but he can advise, or [pg 329] recommend, in regard to the observing or enforcing those laws.
To you ministers, who read this, we would put this question: Have you not, from time to time, advised the churches you were serving as to how they should do certain things? Have you not frequently advised them as to whether they should do certain things, or should not do them? In the giving of such advice, did you do so with the idea that you were above the church, or that the church belonged to you? Certainly not. If you did, we will say, kindly, though bluntly, that you are not a true servant. If you are, you have forgotten your station. “We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants, for Jesus’ sake,” says Paul. The true gospel minister is truly a servant; yet he is to advise, teach, and instruct the churches and the Lord’s children as to how they should live here in the world. He is an overseer. As such, he is to set the right example as to how one should live as becometh the Lord’s children. He should live right, himself. “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ,” says Paul. He is to be an ensample to the flock. He should set the example as to how to live.
In 2 Cor. viii. 10 the apostle says, “And herein I give my advice.” In this instance he chose not to speak as with the authority which he had as an apostle or judge in the kingdom; but to speak by way of advice. In thus writing concerning the matter under consideration, the church doing as advised shows forth a willingness and cheerfulness and gladness to do the thing that was commendable. Thus it was a matter of choice and willingness, freely done on their part. If the apostle chose to deliver the teaching here as a matter of advice, rather [pg 330] than as one of authority, which it seems that he did, then he has set an example that the minister may advise. But no other ministers have ever been appointed as judges in the Lord’s kingdom. The apostles constituted the one and only Supreme Court. But they did set examples for the true ministers to follow in the succeeding ages. We would do well to endeavor to follow the exam- ples set and left on record for us. May the Lord help us so to do. C. H. C.
CLOSE OF VOLUME LI I
December 16, 1937
According to the custom which has been practiced since the close of the first volume of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, it is now time for us to write another article on the close of the present volume—Volume lii. At this juncture we are reminded of the inquiry of the Prophet Isaiah (Isa. xl. 6), “What shall I cry?” The pondering of our heart for several hours has been, “What shall we say? How can we write another article as a close of the volume?” There are many and various and sundry things which might be said, but they would not all be appropriate for an article of the sort this is supposed to be. So, “What shall I cry?” was the question asked by the old prophet of God.
Many a time when it falls to the lot of the poor servant of God to speak in the name of the Master he feels to be blank—feels that he has nothing in the world to say; and his earnest inquiry is, “What shall I cry?” Many times the editor is in the same condition in regard to writing. But the minister must make the effort. The [pg 331] people expect him to say something. So he must go forward, no matter how “empty” he may feel to be. So, the readers expect the editor to say something. He must make the effort. His inquiry may be, “What shall we say?” But the time is up; he cannot wait longer. He must write something—and he must write it now.
The Lord told His prophet what to cry. He was not left to guess at what to say. Guess work may have been as good in that day as at present. But guessing has never been any benefit to Israel in any age of the world. But will the Lord tell us what to say? There is an abundance of what to say given us in the Book; but some things set forth therein may not be exactly appropriate to write in an article for the close of the volume of a paper. There must be some truth that is appropriate for such an occasion. But, can we think of it? Will the Lord give us a mind on the things that may be appropriate?
“Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble. He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not.”—Job xiv. 1, 2. Do we realize how true this is? We are swift passengers from time to eternity. The time and place that now knows us will soon know us no more. But we are one year nearer to the end of our earthly trials and conflicts than we were a year ago. We have had some trials during the year past, as in every year since we can remember. But we have also had some seasons of rejoicing. We have seen and heard many of the Lord’s little children made happy and to rejoice in the Lord along during the past year. We have seen some who had been at war possessed with a spirit of peace, and desiring to see an [pg 332] end of unholy war. This has been delightful to us. “Behold, how good, and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.”
We would be glad if we could live to see all true Old Baptists living together in peace and union and sweet fellowship; but we do not expect to see that. If such persecutions as the Lord’s people have had to endure in some of the ages of the past should come upon them now, no doubt they would thereby be driven closer together. That time may come, whether we live to see it or not—and it may come sooner than some expect. “History repeats itself,” is an old saying, which is very true. “That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.”—Ecclesiastes iii. 15. If “that which is to be hath already been,” then that which hath already been is to be again. “History repeats itself.” The Lord’s people have been persecuted in the past, and what hath been is to be again. It will come, whether we believe it or not. The Lord has suffered His people to be persecuted in days past, often as a chastisement and punishment for their sins and rebellion, and the forsaking of His laws and service. He will do the same again. He does not change. For our own good, it would be better for us to do that changing which needs to be done, and to forsake our own ways, and seek to serve the Lord. “Seek ye the Lord, while He may be found,” is the instruction which has been given.
Let us try to manifest our love for each other more than we have in the past. Let us forsake the world, and the things of the world, and “humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God, and He will lift us up.” May He forgive our follies of the past, and help us to [pg 333] walk humbly and circumspectly before Him. Farewell until our issue of January 6, 1938, if the Lord lets us live until then. Remember us in your prayers. May the Lord bless you.
C. H. C.
INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME LIII.
January 6, 1938
We are now entering into the fifty-third volume of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. We do not feel to write much in the way of an introduction to this volume. We do not know what to say, nor how to say it. The best we know, just at this moment, is to pledge ourselves, with all our strength and energy, to endeavor, the very best we can, to earnestly contend for the principles for which this paper has stood since the first issue was printed on the first of January, 1886. That is, we pledge ourselves to this, if the good Lord sees fit to spare us to live, and to bless us with a sane mind. Some of these days we will write our last article—we will lay our pen aside some day. We do not know any more now about how long the Lord will see fit to spare us than we knew a year ago. But for some purpose, best known to Himself, He has spared us to begin the publication of another volume of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. Will you pray the Lord to enable us to continue to contend earnestly for the faith that was once delivered to the saints? C. H. C.
[pg 334]
QUESTIONS ON ORDER
January 6, 1938
We have received the following questions, with the request that we answer them through THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST:
1. Is it Baptist order and custom for a sister church to send a committee to a sister church without first giving legal notice of their intentions?
2. Is it order for said committee to ask the sister church to grant letters of dismission, saying that they will receive said members if they see fit to grant them letters, when said members refuse to give a reasonable excuse for wanting letters? In case the letters are not granted, and the church in question would say that they felt that the church that refused to grant the letter did not have fellowship for their church, then go and receive these members by relation, when the church of their present member ship is still in existence and holding regular meetings and transacting business in a regular way, would the church that received such members be in order?
3. Is it Baptist order and custom for a church to receive members by relation who have been excluded, without them first being restored to the church that excluded them?
We will try to answer the questions, as best as we can, and as we understand them, by number. In answer to question one will say that it depends upon what the committee is sent for. If a committee is sent by one church to bestow labor upon a sister church, it seems to us that the committee should bear a letter from their church, with the complaint laid out in the letter.
In answer to question two will say that we do not understand why a committee would be sent to a sister church asking that sister church to grant letters of dismission to one or more of her members, unless it be [pg 335] to certify to the church that the member has been living right, when the church of their membership might be ignorant of the way they have been living, and therefore not be sure that the member is entitled to a letter. Remember that a church letter of dismission says that the bearer is a member in full fellowship and good standing until joined to another church of the same faith and order. If the committee is not for that purpose, we do not see the propriety of a committee. A person asking for a letter of dismission should have good reason for asking for it, and should be willing to give the reason. In fact, when the letter is given for the right purpose and in the right way, the person asking for the letter usually states the reason why the letter is asked for. If the person is not willing to do that, it looks like there is something wrong, on the very face of things. Church matters should be dealt with openly and frankly. To receive a member by relation from a church where that church has not granted a letter of dismission is to treat the sister church with contempt. In our way of looking at things, it is a gross disorderly act. It denies that the sister church has the right to attend to her own business, or to attend to her own affairs. It savors of the assumption of authority by one church over another.
In answer to question three will say that we have repeatedly stated our opinion in regard to the receiving of persons by relation who were excluded from another orderly Old Baptist Church. It is gross disorder. It denies that a sister church has the right to discipline her own members. It is destructive to every law and principle of discipline by the church. When such a thing is done, then the church which excludes the [pg 336] person is forced to either fellowship the person in a sister church that she could not fellowship in her own body, or else fellowship between the two sister churches is broken and destroyed. Where an account is charged against a person is the only place on earth to get the account cancelled, or squared. If a concern in Chicago has us charged with a thing, whether the charge is just or unjust, that is the only place to get the books square. No other concern in the whole world can square that account, other than the concern who has the charge against us. Until our people recognize this truth and conduct themselves accordingly, there will be trouble and confusion and discord between sister churches, and fellowship between them will continue to be broken and destroyed.
C. H. C.
BACK WITH US
January 6, 1938
In another place in this paper will be seen an article headed, “Salutatory,” by Elder H. P. Houk, of Gurley, Ala. We are glad to have him again associated with us on the editorial staff. Elder Houk is a man who is as “sound as a dollar,” and is true to the principles for which the Old Baptists have stood all through the ages. We are sure that he can be depended upon to stand for the things that are true and right. We are glad to place his name on the staff again, and we hope he “will do better this time.” We are glad to have such men with us as we have on our staff of corresponding editors. We firmly believe that each one of them is a true Old Baptist, and they have no ‘ ‘time” for any of the [pg 337] inventions of men in the affairs of religion. May the Lord bless them, and bless their labors in the kingdom to the good of the cause and to the comfort of His people and the glory of His name. C. H. C.
SOFTSHELL STUNG
January 6, 1938
In our issue of February 20, 1936, we paid some attention to an article written by one Rev. Parson E. C. Gillentine, of Laurel, Miss., which he had published in the Baptist and Commoner, of Little Rock, in which he had tried to make it appear that the early Baptists of Mississippi were of the modern sort, Missionary so-called Baptists. We showed from reliable and authentic history that those early Baptists did not advocate what these modern Pharisaical Softshells advocate. Our article stung the Hon. Rt. Rev. Parson Gillentine, so he wrote another article calling it an “Open Letter to the Editor of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST.” But in his so-called open letter he does not even pretend to answer what we said or what we proved from reliable history. Instead of that he vents his spleen on the doctrine of personal and unconditional election, and asks a lot of questions concerning the same, besides false statements and misrepresentations of the teaching of the Primitive Baptists.
But suppose that doctrine is not the truth? What then? Does that prove that those early Baptists of Mississippi were the Bogard and Gillentine sort of Baptists? No; not on your life. Here is what those early Mississippi Baptists said they behoved: “We believe [pg 338] in the everlasting love of God to His people; in the eternal unconditional election of a definite number of the human family to grace and glory.” This is the very doctrine which Gillentine, in his “open letter,” rants against. That doctrine was believed by those early Mississippi Baptists. It is the very doctrine these modern Softshell hypocrites do not believe; and it makes them mad and gives them the jitters every time they come in contact with it. Poor fellows. No sort of bluster about what you “are doing for the Lord” can put you in line with those early Mississippi Baptists. You fellows do not preach the gospel, anyhow. We doubt if you would know what the gospel is, even if you should meet it in the road labeled in box-car letters. Poor little Gille. C. H. C.
THINGS APPRECIATED
January 6, 1938
We have received quite a number of holiday remembrances, for which we are thankful. We cannot write a personal acknowledgment to each one who sent us these kind remembrances, with their assurances of Christian love and fellowship, and we wish each one of you to accept this as a personal note assuring you that these things are valued more than we are able to tell you.
Besides these things, we receive, from time to time, from dear brethren and sisters, a few words of appreciation of our efforts and labors in the cause of the Master, many of which we do not deem prudent to put in the paper, for good and sufficient reasons, so it seems [pg 339] to us. But we do appreciate the same more than we have words to tell. They help us and encourage us to press on in the Lord’s service, and in service to His dear children. We feel unworthy of so many expressions of love and appreciation and approval; but we appreciate the same. May the Lord bless each one of you who have thus spoken or written a good word of encouragement to us. They have been as a drink of cool water to our thirsty soul. If we are truly a servant of the Lord, not one of you shall lose your reward. We cannot reward you, but the God we try to serve can, and will. May His richest blessings rest upon you, is our humble prayer. And, please do not forget that we are poor and needy and need your prayers. C. H. C.
GENESIS VI. 2
Remarks To Reinert Varhang
January 6, 1938
Gen. vi. 2 refers to the sons of God taking the daughters of men for wives. They married the daughters of men. This language is symbolic. The sons of God were children of God. The daughters of men were the inventions of men. The Lord’s children forsook the true service of God and engaged in the practice of the doctrines and commandments of men. That is what many are doing in this present age of the world. Destruction came upon them then on account of their wickedness; and destruction will come again for the same thing. We will try to write a little further on the matter when time and opportunity will permit. [pg 340] You will find a little hint on that matter on page 387 of Selected Editorials. C. H. C.
CHANGED OVER
January 20, 1938
We see that “Dr. Bogard” has quit the Baptist and Commoner and is now connected with the Orthodox Baptist Searchlight, as editor of that paper, which has lately been moved from Tennessee to Arkansas; but the former Tennessee editors are still retained on the edi- torial staff. It seems that the reason “Dr. Blowhard” quit the Commoner was because he could not very well have his way about some things. It seems that the Rev. Dr. has to be the “big boss” of everything he has anything to do with. Rev. Allen Hill Autry charged that the reason why Bogard quit the Convention was because he could not boss the Convention.
We note these short statements: “But she and I do not agree on what the policy of the paper should be and since the paper was not my property I was compelled to submit to much that I did not like.” There; that’s “the rub;” just did not like the idea of submitting; no, sir; I must be the “ramrod,” the “Whole cheese;” I must have the say-so about the policy of the paper, and what does or does not go into its columns. Hence: “There was just one way out and that was to walk out.” So, out the Rev, Bogard walked. That’s the way it seems to have been in regard to the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, too, several years ago, and so, out he walked. C. H. C.
[pg 341]
MONEY DISAPPEARS
January 20, 1938
A few years ago these anti-Board Missionaries were howling loud and long about how the Convention folks were extravagant, how they squandered “the Lord’s money,” how their expenses were high, and so forth, and so on. We thought then, and said so more than once, that it seemed to us just a question as to who handled the cash. So, now it seems that somebody besides Convention folks have been allowing some cash to “get away” somehow.
On page 3 of the Orthodox Baptist Searchlight of December 10, 1937, we find an article under the heading of “A Page of Cold Facts,” over the signature of Ben M. Bogard. In said article, under “Fact Number 1,” we see this language:
Why has a debt accumulated—steadily accumulated at the rate of more than TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS A MONTH since March? What has become of the THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS a quarter that came in over and above enough to pay the printer? Where does the money go? I do not say that anybody is stealing the money, but I do say somebody KNOWS where the money goes.
There now! How could you intimate, “dear brother,” that these honest (?) soul-savers could possibly do such a thing as to squander the Lord’s money? Or, that they could possibly know what has become of the money? Don’t you know, “dear brother,” that they are not wanting money? Don’t you know, “good brother,” that they are “belly-aching” for the salvation of souls, and that filthy lucre has no charms for them? Precious, “good brother,” calm down, now, and do not be so ugly as to put in your good soul-saving paper such a veiled [pg 342] intimation that your partners in the soul-saving business would do such a thing as to steal the Lord’s money out of His soul-saving business.
Under “Fact Number 7” we see this statement:
It is a cold fact, and this fact is so very cold that it may blister. We have been abusing the Southern Baptist Convention for using so much money for expenses, so much overhead expenses, and we have done right when we abused them for this. But it IS A COLD FACT that the Convention only uses NINE PER CENT to cover the expenses while the Texarkana office used OVER FIFTY PER CENT for expenses!
Here this fellow admits that the Convention folks carry on “the Lord’s business” at the small cost of only nine per cent, and yet that they “howled” about the high cost. Well, it just appears to us that a cost of only nine per cent for the expense of carrying on a business is a mighty low cost. We believe the average cost of doing business is much higher than that. But, now the “Big Boss” admits that the cost of their machine at Texarkana has amounted to fifty per cent for expenses! It seems to us that for the sake of economy you folks had better go back home to the Convention, if for no other reason. You young fellows thought (?), perhaps, you had found a new way to carry on that monstrous work of soul-saving, a much more economical way, than the inventors had found and worked out, but you babies did not know as much, perhaps, as you thought (?) you knew.
Under “Fact Number 9” we find this statement:
—– told Brother —– , a prominent member of the Malvern church, that money coming to that Texarkana office was FIRST USED to pay the ones who worked in the office and what was left went to the missionaries.
[pg 343] Well, of course. How can a business be carried on unless the expenses are paid? That is always the first thing that has to be taken care of—the expenses. How on earth are you going to get an airplane to sail to heaven to carry passengers into glory, unless the gas bill is paid first? Of course, it makes not so much difference what the money is contributed for, the expense of the business must come out of the contributions, and “Jones, he pays the freight.”
This whole modern mission business is a great big humbug, and was hatched as one of the greatest money making machines of modern times. They beg money under the pretense of saving souls; but the Lord has not turned His work of salvation over to these modern money hunters. Nor has the Lord ever been a partner in their business. C. H. C.
CHEAP SALVATION
January 20, 1938
We see in the Orthodox Baptist Searchlight, according to the report made by the Reverend Dr. Blowhard that his “Missionary Baptist Institute” is doing a most wonderful work. He evidently has a most wonderful soul- saving machine over there in Little Rock. It seems to us that they might have all the folks saved in our capital city some of these days—unless they are saving “the same old sixty” over again from time to time. And it seems that they sure do have the “cost of production” down to “rock bottom.”
The “big boss” says: “We have figured up the cost of this work. It is amazing, but true, that the average [pg 344] cost of the work is one dollar and twenty-five cents ($1.25) for each soul that has been saved.” That is truly amazing! Gee, that sure is cheap salvation! Wonder how they did manage to get the article down so cheap! That sounds to us like it is too cheap to be a true and genuine article. We are afraid of that stuff. It surely must be a counterfeit. No genuine article of salvation has ever been so cheap in America, that we have ever heard of before. We have read in some of their literature that it cost only one cent to evangelize a heathen—but that is a long way off; and we could not all of us go over there to see if they were dispensing the genuine article or a counterfeit. However, we never did believe they were dispensing the genuine article over there, for the simple reason that we never caught them dispensing the genuine article here. We have never believed that it has been committed to them to dispense it. We have never believed that these fellows had anything to do with the matter of dispensing eternal salvation to the souls of men and women.
But, if you will just hand over your cash to this “institute,” they will in a short time have the millennium ushered in. The Rev. Dr. Bogard handles the cash. C. H. C.
MEDDLERS AND BUSYBODIES
February 3, 1938
That there have been meddlers and busybodies along the line there can be no doubt. In days of old there were some of such characters, and they caused others to have trouble, and brought trouble upon themselves.
[pg 345] To meddle is “to interest, engage, or concern one’s self unnecessarily or impertinently; to interfere; to interpose or participate interferingly, or busy one’s self improperly with another’s affairs.” To “meddle (with or in) is to concern one’s self officiously or impertinently with another’s affairs.”
A meddler is “one who meddles; one who interferes, or busies himself with things in which he has no concern; an officious person; a busybody.”
A busybody is “one officious in the affairs of others; a meddling person.”
Here we have a definition of what a meddler is, and what it is to meddle, and as to what a busybody is. These are ugly things, and are sure trouble breeders.
Solomon says, “He that goeth about as a talebearer revealeth secrets; therefore meddle not with him that flattereth with his lips.”—Prov. xx. 19. To flatter is an “act of pleasing by artful commendation or compli- ments; false, insincere, or excessive praise.” Hence, a flatterer is one who practices deception. He will praise you to your face, but in his heart he does not mean what he says. He is a deceiver. Better not meddle with one who is of that sort. He will sure get you into trouble, sooner or later, one way or another. He will not do to depend on. Better “let him alone.” It is sure to the best interest of one to not meddle with one of that sort. A talebearer is “one who officiously or maliciously spreads gossip, scandal,” etc. Gossip is “the tattle or conversation of a gossip; idle talk; groundless rumor.” A talebearer will sure spread trouble, if he does not make it. For one’s own good, he had better not meddle [pg 346] with a talebearer. It would be better for one to “mind his own business,” and let the talebearer alone.
To meddle with matters not our own will sure bring trouble upon us, as well as cause trouble among others. We would suppose that people know more about their own business than other people do. If other folks know more about how to manage and attend to their own business than we do, suppose we meddle with their affairs, and try to tell them how to run their business? That would certainly not look very well in us. Sooner or later such a course would get us into trouble. It would cause others to have a poor opinion of us, to say the least of it.
If there is trouble in a community, and we go into that community, it is better for us, as well as better for the community, that we let that trouble alone. If we meddle with it, we get ourselves into trouble with some of them, or perhaps all of them. If we meddle with it, we only make bad matters worse. It might not be so hard for those concerned to get matters adjusted, and get the trouble settled, if we do not meddle with it. They understand it better than we do. To be a meddler, then, is to be a maker of trouble, or to be a stirrer up of trouble. It is to be a busybody.
The Apostle Peter puts a busybody in a very ugly class. He says, “But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters.”—1 Peter iv. 15. What a pity that all people do not try to attend to their own business, and let the business of other folks alone. When one puts in one-half his time attending to his own business, and puts in the other half letting the business of other folks alone, he will not cause trouble as a meddler [pg 347] or as a busybody, nor will he have to suffer as a busy- body.
This does not at all say that one church may have what she pleases, no matter what it is, and no other church has the right to object. What is detrimental to the cause is something which concerns any church, and she has a right to object to it. But it does not give her a right to interfere with the rights of sister churches. Nor does this give an individual a right to meddle with the affairs of the church, or with matters that the church is to attend to. No individual has the right to go from his own home and endeavor to regulate the affairs of others. Let us learn to “behave ourselves” in the house of God. C. H. C.
MISSISSIPPI BAPTIST HISTORY
February 17, 1938
In the Baptist and Commoner of July 31, 1937, the Rev. Dr. Ben M. Blowhard gives some account of a trip he made in Mississippi and Louisiana. In this he refers to an association which he calls the Mississippi Association, and says that it was organized in the year 1806, or that certain churches associated together in that year, forming that association. In his article he says: “The old Mississippi Association was always just an old- fashioned Missionary Baptist Association and many of the churches have remained the same until this day.”
Ah! they have remained the same, have they? Here is Article 4 of the Articles of Faith upon which the old Mississippi Association was constituted: “We believe in the everlasting love of God to His people; in the eternal [pg 348] unconditional election of a definite number of the human family to grace and glory.” Do your churches have such an article as that now? Please answer, Doctor.
Number 6 of their Articles of Faith says: “We believe all those who were chosen in Christ, before the foundation of the world, are in time effectually called, regenerated, converted and sanctified; and are kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation.” Do your people have that in their faith now, Doctor? Do you, and do they, believe the teaching and sentiment of that article. Doctor?
Number 7 of their Articles of Faith says: “We believe there is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who by the satisfaction He made to law and justice, in becoming an offering for sin, hath by His most precious blood redeemed the elect from under the curse of the law, that they might be holy and without blame before Him in love.” Doctor, do you and your people believe and teach the doctrine embraced in that article of faith of those old Mississippi Baptists? Doctor, do you and your people believe that God did elect a definite number of the human family to grace and glory? Do you believe and teach that the elect were chosen in Christ before the ages of time began? and that they were a definite number of the human family? Do you believe that the elect, those thus chosen, are in time effectually called and regenerated in time? Do you believe that Christ redeemed the elect from under the curse of the law? Do you and your people, Doctor, really believe that Christ redeemed anybody from under the curse of the law? Or, do you believe that He only died to give every person of Adam’s race a chance to be saved? Say, Doctor, do you and your people believe [pg 349] what those old Mississippi Baptists said they believed? Doctor, did you know what these old Mississippi Baptists said they believed? If you did not know, then why would you try to make it appear to your readers that you did know, by making the claim that you were just like them? If you did know what they said they believed, then why would you try to make it appear that you are in line with them, and that you are the same, seeing your faith and teaching is not what they believed and taught, and you did know it? Which horn of the dilemma will you take. Doctor? You will just keep quiet, will you not, Doctor?
We get our information as to the date the Mississippi Association was organized, which was in July, 1807, from page 77 of Griffin’s History of the Mississippi Baptists. We quote from their Articles of Faith from the same page of the same book.
In 1810 this query was sent to the association, which may be found on page 86 of the same book, with their answer: “Is the washing the saints’ feet a Christian duty? Answered in the affirmative.” How would you answer that query today. Doctor? You are not like those Mississippi Baptists, are you. Doctor?
From page 90 we give this extract from a circular letter they put forth in 1811: “Brethren, we are obliged to believe, that inasmuch as God sent His Son into the world to save His people from their sins, that He has a people whom He designs to save. Now, if any of those whom God designs to save should be finally lost, He must either change His mind, or else He has not power to accomplish His designs—the supposition of which we consider blasphemy.” Doctor, you and your Softshell brood could not digest such doctrine as that, could you?
[pg 350] On page 101 we find the following question put to the association from one of the churches, and their answer: “Should a brother be held in fellowship, who prefers the rights and privileges of the Masonic Lodge to the communion of his church? Answer—No.” Say, Doctor, those Old Mississippi Baptists came very near saying you should not be held in fellowship, did they not? How about you and your folks saying that, what they did then. Doctor? They said that in 1818, Doctor. Are you like them now, Doctor?
Say, Doctor, who was editor of the Baptist Flag in November, 1906? On page 4 of that paper of November 29, 1906, in the department conducted by J. K. P. Williams, of Sherman, Texas, over the signature of T. J. Humble, we find the following language:
In “Paxton’s History of Louisiana Baptists,” I find the following articles: “We believe in the everlasting love of God to His people; in the eternal unconditional election of a definite number of the human family, to grace and glory,” which was adopted by the first association organized in Louisiana, which was in the year 1818, which is No. 4, and the following is No. 6: “We believe that all those who were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, are in time effectually called, regenerated, converted and sanctified, and are kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation.”
The reader will please note carefully that these are the same as the Articles of Faith of the old Mississippi Association. Evidently they copied the articles from that association, and . were originally of that old body. But let us read from the pen of T. J. Humble:
These articles of faith were rejected in the year 1845, and after the year 1850, there was not a Missionary church or association to be found in Louisiana having such articles of faith, and it seems to me that if there was nothing wrong about them, they would have [pg 351] been continued, and to contend for the accepting of the Primitive Baptist baptism is equivalent to charging an error of great magnitude against God’s children for their action of the age, which I cannot be a party to.
Get the idea, please. The Missionaries at that time were having a war among themselves on account of some preachers going over from our folks to the Missionaries, and who were taken in by them on the baptism administered by the Primitive Baptists. Humble was opposed to that. He did not believe the Primitive Baptists were right in their teaching, and did believe the Missionaries did right in changing their articles of faith, which he openly avows was done. Why? Because they did not believe the doctrine contained in them. Yet, this man Blowhard has the brass to claim before his readers that they are the same people. They are no more like those old Mississippi Baptists than a skunk is like an apple blossom. C. H. C.
A STUNNER
February 17, 1938
We received the following letter a few weeks ago, which we copy verbatim, punctatim literatim,—word for word, punctuation for punctuation, letter for letter:
Nov. 15 1937.
Eld. C. H. Cayse.
Thornton Ark.
Dear Sir.
Refering to an article in your paper that you call THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of date of July 15 1937. in which you state that you do not care to spend time with Griffin in your paper as his papers will not carry your articles, and you further state that you challenged [pg 352] our people twenty years agoe and they has never been withdrawn.
I am utterly surprised at this statement from you in writings or otherwise, as you well know that I challenged you to your face and in writings and that I have witnesses to the oral Challenge and I have Registered return receipts showing that you received the challenge through the mail, and 1 have your corrospondance and copies of mine where you accepted my challenge and agreed to cor- respond so as to arrange the nessary propositions, you also ask that I secure the endorsement of one or more of my Churches and I sent that And have a return receipt, and have return receipts showing that it has been impossable to hear from you on the subject since that time.
Now there is no neede for you to be hurting to investigate our differences and publishing such statements in your paper as I am ready to accomodate you the Lord being my strength, also you will not have to depend on our papers to publish it I will publish it in book form or rather I should have said we will publish it for I know you would want it published, now you may carry an article in your paper correcting your statement and publish my letter and agree to debate the subject or shut up on the subject which you have already done only through your paper.
Now Eld Cayce I dont want to be rude but you know that what I have written you is so and I can prove it. If you dont want to debate our differences that is alright but dont try to make it appear that we are all afraid to meet your great Theology neither are we afraid to meet you though you are considered the great leader amoung your people, it seems that you would come on out and not be forever challengeing some one, the Philistine Giant He finally did fight so for I have more respect for him than I have for you due to the fact that all you have done is challenge and have failed to live up to it.
Hopeing to hear fwom you soon and that you may be ready to make good your long boasted challenge I am your friend.
R. W. Rhodes.
We have not written the gentleman privately. We honestly believe that notoriety, or publicity, is what he really wants; so we gratify him that much this time, by publishing his wonderful (?) effusion just as he wrote
[pg 353] it, and just as we have it on file. Suppose you throw away enough time to read the blustery effusion again. See how he “butchers the King’s English;” but yet he blows about wanting to debate, and the same to be published in book form to palm off on the public! Now, would we not have a book filled with wonderful language—a part of it, at least. Isn’t the spelling, punctuation, and capitalization wonderful! These fellows must have a dictionary and a grammar all their own!
The writer says he challenged us. Yes. But he sent propositions that would require a simpleton to accept, especially if the debate is to be published. We sent him a copy of the propositions we made our challenge on in 1910. Did he accept them? Not on your life. Will he do so now, after all his blowing? We shall wait and see.
The “parson” refers to correspondence between us. Yes. Does he want the correspondence all published— including the list of questions we asked him and his letter in answer to the same? If so, we will give space for the whole thing, if he will get one of his papers to do the same. Will one of his papers publish all that? No. “Parson” Berry proposed in his paper that if we would copy a certain article from his paper, that he would publish
our reply. We copied the article and replied to it. Did Berry copy our reply? No. He has not done so yet—and the evidence is that he does not intend to. Of course it is all right for these fellows to “go back” on their word; for, according to their doctrine, God absolutely and unconditionally predestinated from all eternity that they should do just what they do, and they could not do otherwise than the way they do and what they do.
Yes, he sent an endorsement; but they did not give [pg 354] the kind of endorsement asked for. He knows what was asked for, or can find it by referring to the correspondence. Will he get that? We shall see what we shall see.
He says “we will publish it.” Will the gentleman give good bond and security that he will pay his half the cost of publishing the books? Frankly, we would want some security before obligating ourself for any cost or expense on such a proposition.
Yes, we said as long ago as 1910 that we wanted a debate with these folks, if they would put up a representative man, and have the discussion published. This will show the people what the real differences are between us, and will show the people just what we hold to and the principles we stand upon; and it will also show to the people just what these fellows advocate. We quit debating several years ago| but we would engage in this one more under the conditions proposed by us years ago. We have not withdrawn the challenge.
“Parson” Rhodes says he has more respect for the Philistine giant than he has for us. Of course, we would expect that, for people usually have more respect for their own kinfolks than they do for others. Au revoir.
C. H. C.
TRIP CUT SHORT
February 17, 1938
We left home on Wednesday night before the fourth Sunday in January for Tennessee to fill some appointments in the Western part of that state. We were at West Plains, near Milan, on Thursday, and at New Hope [pg 355] on Friday. The weather was bad, so the crowd was not large at New Hope. Saturday we were at Blooming Grove. The weather was still bad. We were to have been at Little Zion on Sunday, but the weather was so bad, and the roads so bad, that there was no meeting at that place. Word was scattered around and they had meeting again at Blooming Grove on Sunday.
Several of the brethren in the ministry were with us at West Plains and New Hope, and an effort was made to change some of the appointments and give us more time at some places than the first arrangement called for. Elder W. C. Davis, of McEwen, fell in with us at New Hope, and was to make the trip with us.
The rain continued, and besides the rain, the weather turned very cold, and some snow fell, so it seemed that we could hardly get to the appointments. So we, with Elder Davis, remained with Elder Commodore Brann and Brother G. T. Kelley until Friday, when we were conveyed to Dresden, where we took the train for Union City. We were with the church there Saturday and fifth Sunday. Several brethren in the ministry were at this meeting, which was a pleasant one. A number of brethren and sisters from sister churches were at the meeting.
On account of the bad weather, and perhaps some misunderstanding on account of the change in some of the appointments, and the short time to give notice, we decided it would be prudent to return home and go back later. Appointments have been arranged and some of them will be published in this issue of the paper, and we suppose others will be sent in soon.
Elder Scott had an aunt by marriage to pass away on Saturday, who lived near Murray, Ky., and it was the [pg 356] request of the family that we conduct the funeral on Sunday. Just as we are writing this her name is gone from us. We went with Elder Scott, and conducted the funeral at 2 o’clock; then went to Murray, Ky., where we took the train for home, and arrived home at 3:20 Monday morning, January 31. We trust the weather will be better when we try to go to that section later. Pray the Lord to bless our going to the good of His people. C. H. C.
HARDSHELLISM REFUTED
March 3, 1938
The above is a sub-head of an article in the Baptist Examiner of January, 1936, written by one W. T. Stegall, of Pontotoc, Miss., whose name appears in that paper as associate editor. In this article Elder Stegall says (we copy it just as it was in that paper):
If they can savingly and effectually receive a knowledge of and belief in Christ, immediately and directly by the operation of the Holy Spirit, without the record of Him and without apostles, messengers, and witnesses, had we not as well burn all the Bibles and kill all the preachers? Why mention His precious name at all?
Notwithstanding the Elder has here made such statements as in the foregoing, yet we occasionally see something from his pen in some of our Primitive Baptist exchanges, in which it seems to us that he poses as a Primitive Baptist. He stands excluded from a Primitive Baptist Church in the bounds of the New Hope Association, in Mississippi, unless he has been recently restored.
The above paragraph contains the same reasoning [pg 357] which the Arminian world has used all along against the doctrine believed and advocated by true Primitive Baptists—”if they can savingly and effectually receive a knowledge of and belief in Christ, immediately and directly by the operation of the Holy Spirit, without the record of Him,” etc., “had we not as well burn all the Bibles and kill all the preachers?” This is simply an argument that no one can be saved without Bibles or preachers—all would be doomed to an endless or eternal hell, without Bibles or preachers. That is the argument, in a nutshell. It also argues that if Bibles or preachers are not instrumental in regeneration then there is no use for Bibles or preachers.
There is no more sense nor logic in the gentleman’s argument here than for one to say that there is no use to sow seed and cultivate the soil because in so doing one does not or cannot make another world like this. Because one cannot make another world by sowing seed or tilling the soil is no reason why he should not till the soil. That is no proof or evidence that no good is accomplished by sowing seed and tilling the soil. Because sinners are not regenerated through the instrumentality of the Bible or gospel preaching is no argument that there is no good accomplished by reading the Book or through the medium of gospel preaching. There is a use for the Bible, and there is a use for gospel preaching, but they are not for the purpose of regenerating people. They are not for the purpose of imparting life to the dead.
If the preacher is for the purpose of raising sinners out of a state of death in sin to a state of life in Christ, then the preachers will be used in the resurrection of the dead from the graves at the last day; for our [pg 358] Saviour told us while He was in the world that the one is accomplished in the same way, and by the same power, and through the same process as the other. It is by the hearing of the voice of the Son of God that sinners are quickened into divine life. When Elder Stegall preaches, it is Elder Stegall’s voice that the people hear. Then if it is through his preaching that sinners are regenerated, then Elder Stegall is the Son of God whom Jesus mentions. Wonder if he is Jesus? We knew it was prophesied that He was coming back to the world again, but we did not know that He had got here yet. Wonder if He looks like He did when He was here before?
The gentleman’s argument in the above paragraph necessarily embraces the teaching that life is imparted through a medium. There is no such thing taught or proved in all the realm of science, or in God’s Book, as that life is imparted through a medium. The gentleman certainly should know that life is always imparted by a direct and immediate touch of life. There can be no such thing as life imparted through a medium. In the very nature of things such a thing is absolutely impossible; and it is absurd in the extreme to argue, or try to argue, such a thing. The gentleman made an effort in some of his articles to “play on” the ignorance of some Primitive Baptists. We would kindly say that it is ignorance “gone to seed” to argue that life is given or imparted through a medium.
If the gentleman’s contention is true that no one is regenerated except through the instrumentality of the Bible or gospel preaching, then no infant could ever possibly be saved in heaven, unless they go to heaven without regeneration or salvation. Those who argue [pg 359] that the Bible and preachers are necessary for the salvation of persons of Adam’s race have, all along, accused the Old Baptists of preaching infant damnation —and the Old Baptists have always denied the charge. But here is the doctrine that has the idea of infant damnation in it—no preaching, no people saved. The infant is not in the reach of gospel preaching. If there is no salvation for any only for those who are in reach of gospel preaching, then there is no salvation for any infant. If the infant can be saved without gospel preaching, so can others be saved without it. The infant is saved without gospel preaching, and that is the way all other saved persons are saved. Jesus said, “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. “—Mark x. 15. The little child receives, enters into, the kingdom of God without the gospel, by being born into it. And if the adult does not receive it that way, or enter into it that way—the same way the little child does—he does not enter it at all. The Lord has one way of regenerating people, and that way is suited alike to the infant and to the adult. He does not have one way to save the infant, and another way to save the adult. They are saved the same way—so our Master has said —believe it or not. If people cannot be saved now without preachers, pray tell us how the Lord ever got that saving business started. The first man saved had to be saved without a preacher—or else the Lord used a child of the devil to regenerate the first man for Him in order to get His business started. How does that taste? Excuse us, please. We have no use for your doctrine. It was [pg 360] invented by Rome, and she has deceived the nations with it along the line. C. H. C.
A YOUNG DOG
March 3, 1938
From the Arkansas Baptist of Nov. 29, 1906, we have the following language:
When the Landmark Baptists of Arkansas come to understand each other they will be able to do a work that will astonish the world. We are only in the formative period now, but we are progressing. There is a bright future for us.
Here we are in 1906, in the formative period. If they were in the formative period then, in 1906, they are a very young outfit now—only about thirty-two years old. And yet some of these young “bucks” are now claiming to be older than a body that has been in existence over nineteen hundred years. This young upstart sprang from the Board and Convention body of so-called Baptists; and the Board and Convention business was infused into the Baptist family by Fuller and Carey in 1792, and the Board and Convention crowd was finally thrown out of the Baptist ranks in the United States from 1882 to 1845—after the Baptists had protested against, and borne with, their nefarious business all those years. Forbearance ceased to be a virtue. In the casting out of this octopus the whole brood went with the bunch. But in 1905 and 1906 this new-born babe was in the formative period. This little thing was just a babe then—hardly old enough to walk. But they were making great promises. They would soon astonish the world. Well, perhaps they have begun to [pg 361] do that, in some of their Sunday school business at Texarkana— according to the Rt. Rev. Ben M. Blowhard, D. D., LL. D. Wonder how many more D’s the Rev. gentleman would like to have. According to Rev. Allen Hill Autry, Bogard wrote his own recommendations to get the D. D. Say, Doctor, who wrote the recommendations for you to get the later D’s?
From the Gospel Missionary of June 8, 1905, J. A. Scarboro, editor, we have the following, under the heading of “Fido and Bob:”
A friend of ours had a pet dog named “Fido” and Fido was a great fighter. For a long time he would allow no other dog to either come in or pass by without a fight. Our friend’s neighbor reared a puppy which he called “Bob” and Fido would stand on the porch and watch for Bob and whenever Bob passed on the street Fido would run out and whip Bob and then come back and look happy. He whipped Bob until he learned his name, and the boys would say “Bob” and Fido would fly to the door and look for Bob and bark.
But Bob kept growing, as puppies will, and finally got big enough to give Fido a warm tilt; a little later he whipped Fido, and then the program changed from Fido versus Bob to Bob versus Fido. After Bob whipped Fido a few times, the boys would say “Bob” and Fido would run under the bed, and if Fido got out and Bob saw him he chased him home.
Moral:
1891-2 Board versus Gospel Missioner. Fido vs. Bob.
1901-5, Gospel Missioner versus Board. Bob
vs. Fido.
You can now find “Fido” under the Baptist bed. Selah.
The anti-Board crowd was just a young dog then. The pup was born about the year 1890 or 1891. The Board crowd was an old dog at that time. If the Board crowd was an old dog then (and that was the old dog, according to Scarboro), and the anti-Board crowd was just a young pup then (and the thing was [pg 362]
just a young pup then, according to Scarboro), it necessarily follows that the Board and Convention crowd still constitute the older dog. It seems to us that it is just a case of “dog eat dog.” C. H. C.
AN ADDRESS TO YOUNG PREACHERS
March 3, 1938
The following article, appearing under the above heading, is copied from a book called “The Primitive Preacher; a Book of Sixteen Sermons Delivered by Gregg M. Thompson.” The book was published in 1888. Elder Thompson was an able minister in his day. The following chapter from the book is so good and timely that we feel it would be profitable to our readers now. Please read carefully and consider its teachings prayerfully, and may the Lord help us to take heed to the same. C. H. C.
THE ARTICLE
Dear Brethren:
Will you take kindly, in the close of this book, a short address from an old servant, who has been for sixty years in the war, has passed through many severe and hard-fought battles, and is now standing upon the verge of the grave, ready to drop his armor, receive his discharge, and go home to rest from his labors?
You are the called of God, to stand upon the walls of Zion, and watch for the good of God’s people. Your life is one of labor, toil, and exposure to the fiery darts of the enemy. Your responsibilities are great, and a lack of faithfulness in the discharge of duty on your part, may bring great distress and confusion among Zion’s citizens. When Moses delivered his last address to the children of Israel, he warned them of the dangers that would sur- round them when they entered the promised land; that the country [pg 364] was filled with idolatrous worshipers, and by them they would be led away from their God, and bring upon themselves His divine wrath. One little deviation from the law of the Lord, that might be thought very small and unimportant, brought upon them His wrath and correcting rod. The word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; and you will not escape if you neglect the word spoken by the Lord, and confirmed unto us by them that heard Him. Every thing not commanded by our Lord, and taught and practiced by His apostles, is forbidden, and classed with idolatry. It leads our minds away from Christ, and changes the order He has established in His kingdom, which is diverse from all other kingdoms, and is not to be numbered with the nations of the earth. An entire separation from all human and worldly institutions, and a strict observance of the commands of Christ, have been the infallible mark of His church in all ages of the world.
Worldly churches may practice the ordinances of the gospel as commanded; they may teach a great deal of truth, but let them withdraw their worldly institutions and their humanly devised systems, and they are dissolved and killed at once. The very thing that maintains the distinct visibility and identity of Christ’s church, and insures her final triumph over all her enemies, is the certain destruction of all false churches. I therefore charge you before God, to watch this point, and guard it well. False churches will hate and abuse you, and call you hard names, but let none of these move you; a faithful discharge of duty, and the comfort and peace of Zion are worth more to you than life, and all the honors earth can give. God has never promised you worldly honors, or wealth, or a smooth sea to sail over; reward here is found in suffering persecutions, and bearing reproaches with His poor and afflicted people; for, “They that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” Your reward is in heaven, and your crown is waiting for you when you shall have fought your last battle. Be the servant of the church; not for filthy lucre, but because you love her, and are willing to suffer for her, and with her. Be careful to feed the lambs and sheep, to nurse the little ones, to strengthen the weak knees, encourage the fearful hearted, and speak comfortable things to God’s people. I shall never meet you in this world; I shall soon drop into the grave, and be [pg 364] forgotten by the world; but my last words to you are: Be careful to maintain the purity of the church, and her entire separation from all the institutions of men. If men tempt you to the least devia- tion from the path marked out in the gospel, by the siren song of “No danger;” be not deceived; it leads to destruction. Again, I say. Remember the distinct mark that has in all ages identified Christ’s church, and preserve it; and at the end of your warfare and stewardship here, your Lord and Master will say, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant; enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.” God bless you! and so preserve you that you may keep your garments unspotted from the world. Amen. G. M. Thompson.
REMARKS
After the foregoing article was put in type, and before going to press with this issue of the paper, we received the Primitive Monitor for February, 1938, containing the above article with the following comments by Elder John M. Thompson, who is now past ninety years of age, and is a nephew of Elder Gregg M. Thompson. We are glad to insert the comments from the Monitor, below. We knew as long ago as 1917 that Elder Gregg M. Thompson was not a Mason, or that he could not have consistently been a member of anything else in the world other than the Old Baptist Church. His writings were living evidences that he belonged to nothing else. See THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of September 11, 1917, which article appears in Editorial Writings, Vol. Ill, page 242, which will be ready to mail out in a few more weeks. C. H. C.
THE COMMENTS
The foregoing “Address to Young Preachers,” by Gregg M. Thompson, my father’s oldest brother, which is the last in his book of “Sixteen Sermons.” As I believe it will be valuable for our young ministers to thoroughly study and duly consider it, I send it to the highly esteemed editor of our well-beloved Monitor; and I request editors of our other periodicals to publish it if they so desire. I have been asked whether my uncle, Gregg Thompson, was a Freemason, and as I thought he was, I answered accordingly, and I was surprised to read his advice and warning relative to human and worldly institutions, that “An entire separation from all human and worldly institutions and strict observance of the commands of Christ have been the infallible mark of His church,” and that everything not commanded by our Lord, and taught and practiced by His apostles, is forbidden. And if he had been a Mason, he was not when he wrote this address. He was a noble and Scripturally gifted minister of the gospel of Christ. He was highly esteemed by the faithful saints that knew him in his faithful labor. J. M. Thompson.
ISAIAH XLV. 7
March 17, 1938
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.—Isa. xlv. 7.
Our views were given briefly on the above passage quite awhile ago in our columns. This is a text which is strongly relied upon by the Absoluters to prove that the Lord not only makes peace but that He also creates wickedness. One William Branham, of Hitchins, Ky., asked us for our views of this text sometime ago. We have given our views in our columns, as well as to him, that the evil mentioned in this text is not wickedness or sin, but that it is punishment for sin. We have placed Amos iii. 2 and 6 along with this text. Branham sent our letter, along with some of his remarks, to the editor of the Old Faith Contender, a rank Absoluter, [pg 366] sheet is published in California. In Branham’s letter to Parson Berry, the editor, he says:
If anyone in tliis world will take one verse of God’s holy word and show me that we have anything to do with our time salvation I will gladly acknowledge I am wrong. Surely that is fair.
In regard to the brother’s proposition, as here given, we will simply refer him to what he said in a letter dated April 10, 1934, which he wrote to Elder H. H. Lefferts, a copy of which he sent to us. In that letter Brother Branham says:
In regard to the expression I used near the last of the article I wrote for the Signs that was published in the March issue, that “our present salvation largely depends on how we live in this present hfe,” I should have explained it the way I understand it, but the letter was so long I had already wrote is why I didn’t. I may be wrong the way I understand it, as I knpw I am very weak in many things. I do not claim to know as much as my older brothers in the Lord. If I am wrong I will be very thankful to you or any other of the brothers if you will show me where I am wrong. I did not mean our eternal salvation. I only meant our present salvation, or the common salvation, or the joys and peace we have in this present or natural life. I will refer you to a few verses of Scripture, the way I understand them. First: “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. “— Jude 3. Did Jude mean our eternal salvation when he wrote this to the saints? If he did, the Scriptures undoubtedly would contradict itself; for another Scripture reads thus: “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”—Phil. ii. 12. Did Paul mean their eternal salvation? He surely did not. The ones, the way I understand it, was the ones who had already been quickened, and possessed the Holy Spirit. * * * Next is what James says, “Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one [pg 367] convert him; let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.”—James v. 19, 20. The two verses James wrote in this chapter undoubtedly don’t mean eternal death, for he was speaking to the brethren, that had already been born again, or to the church.
We copy the above from the brother’s letter without taking the authority to correct the language, or the verbage. If we should do that, these fellows would say we had changed what was said. But in this matter we simply answer Branham with Branham. He answered his own request nearly four years ago. “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”—Luke xvi. 31.
Branham also asked us concerning Jere. x. 23, which reads: “0 Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.” Parson Berry quotes the following from what we said concerning this text:
The man does the walking. The Lord does not walk him. The Lord directs, tells him how he should walk, but the man does not always walk as he is directed. The parent directs the child how to walk, but the child does not always walk as the parent directs; but the child does the walking.
To this Parson Berry says:
This is legalism pure and simple. Here is the voice from Sinai— Do-and-live. It is the law which says, here is a full set of directions, here is the rule you shall walk by,—now it is up to you to follow them; and if you follow them of course you will inherit the land, if not you shall be punished according to all the just penalties attached to this law. * * * But do we not believe we must keep God’s commandments? Yes, how we do believe it! For we have [pg 368] been shown what the keeping of the Law means and how unable we were to keep it except God “walks us.”
There you are! This infidel does not believe the Bible! The text says “it is not in man that walketh.” God says it is the “man that walketh.” Berry says “not so, but God walks us.” Whom shall we believe—Berry or the Lord, as He gave it to us by the Prophet Jere- miah? As for us, we prefer to believe what God has said, rather than what this infidel says, even if he does call it legalism.
Please note how he put the word “inherit” in his blasphemous language above. Neither we, nor any of our people, have ever taught that the Jews would inherit the land as a result of doing what God commanded. The land of Canaan was theirs by gift and by birth. God gave the land to Abraham and to his seed after him for an everlasting possession. Hence, the land was theirs by gift and by birth. But they had to do what God commanded them to do, they had to do what God said do, to enter into that land and to enjoy the blessings therein. That land (the land of Canaan) was a type of the gospel church. The gospel church belongs to the Lord’s children, to those who have been born into His family. It is theirs by gift and by birth. But they cannot enter into the church and enjoy the blessings therein without doing something. They have to “walk.”
How would it have sounded for Jeremiah to have said, “It is not in man that God walketh to direct his steps?” Berry says that God walks him. That may be so; but we are frank to say that we do not believe a word of it. Neither do we believe that God “talks him.” God’s ways are equal; but Berry’s ways are not equal. If [pg 369] God “walked him” his walk and ways would always be equal; he would always be walking in ways that are j equal. But this fellow has actually denied the very language itself. In the text, man is the subject of the verb walketh. Hence, it is the man that walketh; it is the man that does the walking. The man in the text was the Jew. He did not walk in order to be a Jew; but being a Jew, the Lord’s chosen and peculiar people, the Lord directed them how to walk, and they did the walking. If they walked right, they walked according to the direction the Lord gave. If they did not walk according to the direction the Lord gave (and sometimes they did not walk that way), then they walked wrong. If the Lord “walked them,” as Berry says, then they would never have walked wrong, unless the Lord “walked them” wrong. We do not care which horn of the dilemma these infidels take. We use the word infidel in the sense of not believing what the Bible says; and Berry has denied believing what it says. Now let us notice Isa. xlv. 7 a little farther. Matthew Henry, in his comments on this text, says:
Here light and darkness mean the same as peace and evil. Light and peace denote prosperity, and darkness and evil signify adversity. The notion that evil is here put for sin is quite erroneous, being at once inconsistent with the scope of the verse and opposed to Scripture doctrine, by making God the author of sin.
Again he says:
“I form the hght,” which is grateful and pleasing; “and I create darkness,” which is grievous and unpleasing. “I make peace,” [pg 370] put here for all good; “and I create evil;” not the evil of sin, God is not the author of that, but the evil of punishment.
The Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown Commentary says, on this text:
Create evil—not moral evil, but in contrast to “peace” in the parallel clause, war, disaster.
Gill, in his comments on this text, says:
“I make peace, and create evil;” peace between God and men is made by Christ, who is God over all; spiritual peace of conscience comes from God, through Christ, by the Spirit; eternal glory and happiness is of God, which saints enter into at death; peace among the saints themselves here, and with the men of the world; peace in churches, and in the world, God is the Author of, even of all prosperity of every kind, which this word includes; evil is also from Him; not the evil of sin; this is not to be found among the creatures God made; this is of men, though suffered by the Lord, and over- ruled by Him for good; but the evil of punishment for sin, God’s sore judgments, famine, pestilence, evil beasts, and the sword, or war, which latter may more especially be intended, as it is opposed to peace; this usually is the effect of sin; may be sometimes law- fully engaged in; whether on a good or bad foundation is permitted by God; moreover, all afflictions, adversities, and calamities, come under this name, and are of God; see Job ii. 10, Amos iii. 6.
Now a word as to the actual and literal meaning of the Hebrew word which is translated evil in the text. The Hebrew letters transposed into the English are rah, and so the word is pronounced. The meaning of the word is bad or (as noun) evil—adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, etc. This word rah is from the word raw-ah, a primitive root, which means “to spoil (literally, by breaking to pieces); figuratively, to make (or be) good for nothing,” etc., “do mischief, punish,” etc. As proof of this see any reliable Hebrew dictionary. So, we have it that the very meaning of the word the [pg 371] prophet used is just what we said was taught in the language.
Strange, is it, that some folks will actually, not only strain and twist the language of Holy Writ, but actually deny the plain teachings of the same in order to have a cloak for meanness and for the devilment that is committed and carried on in the world. May the good Lord pity and have mercy on such wicked blasphemers, who thus advocate a doctrine which charges the most holy God with the crime and devilment of this world and of the devil himself. C. H. C.
PREACHERS SHOULD NOT LIE
March 17, 1938
It is a cold fact that some have gone to downright lying in connection with this trouble. It is bad enough for anybody to lie but still worse for preachers to lie.—Orthodox Baptist Searchlight, Feb. 25, 1938.
The foregoing is from Dr. Bogard’s statement of “Cold Facts” on page 4 of the paper named. We wonder since when, Dr. Bogard, has it been so bad for preachers to lie? And, have they all quit lying about other things than “this trouble”? If so, since when have they quit? Say, Doctor, did not some preacher say that one hundred dollars had been put up at a cer- tain place in Alabama for a certain man to meet you in debate at a certain place? And the money was not put up, either, was it. Doctor? “Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou [pg 372] commit adultery ? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?” —Rom. ii. 21, 22. C. H. C.
ELDER FAIRCHILD AGAIN
April 7, 1938
Yes, we have heard from Elder J. W. Fairchild again. We received the following letter from him:
Whitesburg, KY.,
January 8, 1938.
Dear Brother Cayce: After a sleep of 29 years the Footprints of the Flock has awaken and is making its appeal to God’s children again. It wants to be neighborly and exchange visits with THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, So please permit THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST to come up and visit with it. I am enclosing two copies. If you are in reach of Bro. John Harris please hand him one.
Bro. Cayce, I have heard of you opposing me very bitterly, but I can say truthfully I have never opposed you. I have been ready at all times to co-operate with you. Were you to visit us I would ask our churches to receive you heartily, and would rejoice to have you in my home. I have not one ill feeling toward you. Why not let bygones be bygones, and you and I work together for the peace and union of our people? You know they need all the help they can get. You and I are getting old. Why not let the remainder of our lives be an example to God’s ministers in love and forbearance. The Lord help us to do it. In love, J. W. Fairchild.
In the same envelope was enclosed two copies of his paper, which he says has “awaken.” We would be glad to know that it has “awaken” to the truth, and that the truth might be set forth in its pages, if the publication of it continues, for we do not think the truth was always set forth in its pages when he published it before. If you have a copy of our Editorial [pg 373] Writings, Volume I, turn and read the articles therein beginning on pages 264, 268, 314 and 361, and you will see some little something as to where Elder Fairchild stood then.
On page three of the copy of the little paper he sent us with his letter we note the following statement:
Again I am a member of Sandlick Church in Letcher County, Kentucky. Into the fellowship of this church I was baptized July 17, 1889, and on May 21, 1892, by request of this church I was ordained to the full functions of the gospel ministry, by the following presbytery: Elders William R. Craft, Peter Adkins, Samuel C. Caudill, John A. Craft, and Spencer Adams. Under the kind and brotherly guidance of these and other servants of the Lord, I received my first lessons in the ministry.
So, it seems that Elder Fairchild has gone back to the Sandlick Church, where they had a division about May, 1896, on account of the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things, as preached and advocated by Elder Fairchild himself. We presume he has gone back to that faction which stood with him at that time and since that time. Anyway, he is now identified with a faction that is not recognized by the regular Primitive Baptists, as we shall show presently. How did he get membership with those people? He did not join them by letter from orderly Primitive Baptists, for the simple reason that he was excluded from the fellowship of Providence Church, in the Good Hope Association, in Mississippi, and that church refused to restore him to their fellowship. Following is a letter from Elder G. W. Lewis, who is pastor of Good Hope Church and also moderator of the Amite Association:
Auburn, Miss., Feb. 12, 1938.
Elder C. H. Cayce: Dear Brother—I received your letter of Feb. 9th, and in reply [pg 374] will say: Elder J. W. Fairchild has not been restored to the fellowship of Providence Church. He stands excluded from the orderly Primitive Baptists of Mississippi. You may use my name, as requested in your letter, if you desire. If there is any other information, in regard to Elder Pairchild’s standing in Mississippi, we can furnish you, please call on us.
We would be glad to have you to visit us any time you have a mind. We have a great desire to hear you preach the unsearchable riches of Christ again. May God bless you and yours. Please remember us in your prayers. In hope, G. W. Lewis.
This letter above tells plainly enough as to the standing of Elder Fairchild, or rather, his lack of standing. But what about the people he is identified with over in Kentucky? We wrote Elder J. H. Keaton, Huntington, W. Va., to find out about that, as he is not so far from that section, and were pretty sure that if he did not personally know, he could refer us to some orderly Primitive Baptist who does know. Elder Keaton wrote to Elder J. E. Craft, Neon, Ky., as follows:
Huntington, W. VA., Jan. 15, 1938.
Elder J. E. Craft:
Dear Brother Craft—Will you advise whether or not the Sandlick Church, in Letcher County, Ky., is in the Sandlick Association; and if so, please advise if that association is in good standing. Has there not been some contention with those folks among other associations over the doctrine of the resurrection? In short, is it considered a sound body of Old Baptists?
You remember showing me a letter some time ago from Elder J. W. Fairchild, and I think we agreed as to what was best to do about it. I notice now he is printing the Footprints of the Flock, and seems to have membership in the Sandlick Church.
When you answer this letter, will you state that your letter may be used for publication? Hope you are all well. Would be glad [pg 175] you could come to see us again. Won’t you, soon? Please let me hear at once. Yours in hope, J. H. Keaton.
Under date of February 3, Elder Keaton wrote us as follows:
Brother Cayce: I have just received the enclosed letter from Elder J. E. Craft. He is moderator of the Union Primitive Baptist Association, of Kentucky, and is a safe man. He is located in the bounds of this Sandlick Church, and understands the situation. I am also enclosing a copy of my letter to him, to which his is a reply. You will not understand Elder Craft to be moderator of the Union Association which he mentions in his letter, but he belongs to the original Union, which withdrew from this faction which he mentions, because of this heresy. Thus it is plain to see the hole Fairchild has crawled in. I think you will find Elder Craft’s letter to be in harmony with the statement I advanced in my former letter to you; but I wanted to be sure. Use my letter to Elder Craft as you wish; also he gives consent to publish his. Yours in hope,
J. H. Keaton.
The letter which Elder Craft wrote to Elder Keaton is as follows:
Neon, KY., Feb. 1, 1938.
Dear Brother Keaton:
Relative to the Sandlick Church you refer to; it has not been recognized as a sound Primitive Baptist Church for a number of years. Neither has Elder J. W. Fairchild been in fellowship with the Primitive Baptists for more than twenty years. However, he went into North Carolina during this time and preached for them under some coloring, I don’t know what, and was let out as soon as he was exposed. The church he is now with belongs to that faction of Sandlick Association that preach a non-resurrection of our bodies, and that Christ was never here in the flesh, no punishment for the wicked; and in correspondence with that part of the Union Association that preaches Universalism from which we withdrew, I think, in 1920 or 1921. Now there is an association known as the Sandlick Association; they are a very good body of [pg 376] brethren; I will refer you to Elder William Kash; he will know them better than I.
Brother Keaton, I would have written sooner, but was lacking in some of the facts, and had to gather them. You may correct and use this as you like. I have been very sick for nearly two weeks since getting your letter; hope you will pardon the delay. I enjoyed reading of your trip to Tennessee and Arkansas and its results. I don’t know when I can come down. I would love so much to come. Yours in hope,
J. E. Craft.
The foregoing shows up more than one thing. For one, it shows that when Elder Fairchild was with our people in recent years, that he was with us under false colors, or else Elder Craft is mistaken. Evidently, when Fairchild left that country, whenever that was, he must have been considered as in disorder by the orderly Baptists there. But he got among the orderly Baptists in this western country, and then among the orderly Baptists in Mississippi, where he was excluded. Now, he has gone back to the disorderly faction in Kentucky where he was before, and now represents himself to be a Primitive Baptist. Let the reader note carefully the doctrine he is now identified with, and in line with. Such is not Primitive Baptist doctrine, and a man in line with such as that has no right to represent himself as being a Primitive Baptist. But it may deceive some folks.
Elder Fairchild has heard, he says, of us opposing him very bitterly. So far as we are concerned, it is not a personal matter. We have no personal grievance against him. If such should be the case, we would follow the instructions our Lord gave in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew. We would have labored with him privately. But that is not the case. It is a matter of doctrine and principles advocated by him, and [pg 377] the course he has pursued in public life as a minister. It is the cause at stake, and not our personal feelings. And so long as he pursues the course that he has been pursuing in our acquaintance with him, just that long will we oppose him, if the Lord continues to spare us to live. Not only is this true as to Elder Fairchild, but we would oppose any other man who pursues a similar course. Our life is an open book, and shows that this has been our course all along the line. We have no time or inclination to “co-operate” with any man or set of men who are trouble makers in Zion. The sooner our people get rid of such men, and pay no attention to them, and leave them severely alone, the better it will be for our cause. There can be no such thing as peace in Zion while such men are allowed to get in their work in the churches. “Ephraim is joined to his idols; let him alone.”
Since the above was written, we have received a copy of the third issue of Fairchild’s paper, and we notice in it that Elder J. B. Hardy is still “hooked up” with Fairchild in his disorderly and trouble making course. We also note names of some other brethren who are lending support to Fairchild. In regard to this we would say that if a brother who is doing this will not cease and desist in that course immediately, he should be brought under charge for treating the cause with contempt and disrespect, and should be immediately dealt with by his church under the charge. To lend support and influence to a man who has been excluded by an orderly Old Baptist Church is to treat the cause of the Master with contempt and disrespect, and one who will do that should be dealt with for the same. In late years Fairchild has tried to line up and keep
[pg 378] company with the Progressives; and he got to where they will not have him, so we have been informed. It seems that he “is just anybody’s dog that will hunt with him.” It seems to us that if Fairchild wishes recognition and fellowship with orderly Baptists, the first thing for him to do is to get recognition and fellowship with orderly Baptists over there in Kentucky where he got out, and make satisfaction with Providence Church in the Good Hope Association, in Mississippi. And it seems to us that in order to do that it will be necessary for him to do some walking.
C. H. C.
ELDER MONK PASSED AWAY
May 19, 1938
On Monday night. May 9, we received a call from Shreveport, La., telling us Elder C. M. Monk had passed away, and that we were wanted to be there Tuesday afternoon in the funeral service. A large crowd was at the funeral, which was held at Bethel Church. Elder John R. Harris and Brother Elvyn Attaway and our second son, Fleming, went with us. We went by El Dorado, and Elder Webb and Brother Craft went with us from there. We drove back home that night. Another faithful and true soldier of the cross has laid aside the weapons of his warfare, and we have lost another good friend. May the good Lord bless and sustain the bereaved family, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
[pg 379]
RETURNED HOME
May 19, 1938
We returned home on Monday afternoon. May 9, from our long trip in Tennessee and Kentucky. We do not have time to write an account of the trip for this issue of the paper, but will say that at most of the places we visited we found a good feeling prevailing among the brethren and churches. We will try to write more about the trip for the next issue. C. H. C.
ELDER J. C. ROSS BEREAVED
May 19, 1938
We are just in receipt of a card from Elder
A. B. Ross, Martin, Tenn., bearing the sad news of the death of the wife of Elder J. C. Ross, Greenfield, Tenn. A good woman is gone. We deeply sympathize with Brother Ross in his great loss and sore trial. May the Lord give grace and strength for his need, is our humble prayer. Sister Ross was double first and double second cousin to our father. She passed away on Monday, May 9.
C. H. C.
NASHVILLE MEETING
June 16, 1938
Elsewhere in this paper will be found an article from Elder J. A. Monsees, of Macon, Ga., concerning the matter of reconciliation between the Old Line Baptists and the Progressives, of Georgia. Elder Monsees says, in a postscript, following his article:
I have been asked if the Nashville peace meeting was not called [pg 380] in an effort to regain fellowship with the Progressives. Brother Cayce will, perhaps, answer this question from the standpoint of less bias than I. So we ask him to do so.
We confess that we are sometimes a little dull of comprehension, and that it sometimes takes a little time for us to grasp the real and full meaning of something that may have been said, or of a question that may be asked. The full and real meaning of this question may not yet be fully grasped by us. If the querist meant to ask if the Nashville peace meeting was called and held with a view of our people regaining fellowship with and getting in line with the Progressives, we answer, without any equivocation whatever, that the part we took in it, in calling the meeting, or aiding in getting up the call, and what was done in the meeting, was with no such object in view. The object of the meeting is plainly stated in the pamphlet containing the proceedings of the same, both on page 1, first paragraph, and page 3, under the heading of “The Recommendations,” first paragraph. On page 1 the minutes of the proceedings begin as follows:
The proposed meeting for the purpose of endeavoring to restore peace in and among the disturbed churches in Tennessee and parts of Kentucky and between brethren, etc.
On page 3 the paragraph reads:
The following principles of faith, or doctrine and practice, are hereby recommended as principles upon which the present disturbances among the Primitive Baptists in Tennessee and parts of Kentucky may be adjusted.
In the face of these two statements why would one ask if the meeting was for the purpose of making an effort to regain fellowship with the Progressives? Please [pg 381] read article 14, on page 8, on the subject of instrumental music in the churches; then read article 18 on page 9, and note particularly what is said with reference to progressive measures. It seems to us that the proceedings of the meeting speak as plainly as it could be spoken. It seems to us that these things make it clear and positive that in order to have peace, and in order for peace to be maintained, progressive measures must be eliminated and let strictly and absolutely alone.
According to the way we have understood some of the Progressive brethren in the past, if our people would just eliminate these very things, as recommended in the Nashville meeting, which we here call attention to, we would thereby have regained fellowship, at once, with our Progressive brethren. Instead of the Nashville meeting recommending that, they recommended the very opposite.
We have noted in some of our exchanges that a suggestion has been made that the ministers of the Progressives be invited to preach in our churches, and our ministers preach in their churches—meaning, as we understand the matter, an exchange of pulpits. This may be all right, but we do not think so. We frankly say that we do not approve of it. Read article 15 on page 8 of the Nashville meeting, taking notice of the note of warning. We had trouble enough years ago with progressive measures, without inviting any more trouble on those matters.
If the Progressive brethren desire union with the brethren who are still in the “old paths,” let them put out the things that brought the trouble, and so declare themselves, and we think it would then be time for an effort to be made for a getting together of the Old Line [pg 382] Baptists with them. No doubt there were mistakes made and wrongs done on both sides; but let the things that caused the trouble be put away, and then the mistakes may be corrected and amendments made for the wrongs done, and all matters adjusted. But no use to make any effort to get together as long as the things are retained that brought the trouble, as we see the matter. C. H. C.
TOUR IN TENNESSEE
AND KENTUCKY
June 16, 1938
We left home on Friday, March 5, to fill the appointments as arranged for us and Elder W. C. Davis, as published in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of March 3 and 17. We filled an appointment in Memphis that night. Next morning we were conveyed to Brown’s Creek by Brother Hawkins, to meet the appointment at that place. An extra appointment had been made for Mt. Moriah for Saturday night, but the meeting that night was rained out. Elder Davis met us Sunday night in Jackson. From there on we filled the appointments as arranged and published, except that at Little Zion for Thursday, April 8. A brother conveyed us there from Bethel, but the weather was somewhat threatening, and looked like rain. We arrived on the ground, and, after we had been there for nearly an hour, one brother, a member of that church, came on foot. We asked him if he thought any more would be there, and he said he did not think so. Hence, we left, the brother conveying us taking us to the home of Brother G. L. Kelley. All the other appointments were met. [pg 383] We would be glad to give a detailed account of the trip, but believe our space can be used for a better purpose, and trust the brethren where we went will excuse us for not going into detail. We had good meetings at almost every place. The congregations were small at a few of the places, but almost every place the congregations were good. It was a very busy time, and we hardly expected so many to be present as were present at most of the places. At one or two places some brethren expressed a feeling of disappointment that no more were present. We reminded them that it was a busy time, and that the people were under no obligation to come out to hear us preach. They were under no obligation to us. But we are under obligation to attend our regular church meetings.
Elder Davis left us at Round Lick on Thursday, May 5, returning home to meet a regular appointment on Saturday and Sunday. We wound up at South College Street, Nashville, Sunday night, May 8, and left Nashville at 11:30 that night for home, arriving at Fordyce at 1 p. m. on Monday, where we were met by our wife and children. We were glad to get home, after an absence of six weeks and three days. Work had piled up while we were away; so we have had no time for idleness since our return. We are trying to get ready to leave for another trip, and expect to make another little trip to Alabama before this reaches the readers. Remember us in prayer. C. H. C.
[pg 384]
CONFESSION CHANGED
June 16, 1938
At a Conference in Meridian, Miss., on May 21, the Southern Presbyterians changed their Confession of Faith. The Confession was the old Westminister Confession, which the Presbyterians have had for about three hundred years. We have been aware of the fact that not many of them have been preaching the doctrine for years which the Confession contained. For years many of the preachers have been preaching Arminian doctrine, and have not been teaching the doctrine of election and that the elect of God were predestinated to eternal life. The old Westminister Confession set forth the doctrine of unconditional salvation and also the doctrine of unconditional reprobation. The Baptists have always denied the doctrine of unconditional reprobation. The old Presbyterian Confession said, Chapter III:
Sec. 3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels were predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
4. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished.
These are the two sections which they have eliminated from their Confession. There was opposition to the move, but it was carried by a vote of one hundred and fifty-one to one hundred and thirty. We remember that an effort was made by them several years ago to change the Confession. So, at last, they have accomplished the matter. Calvin, the founder of the Presbyterian Church, was a strong predestinarian—too strong for the Baptists. The London Confession of Faith was largely [pg 385] copied from this old Westminister Confession; but they could not copy the above items; so they put them as follows:
By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated or foreordained to eternal life, through Jesus Christ, to the praise of His glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of His glorious justice.
These angels and men thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly, and unchangeably designed; and their number so certain, and definite, that it cannot be either increased, or diminished.
It seems that the world is still drifting farther and farther from the truth. If the Primitive Baptists should quit preaching the truth, it would not be preached. The Lord will have a few witnesses for the truth when the world comes to an end. He will not leave Himself without a witness. C. H. C.
SECRET ORDERS “AN ERROR CORRECTED”
July 7, 1938
Under the above heading is an article in the Messenger of Peace of June, 1938, by the editor. Elder W. A. Chastain. It being our sincere desire to be perfectly fair, and being perfectly willing for our readers to know the facts in this case, as well as in any other with which we have to do, we copy the article from the Messenger in full:
THE ARTICLE
“Under the caption, ‘Was He a Mason?’ appears an editorial by Elder C. H. Cayce, in his paper, THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, Vol. 32, [pg 386] page 8, Sept. 11, 1917, in which he calls in question some statements made by Elder W. A. Chastain in his late book, ‘A Discussion on the Worship of God.’ He quotes from his book as follows:
“EId. Gregg M. Thompson, who lived in Georgia for years, and who was one of the ablest debaters our people have ever had, and who met Eld. Burgess, a Campbellite and champion debater and won a grand victory for our people, *^ * * was a Mason, so I have been told. Yet, the Georgia Baptists did not non-fellowship him. But this did not make Masonry right, understand. I am not saying this in defense of any secret order, but to show that this is no test of soundness of doctrine.’
“The reader will notice that Eld. Chastain emphasizes the statement that Eld. Gregg M. Thompson was a Mason, and then adds,’So I have been told.’ To this we wish to say that Eld. Chastain should have better informed himself before making such a statement, if he did not know. Eld. Thompson has gone to his reward, and is not here now to defend himslef. It seems to us that this great man had enough to contend with while he was living, without a thing of this kind being published to the world about him when he has gone to his long eternal home, and is not here to defend his own practice. But fortunately, Eld. Thompson left on record his position and principles as to how a member of the church should live, and what the church member should belong to.
C. H. Cayce.
“We, doubtless, should have made no reference to the above through the Monitor had it not been for the unfavorable reflection cast on Eld. Chastain. Since we are, perhaps, mainly responsible for the statement by him, which Eld. Cayce criticizes: that ‘Eld. Gregg M. Thompson was a Mason,’ is correct. The late Eld. Gregg M. Thompson was my father’s oldest brother. We very well remember him and have heard him speak of his membership in the Masonic order. Eld. Chastain is correct when he says he was a Mason when he resided in Georgia, and ‘the Georgia Baptists did not non-fellowship him.’ And now we adopt and subscribe to the following statement made by Eld. W. A. Chastain: ‘But this would not make Masonry right, understand.’ He, too, was a fallible man. We all need to be reminded of this fact.
“Before closing this article we will give a quotation from Eld. Gregg M. Thompson which will not be called in question. We quote him direct from his published debate with Eld. O. A. Burgess- Page 258:
“Good benevolent institutions may be gotten up among men, and great good may be effected by them. No one can see the great improvement in agriculture, that has been made in the last few years, but what will acknowledge that agricultural societies have had much to do with it. If the intoxicating bowl has been driven from the sideboard and a man feels degraded to be seen in a tippling shop, the temperance movement has, doubtless, had much to do with it. Many poor widows have been fed, and orphans educated and reared to respectability by the Masons. These, as worldly institutions, may be called good: 1 have nothing to say against them. But they have no power to impose their laws upon the church of Christ, neither has the church any power to adopt their laws, or to form an alliance with them. If it is true that John the Baptist and John the Divine were Masons (which I am inclined to credit), they [pg 387] were such as individuals, as citizens of the world and did not attempt to impose the laws of that institution upon the church, or to form a union or communion between the two institutions. This would have been a violation of the laws of the King, and would have destroyed the distinct visibility of the church. For the church to become united with any of the worldly institutions, and to adopt their laws and government, changes her organization, and she ceases to become the church of Christ.’
“We give these facts in support of truth and right, and to the injury of no man dead or living. Truth will stand and will win its own fame. We all should be careful not to misjudge the motives of our brother and put him in an unfavorable light before the world. If we could all be more charitable one to another, be sure that we have just cause for censure before we accuse him of willful wrong, how much smoother the world would then run! Judge no man rashly. We all need more of Paul’s charity—’Charity suifereth long and is kind.’ Oh, that we were all filled with that spirit! Wrongs in doctrine and practice can oftentimes be more easily corrected through the spirit of kindness than otherwise. ‘A soul saved from death,’ saved to a useful life in the church. R. W. Thompson.”
—In the Primitive Monitor, October, 1917. “Remarks:—This editorial by Eld. R. W. Thompson is reprinted in this number because the same question seems to be up for dis- cussion again by reason of Eld. John M. Thompson’s comments on Eld. Gregg M. Thompson’s ‘Address to Young Preachers,’ in the February (1988) Primitive Monitor. Eld. John M. Thompson in his comments, draws the conclusion that Eld. Gregg M. Thompson must not have been a Mason, but we have been informed by some of our ministers, who know the facts in the case, that he was a member of the Masonic order in good standing, at Ashland, Mo., at the time of his death. We feel that this article of Eld. Thomp- son’s, and these statemnts, should settle this question.
C. Dove, Editor.”
(Above from Primitive Monitor, April, 1938, p. 182.)
We are thankful to God for such noble. Christian men as Elder Thompson and Elder Dove, who, with clear vision and noble hearts are faithful comrades in defense of truth and right. Any cause that cannot be supported with fairness must utterly fail.
We have an affidavit on file in our office that may be examined by any of our brethren, executed May 9, 1938, by Mr. A. F. Martin, present secretary or clerk of Masonic Lodge No. 156, at Ashland, Mo., stating that Eld. Gregg Thompson was a member in good standing at the time of his death in 1888, and had been received into that membership in 1882. This affidavit is given under the seal of Mr. 0. T. Scott, Notary Public. Elder Lloyd Sapp also writes: “There is abundant evidence in [pg 388] this country that this is true. I am also aquainted with the records and know it to be true.” Elder Cayce states in his paper of March 3, 1938:
“We knew as long ago as 1917 that Elder Gregg Thompson was not a Mason, or that he could not have consistently been a member of ANYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD other than the Old Baptist Church. His writings are living evidences that he belonged to nothing else.”
Here is plainly an error and a case of mistaken judgment. We wonder, will it be corrected? A correction is due the readers of that paper, as well as Elder Thompson. We repeat that Elder Gregg Thompson preached all through many of the southern states, especially Georgia, and he a Mason! Our northern brethren, many of them, have visited and enjoyed the churches of the southland, and the present bars against us certainly are not justified. But, here is a statement setting forth the present conditions:
“Amendment to the constitution adopted Sept. 19th, 1878, as follows: “This Association will not hold in fellowship ANY church, neither will we knowingly correspond with ANY association which holds a member which belongs to any secret institution, whether moral, political or religious.
“Signed: Eld. C. H. Cayce, Mod.
Eld. John R. Harris, Clerk.”
This resolution is found in the minute of the South Arkansas Association for 1935. Yet they preached on their stand that year a good brother who belongs to an association that has secret order members in it. The above amendment is very wide and decisive. We suggest you read it again and study it well.
The writer is not a member, and never has been, of any secret order, but this amendment turns us all down together.
In that great meeting at Fulton, Ky., in 1900, of which Elder J. H. Oliphant was moderator, where our people from all over the U. S. were more nearly unanimously represented than at any meeting of modern times, they adopted the following language:
“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 of the peace of the churches. * * * It is painful to note on the pages of history how frequently our people [pg 389] have been divided and their happiness destroyed by foolish and sinful declarations of non-fellowship. * * * *
“When bars of fellowship are raised they exclude the erring from the God-appointed remedy for the correction of their errors and render restoration hopeless. “When bars of fellowship are unlawfully raised among our people the bond of union by which our churches are held together is broken and the welfare of the cause exposed to the most uncertain results. 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 actions and have no connection with them until they withdraw such bars of fellowship.”
“Such bars mob innocent Baptists by the wholesale.”—Lee Hanks in Messenger of Zion, April 15, 1988.
We often cry, “Peace, peace,” and then crucify the Prince of Peace. We urge our brethren to stand where our fathers have always stood, and would be happy to see the day when peace may abound, and pray that all may labor to that end.
OUR COMMENTS
Elder Chastain says, “Here is plainly an error and a case of mistaken judgment. We wonder, will it be corrected?” Yes, Brother Chastain, it will be cheerfully and gladly corrected. We are not glad we made the error; but we are glad to correct it.
When we read the above article in the Messenger it was the first time we had ever seen or read the statement from Elder R. W. Thompson, which is copied in the above from the Primitive Monitor of October, 1917. We did not know he had ever made the statement, as we were not then getting the Monitor, and no copy of it was sent to us; or, if it was, we did not receive it. Under such circumstances as that, how could we be expected to make any correction on account of that statement having been made? In the Monitor of February, 1938, Elder John M. Thompson said that “if he [pg 390] had been a Mason, he was not when he wrote this address.” Brother Thompson was judging the matter from the writings of Elder G. M. Thompson; we were judging the matter from the same standpoint. We judged from that same standpoint in 1917, when we copied some of his writings from his book called “The Measuring Rod.” We only “knew it” from the evidence which we had in the case. Since then, and since our comments on the article from Elder G. M. Thompson in our issue of March 8, 1938, we have received additional evidence which we never had before. We would have made correction of the matter if the above article had never been published in the Messenger. On March 29, 1938, we received the following letter from Elder Lloyd Sapp:
Ashland, MO., March 21, 1938.
Elder Cayce:
Dear Brother—I note that you say in your paper of the March 3rd issue that Elder Gregg M. Thompson was not a Mason. Now, Brother Cayce, I happen to live here at Ashland, Mo., in the same town where Elder Thompson lived the latter part of his life. I belong to the same church where his membership was when he passed away. I am also pastor of this church, the church he pastored while here, and was pastoring at the time of his death. I am in a position to get the facts concerning his membership in the Masonic lodge. Therefore, in kindness, and in defense of the truth, concerning this matter, I beg to say that Elder Thompson was a member of the Masonic lodge the last years of his life.
The records of this lodge, No. 156, show that he was elected to membership October 21st, 1882. Also, that he was a member of good standing at the time of his death, April 19th, 1888.
Three members of said lodge recommended him for membership and it was my privilege to have known all these members. Also, I have heard one minister and a lawyer say that they sat in lodge with Elder Thompson. There are a few who live in this community who can give the same testimony.
[pg 391] Elder Thompson died one year before I was born. However, his name is often mentioned as an able defender, and one who was true to his calling. By those who remember him, he is still held in sweet memory, and his name reverenced.
In fairness to the support of truth and all concerned, I wish you could see fit to publish the above in your paper. Lloyd Sapp
“The Measuring Rod,” from which we quoted in September, 1917, was published in 1861. In that book Elder Thompson said just what we copied from the same, and which it is not necessary to again copy here. It is not our wish or desire to aggravate matters. In Zion’s Advocate of May 15, 1881, page 377, is an announcement by Elder Thompson of the desire to publish the book, “The Primitive Preacher,” dated Crawfordsville, Ind., May 9, 1881. We suppose this was before Elder Thompson moved to Missouri. He lived in Georgia prior to the year 1881. He joined the Masons on October 21, 1882, in Missouri. He died April 19, 1888. The book was not published until during the year 1888. Probably the writing was done, according to the announcement in the Advocate, before October, 1882. But, whether this be correct or not, he joined the Masons in October, 1882, at the age of seventy-one years, six months and ten days, according to the date he gave of his birth on page 5 of “The Primitive Preacher” and the date given above by Brother Sapp. Yes, Brother Chastain, we make the correction.
Brother Chastain says: “We repeat that Elder Gregg Thompson preached all through many of the Southern states, especially Georgia, and he a Mason! Our northern brethren, many of them, have visited and enjoyed the churches of the southland, and the present bars against us certainly are not justified,” and then he [pg 392] quotes an amendment to the constitution of the South Arkansas Association, which was made in 1878. Are there any present bars up on this question by the Southern Baptists which have not been up all the while —since before Brother Chastain was born? That which Brother Chastain quoted from the minutes was an amendment. It was no new thing; but the amendment is sixty years old. The same year (1935) from which Brother Chastain quotes this, Brother Chastain tells his readers that there was a good brother present from a northern church. Was he barred? No, he preached peace by Jesus Christ, and did not intimate that we should reform our churches, and he was heartily received, and invited to come back. Does the fact that Elder Gregg Thompson was heartily received by the churches in the South show that he was barred? Does the fact that “our northern brethren, many of them, have visited and enjoyed the churches of the south-land,” prove or show that they were barred? We might name a number of brethren from the North who have visited and preached in churches, many of them, in the southland, and who were heartily received. About 1936 we invited Elder Chastain to visit the South, and insisted that he do so, which he refused to do. Does that even look like they were barred? In our repeated invitations to Brother Chastain we told him that we sincerely wished he would visit us and see for himself whether or not he was barred, and that he could come nearer telling in that way than by staying at a distance. We assured him that our invitation [pg 393] was made in sincerity and good faith. He declined, and gave his reason as follows:
June 16, 1937.
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother—In answering your letter of May 29 wish to say that I have been gone from home a great deal since getting it and been rushed much with pressing duties. Returned home last Monday from Ohio, where I attended the Sandusky Association and met about sixteen preachers and many brethren, and enjoyed a very fine meeting.
As to making a visit to your country and churches permit me to say that it will be next to impossible to do so this year, due to my care of seven churches and editorial work and also my own private business affairs. May the Lord bless you and your people. Yours to serve, W. A. Chastain.
The reader will see that Brother Chastain did not say then that he was barred, or assign this as a reason for not accepting the invitation to visit the South.
Elder Leon H. Clevenger has recently been in this country. In our issue of April 21, 1938, Elder Clevenger gave a short account of this trip, in which he says:
The Lord was good to us, and the dear Primitive Baptists gave us a real welcome everywhere we went and many invitations to return. I have been visiting some of these churches occasionally for the last twelve years, and they are lovely people, who seem ready to welcome orderly Primitive Baptist preachers from other states at any time, as long as they come preaching Christ in peace and are not trying to spread trouble.
Just here we copy Article 9, on pages 6 and 7, of the Nashville Peace Meeting:
We do not think our members should be retained in the church who hold membership in or affiliate with any of the so-called [pg 394] fraternal or religious institutions of the world. It is a well-known fact that it has always been against the rules of the Primitive Baptist Churches of the South to retain members who affiliate with such institutions, whether secret or otherwise, which rule we believe to be Scriptural; and we think it would be destructive to endeavor to reform the churches. We should continue to stand where we have always stood on this question, and those things should not be permitted to make inroads in our churches. In this we are not endeavoring to regulate other folks or their affairs; but we desire that our churches all remain clear of these things, as they have in the past.
It seems to us that this explains the attitude of the Southern Baptists as clearly as it could be expressed. Our people have not had bars up against good brethren from the North or from the East or from the West who would come preaching peace by Jesus Christ. We have always welcomed orderly brethren to come South. If there are any bars up somebody else has them up, and not our folks. What we have is for our protection, and not as dictating to others. We would kindly suggest that “here is plainly” another “error and a case of mistaken judgment. We wonder, will it be corrected?”
We would also kindly suggest that “we urge our brethren to stand where our fathers have always stood, and would be happy to see the day when peace may abound, and pray that all may labor to that end.” C. H. C.
IN ARKANSAS AND OKLAHOMA
August 4, 1938
We should have had a little account of this trip in our last issue, but it seemed that we could hardly get to the matter of writing about it.
We left home on Friday morning, June 10, and went to Fort Smith, arriving there about 6:30 P. M., and were met at the bus station by Sister Martin, wife of Brother D. B. Martin. We were at the service at the church in Arkoma that night, and Saturday and Sunday. This was a union or district meeting of the churches of the Salem Association. It was a delightful meeting. We made no note of the names of the ministers in attendance, and so we cannot give their names. Of course we remember the names of some of them, but may not remember all. So we will not try to give their names. Elder John R. Harris, of Thornton, started before we did, and was at the meeting, and continued with us during the following week.
On Monday and Tuesday, June 13 and 14, we were with the church called Little Flock, at Ratcliff, Ark., Elders D. W. Witt and R. L. Piles going with us and Elder Harris, through the week.
On Wednesday and Thursday, June 15 and 16, we were at Revilee Church, near Magazine.
On Friday, Saturday and Sunday, June 17, 18, 19, we were with Little Flock Church, at Abbott, Ark. This was their communion meeting. From this place Elder Harris returned home. These were all good and pleasant meetings.
From the foregoing we went to Tulsa, and had meeting there on Monday and Tuesday, June 20 and 21.
[pg 396] This seems to be a live little band, and they seem to be devoted to the cause. We enjoyed our stay with them. The services were at night, and good congregations were present.
Then we filled the appointments in Ada, New Hope, (near Shawnee), Oklahoma City, Bethlehem, Union Springs, and Sulphur. We also filled an extra appointment in Edmond, going there from Shawnee, being met and conveyed by Brother W. T. Morrisett to his home. Brother Morrisett is one of our old Tennessee associates. We were in his home several times in Tennessee, years ago, before he moved to Oklahoma.
We would be glad we could mention the name of each one whose home we were permitted to visit, but we cannot do so. We had the pleasure of being in the home of Elder Cummings, who is the pastor at Oklahoma City. They esteem him highly, and we learned to love him. We were also in the good home of dear Elder A. D. West. He was with us at several of the appointments, and did everything he could to make us feel pleasant and at home. We had the pleasure of meeting Elder M. L. Welch, whom we had not met before. Besides, we met many brethren and sisters for the first time, and doubtless many of them we will never see again in this life.
The churches we visited are evidently in peace, and the Lord is blessing them. We have long had a desire to visit those dear people, and now we have a desire to visit them again. Some other churches we had a desire to visit, but this was all the time we had for the trip. May the good Lord continue to bless them with peace and prosperity and fellowship, is our humble prayer. We desire that they all remember us in prayer. If we [pg 397] meet no more in this world of sorrow, we have a sweet and blessed hope that we shall meet in a better world, where troubles and sorrows never come. C. H. C.
PIE SUPPER PLANNED
August 4, 1938
A pie supper has been planned at Midway schoolhouse Monday night (June 27). Proceeds will be used for the First Primitive Baptist Association of Oklahoma, which will be held from August 11 to August 14.
The above is taken from the Purcell Register, of June 23, 1988, a newspaper published in Purcell, Oklahoma. This band of folks who advertised to have this pie supper at the schoolhouse named are not connected with the First Primitive Baptist Association of Oklahoma. They are identified with the Trumpet faction.
But how does that sound, and how does it look, for people claiming to be so strict and so orderly, to be having a pie supper to raise funds to care for their association? Evidently they are resorting to the same ways and means of the world to raise funds for their work. Pie supper! Pie supper! Suppose we have a little paraphrasing of the Scriptures to justify this business. Get your Bible now and read as we refer to some citations.
Let us go first to Acts vi. 1-4. “Look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this pie supper business.” Verse 7: “And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were [pg 398] obedient unto the rulers and dictators in the kingdom, and they had many pie suppers and raised large sums of money thereby for the advancement of the Lord’s kingdom.”
Acts xvi. 13, 14, 15. The case of Lydia. After she was baptized she was very zealous, and instituted and conducted many pie suppers to care for the meetings in that section.
1 Tim. iii. 14, 15. Paul wrote this to Timothy that he might know how he ought to behave himself in the house of God, and how he might raise funds to care for the Lord’s service by having pie suppers, and other merchandising methods which he might get from the world.
2 Tim. iii. 16, 17: “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.” Now, candidly, where, in the whole Book, do you find any authority for engaging in such methods as having a pie supper to raise funds to care for a meeting? Where is it? Book, chapter, and verse, please! Yet these folks cry “order! order!” Their cry of order reminds us of a lot of frogs in a swamp in wet spring time. Just Hsten to their noise: “Order! Order! Order!”
“For the love of money is the root of all evil; which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, 0 man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.”—1 Tim. vi. 10, 11. Get your book and read on to the end of the chapter. May the Lord [pg 399] help those of us who have been deluded, and who have been following men, to turn from the same, and help us to follow the teachings and examples found in His holy Book. C. H. C.
ANOTHER CORRECTION
August 18, 1938
Dear Elder Cayce:
THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of July 7, 1938, reached me today. I note what you have to say about the Thompson matter. However, I note that you have misunderstood me again.
I said that Elder Thompson was a Mason the last years of his life, that I was in a position to know about this. But I did not say that he was not a Mason in his younger life. In fact, he moved his membership here from another state. Also, I have never heard of a man being made a Mason at the age you mention he joined this lodge. He was elected to membership, not elected to take the work, as he had taken the work before this date. He did not join the Masons at the age of seventy-one years and six months, but moved his membership here at that age. The fact that he was elected to membership carries this thought and I am surprised that you give this as the date that he joined the Masons. I did not say he joined the Masons on this date. I said he was elected to membership to this lodge on that date.
Elder Chastain was right when he said that Elder Thompson was a Mason when he lived in Georgia. What I had to say did not deny this statement, as you have used my name.
Now Brother Cayce, let’s be fair on this matter, acknowledging to the facts in the case, and let the matter drop. You have used what I wrote you to prove that Elder Thompson was not a Mason prior to the date mentioned in my letter., I feel that this is unfair on me and does not carry the thought which I tried to convey to you.
As this matter first started in your paper, I feel that it would be fair to print the above.
Lloyd Sapp.
P. S.—It was not the desire of anyone to offend when the [pg 400] correction was made in the Messenger. But, in view of the fact that you had not corrected, and knowing that you had the proof, ample time having passed, it seemed there was nothing left but to correct the error. Had you acknowledged my letter, and said nothing more, this correction would not have been necessary. Everything that I have said has been in defense of the plain truth and not with a desire to agitate, nor confuse, nor to offend. Yours in hope,
Lloyd Sapp. Ashland, Mo.,
July 9, 1938.
REMARKS
Yes, we cheerfully and willingly give space for the above correction. We have no desire whatever to mislead or to make a wrong impression. But, let us keep the record straight. If our readers will refer to THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of March 3, 1938, they will see that we had copied the article from the “Primitive Preacher,” an “Address to Young Preachers,” and that the same was in type when we received the Primitive Monitor of February, 1938, with the same article in it, and with comments from Elder John M. Thompson, in which he said that “if he had been a Mason, he was not when he wrote this address.” Brother Thompson was judging the matter by the same evidence by which we were judging the matter. This was in the Primitive Monitor before it was in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST. Evidently Elder John M. Thompson was mistaken, and so were we. We must have drawn the wrong conclusions from the writings of Elder Gregg Thompson. We drew that conclusion in 1917 from his writings in the “Measuring Rod,” a book which he published in 1861. Elder Sapp says above, “knowing that you had the proof.” You are mistaken in that for a certainty. Elder Robert Thompson published a correction of our [pg 401] statement which we made in September, 1917. This correction was in the Monitor of October, 1917. But we did not see it. We never had a copy of that issue of the Monitor. The first time we ever saw that correction was when it came out in the Messenger of Peace for June, 1938. Will a correction of this be made? If we had been in possession of the proof, we would have made the correction long ago.
In THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of September 19, 1929, is an article from Elder Burton L. Nay, of Cedar Falls, Iowa, giving an account of a trip he had just made in West Tennessee. He said, “Their welcome and hospitality is unforgetable. I also found a desire for unity among us rather than forced divisions.” “Let us heal rather than hurt. Under present conditions and in our present state, it appears that bridges are better than bars. The truth preached in love is Zion’s surcease and safeguard.”
This is the way Elder Nay found matters in West Tennessee in 1929. This has been the attitude of the brethren we have been associated with all along. Will a correction be made of this matter, also?
Only one more word. We think that from the reading of Elder Sapp’s letter in our issue of July 7 we were entirely justifiable in the conclusion which we drew. We thought that when one makes application for membership in an order, he is either accepted or rejected by vote of the membership, and we also thought it was customary for the applicant to be recommended by some member or members if accepted. Sorry we misunderstood the meaning. Thank you for the correction.
If it is not desired to agitate this matter, then it will be dropped; but we think proper corrections should be [pg 402] made. However, it is immaterial with us whether a correction be made concerning the above matters or not. Neither have we had, nor do we have, any desire to agitate, nor to confuse, nor to offend. C. H. C.
TOUR IN THE NORTH AND EAST
October 6, 1938
We left home on August 4, 1938, to fill appointments which were made for us by Elders J. H. Keaton and T. W. Osborne. These appointments were in Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia. They closed at the New Liberty Association, at Scott Depot, W. Va., the first Sunday in September. After that list of appointments were made we agreed, by urgent request, to allow other appointments to be made in Indiana, to close on the second Sunday in September.
On the trip we were in attendance at the Scioto Association, at Pleasantville, Ohio, on August 19, 20 and 21. We also attended the Muskingum Association, at St. Louisville, Ohio, on August 24 and 25. The association was one more day, but we could not remain there for the last day, although we regretted so much having to leave before the meeting was over. But we had to do this in order to meet the arrangements which had been made. Both of the meetings were good.
We attended the Indian Creek Association, at Lester, W. Va., on Friday, Saturday and fourth Sunday in August. Two united with the church at this meeting. Large crowds were present each day, and it was a wonderful meeting. We were at the New Liberty Association, at Scott [pg 403] Depot, W. Va., on Friday, Saturday and first Sunday in September. One united with the church during this meeting. This was another wonderful meeting. On Monday, August 29, at Coal City, a brother united with the church, to be baptized later.
While in Ohio we met Elder J. Harvey Daily and wife, of Macon, Ga., who were on a trip in Indiana and Ohio. Brother W. T. Daily and wife, of Indianapolis, Ind., were with them. While on the trip we tried to make a note of the names of the ministers we had the pleasure of meeting. We may have failed to get the names of some of them, but the following are the names of those we did get: Those whose homes are in Kentucky were Elders E. H. Hicks, E. N. Slusher, Levi Saylor, W. L. Kash, A. J. Christopher, S. A. Amburgey, A. L. Tackett, G. W. Hall, W. M. Caudill, M. B. Tackett, Eli Moore, A. F. Kiser and C. L. Ratcliff. Elder Ratcliff was ordained at Ray’s Fork Church on Wednesday, August 10, by a presbytery composed of Elders S. E. Angle, the pastor of the church, Levi Saylor, J. H. Keaton and the writer, besides the deacon, or deacons, present, whose names we failed to get down in our notes. In addition to the names here given, we met other brethren in the minis- try from Kentucky at the Indian Creek Association. We desire to give their names, and expected to get them from a minute of that meeting; but as we do not yet have a copy of the minute we cannot give their names. Neither can we give the names of all the ministers who were at that association, for the same reason. We do not wish to delay longer the writing of this account of the trip, and want to assure each one that we would be glad to give the name of each.
[pg 404] The ministers present at the Scioto Association were: Elders G. F. Hanover, Ashville, Ohio; M. O. Curp, New ark, Ohio; Corvin Dove, Thornville, Ohio; U. G. Porter, Nashport, Ohio; T. W. Osborne, Coopersville, Ohio; J. H. Keaton, Huntington, W. Va.; Daily Hite, Morral, Ohio; A. D. Pitney, Maumee, Ohio; C. E. Denman, Chesterville, Ohio; Ivan Hindall, Findlay, Ohio, and the writer. Those present at the Muskingum Association were: Elders B. F. Robertson, Charleston, W. Va.; U. G. Porter, Nashport, Ohio; L. V. and Daily Hite, Morral, Ohio; F. F. Burkepile, Fredericktown, Ohio; M. O. Curp, Newark, Ohio; T. W. Osborne, Coopersville, Ohio; A. D. Pitney, Maumee, Ohio; G. F. Hanover, Ashville, Ohio; J. H. Keaton, Huntington, W. Va.; Corvin Dove, Thornville, Ohio; J. S. Bibler and Herman Hartman, Newark, Ohio, and the writer.
The Muskingum Association was held on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, August 24, 25 and 26. On Wednesday night a meeting was appointed to be held at Friend- ship Church, in Newark, for the purpose of ordaining Brethren J. S. Bibler and Herman Hartman to the work of the ministry, they having, at their regular meeting previously, invited the ministers attending the association to be at this meeting to attend to the ordination. An account of this ordination was given in our issue of September 15, 1938. The presbytery was composed of Elders L. V. Hite, Corvin Dove, F. F. Burkepile, A. D. Pitney, T. W. Osborne, C. H. Cayce, J. H. Keaton and Daily Hite, and Deacons Samuel Francis, Elmer Iden, M. B. Claggett, P. F. Lantz and Howard McCurdy. We pray the Lord to bless the labors of these dear brethren in His vineyard. On Friday, August 12, on our way from Morehead to [pg 405] Catlettsburg, Ky., we stopped at the home of Elder L. P. Damron, where he was lying a corpse, having quietly passed away the day before. By request we held a short service there. The family told us that the dear brother had been looking forward to being with us at Morehead. May the Lord bless the bereaved ones, is our humble prayer.
The Indiana mmisters we met were: Elders Ed Allen Cecil Fuson, George Culy, L. W. Johnson, S. J. West, G. B. Green, W. A. Walters, Ernest Bradley, Earl Daily and John M. Thompson. Elder Thompson is past ninety years of age, and is in good health and is strong for a man of his age. He has traveled and preached much in the past m different states, in the South as well as North and West. We were glad to meet him once more. He was with us in Indianapolis, and seemed to enjoy the service. May the Lord continue to bless him in his last days. In all probability we shall never meet again on earth, but we hope to meet in a better country.
Other ministers we met, whose names we have noted, are as follows: Elders Lowell Lilly, I. W. Kilby, Willie Harvey, H. J. Cox, J. L. B. Lilly, U. G. Nichols, L G Mann, C M. Pendleton and Z. T. Whaling. Besides these we met a number of others whose names we expected to get from the minute of the Indian Creek Association, which minute we do not have. We are sorry we cannot give their names, too.
We traveled more than 3,000 miles on this trip. The last appointment filled was in Louisville, Ky., on Sunday night, September 11. We tried to preach nearly every day on the trip, beginning at Richmond, Ky., on Saturday, August 6, and twice on several days. We arrived home about 1 o’clock p. m. on Monday, September 12, [pg 406] and found all well, for which we felt to thank the good Lord.
This was a pleasant trip to us. Elders Keaton and Osborne were with us most of the time on the entire trip. Elder Keaton being with us almost the entire time for five weeks. Elder Osborne was with us several days. We have had a tumor on our neck for several years. Soon after leaving home it became inflamed and broke, and it gave us a lot of trouble and pain. These brethren were good to us, and dressed the place twice every day, until we left them, a few days before we returned home. It is still, at this writing (September 21), not well, though much improved. The brethren were good to us every place we went—far better than we feel to deserve. May Heaven’s richest blessings rest upon them, is our humble prayer. We desire an interest in your prayers. C. H. C.
OUR ASSOCIATION
October 6, 1938
Our association (the South Arkansas) was held with Pleasant Grove Church, Kirby, Ark., on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, September 16, 17, 18, 1938. They had preaching on Thursday night, though the associational meeting began at 10 o’clock Friday morning. The introductory sermon was preached by Elder M. A. Norman, who is the pastor of the church. The following visiting ministers, besides Elder Norman, were in attendance: Elders W. W. Fowler and J. A. Littlejohn, Dallas, Texas; D. W. Witt, Mansfield, Ark.; G. E. Griffin, Canyon, Texas; R. L. Piles, Hon, Ark.; Leon H. [pg 407] Clevenger, Excelsior Springs, Mo.; R. M. Willett, Platte City, Mo.; L. P. Griffin, Nixon, Texas; Lewis N. Barrow, Jr., Mena, Ark.; R. F. Pierce, Quitman, Ark.; J. F. Abernathy, Oden, Ark.; and W. J. Green, Gray, Ga. The home ministers present were: Elders W. H. Eubanks, Poplar Grove, Ark.; W. H. Lee, Donaldson, Ark.; J. W. Guest, Rolla, Ark.; John R. Harris and C. H. Cayce, Thornton, Ark.
The preaching was all a unit, not a discordant note sounded, and the Lord blessed the speakers to preach the truth in love. They preached peace by Jesus Christ. And the Lord blessed the people to hear with joy and gladness. His sweet presence was felt and manifested. “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.” Two willing ones were encouraged to come home to their friends, telling how great things the Lord had done for them. They were joyfully and gladly received, their baptism to be attended to at that church on their next regular meeting time, the second Sunday in October. It was a glorious meeting, and we are sure it will not soon be forgotten.
The meeting was well cared for in every way. May the Lord bless those who so devotedly and carefully looked after the feeding and caring for the visitors, and for all who were in attendance. Good order prevailed throughout the entire meeting.
The Lord willing, the association will meet next year with Macedonia Church, near Dalark, about twelve miles east, or southeast, of Arkadelphia. C. H. C.
TROUBLETH ISRAEL
October 20, 1938
Our readers will remember that we had an article in our issue of April 7, 1938, concerning Elder J. W. Fairchild and some of his works, and that he is again publishing his paper, which he is pleased to call the Footprints of the Flock, at Whitesburg, Ky. We would not have given him any notice were it not for the fact that he is again publishing this paper and representing himself to be a Primitive Baptist in order. We felt that we owed it to our people to inform them as to the status of affairs. Of course Elder Fairchild became very much wrought up on account of what we said. Below we give his entire article in reply to what we said:
“HE THAT TROUBLETH ISRAEL”
I am indebted to Elder C. H. Cayce, editor of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, for more than two pages of free advertising. Not many ministers are of such prominence that an editor will devote that amount of space in advertising them, so I feel greatly honored. And as a kick from some people is a boost, I have received a real boost. You know “No one ever kicks a dead dog.”
But there is one thing I hardly understand. If a man’s influence is such that his overthrow demands the use of more than two pages of such an important paper as THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, is he not worth saving? If his influence could only be turned from “bad” to good, would he not be a real asset to the cause? I suppose Elder Cayce never thought of that. At least he has never tried it.
If I am in disorder among Primitive Baptists, there is no one to blame for it more than Elder J. E. Craft, of Neon, Ky. Before I united with a church in this part of the country, I wrote Elder Craft asking him about the order of the Baptists in this section, and especially the people he is with. Not one word of counsel or explanation did I receive. Instead he took my letter to Elder J. [pg 409] H. Keaton, and as Elder Keaton wrote him, they “agreed as to what was best to do about it.” What did they agree to do about it? To tell me just what to do to get in fellowship with the true Primitive Baptists? If so, they never mentioned it to me. They never suggested that I make satisfaction to Providence Church in Mississippi. On the contrary, they kept silent till they received orders from their chief, and then went to work to secure evidence to condemn me. A fine way to bring the prodigal back into the fold, don’t you think?
As to the order of the Baptists with whom I am affiliated, they are about like the rest of the Baptists here in Eastern Kentucky. There has been so much strife and division among them, all doing wrong, that it does not become one faction to throw up disorder to another. But the Sandlick Association of which I am a member is the one recognized by the Three Forks and Washington Associations in Virginia. True, they recently dropped correspondence with the Sandlick Association because some of its ministers deny the humanity of Jesus. Read the February Footprints and you will find I exposed and condemned that teaching. I have been laboring to get the Baptists here out of that error, and if that is done the Three Forks and Washington Associations are ready to receive us back. As to Elder J. E. Craft’s faction, they are as deep in the mud as we are in the mire. There are noble people among them, good people in all the factions and I am laboring to bring about a better understanding among them and thus promote peace and union. And were it not for men like Elder Cayce, keeping up the strife, I believe they would soon be together living in love and fellowship.
If Elder Craft does not know that his statement that I have not been in fellowship with Primitive Baptists “for more than twenty years,” and that I “went into North Carolina during this time and preached to them under some coloring,” is not true, I pity his ignorance. As to whether I made satisfaction with Providence Church in Miss., ask the members of that church. Ask them if any one could do more to make satisfaction than I did. Ask them if they ever knew a minister to so desecrate the sacred office of pastor and manifest such a spirit of envy and hatred as Elder Lewis did that day. Brother E. T. Ruffin, Taylorsville, Miss., can give the facts in the case.
[pg 410] When I was received into Sandlick Church, it was on a statement signed by twenty members of Providence Church, stating that I had done all in my power to make satisfaction, and that the church did wrong in not restoring me. In that statement they further said, “During Elder Fairchild’s residence in this part of the country, he had the respect of every one, and his character was above reproach, and we can truthfully say we have never known a sweeter spirited brother, and his preaching was sound and God-honoring.” And that is the kind of men Elder Cayce refuses to “cooperate” with, and wants the denomination to get rid of. No wonder, for he would have to stop ferreting out God’s humble ministers and seeking to bring about their destruction, and cease stirring up strife and confusion in the churches, to co-operate with such a person. And it would prevent him from having charges brought against brethren and them dealt with by the church for lending support to respectable ministers of irreproachable character, whose preaching is sound and God-honoring. No, Elder Cayce would have to change harness to co-operate with such a one.
I want to apologize to our readers, who do not know Elder Cayce nor read his paper, for using this space to reply to his charges. I regret to have to do so, but feel it necessary. The Footprints of the Flock is published to promote love and fellowship, peace and union, not to spread strife, nor oppose God’s true ministers. And if we would all labor as hard to reclaim the erring and bring them back into the true fold as Elder Cayce and his agents do to destroy those who do not take orders from him, we would soon be one flock again and not need detectives to hatch up evidence to prove that some one is identified with the wrong faction of Baptists. But dictators are the order of the day, and if we must have one, I know of no one better qualified for the position than Elder Cayce. However, I shall continue to look to the Lord for my orders, even if it does bring down upon my head the anathemas of the big boss.
The foregoing is copied from the Footprints for May, 1938. We would have replied to the same long ago, but have been away from home most of the time, and have not had time to notice the same until now.
[pg 411] The reader will note that in the heading Fairchild places over his article that he slyly accuses us of being the one who “troubleth Israel.” Well, this is just like Ahab. “And it came to pass when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him. Art thou he that troubleth Israel? And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim. “— 1 Kings xviii. 17, 18. The very man who accused another of troubling Israel was the guilty party. So it is now. Fairchild is the guilty party.
The reader will please take particular notice that Elder Fairchild wished to co-operate with us. Note carefully that on January 8, 1938, he said, “I have been ready at all times to co-operate with you. Were you to visit us I would ask our churches to receive you heartily, and would rejoice to have you in my home.” But because we did not see proper to co-operate with him, or to “line up” with him, now he is pleased to call us a dictator and the big boss. If we are a dictator and the big boss, why would he wish to co-operate with us, and why would he ask his churches to receive us heartily? Why? Bah! The elder says he has received a real boost from what we said. Perhaps so. But he says no one ever kicks a dead dog. Perhaps not. Neither do dead dogs bark; nor do they bite. It is the dogs which bite that people need to be warned against. Hence, the warning which we gave. Most dogs that bite will slip up on the unsuspecting ones, and will bite when it is least expected. Better watch the dogs. “Beware of dogs.” [pg 412] Two legged dogs are about as bad as the other sort. “Beware of dogs.”
Fairchild says that Elders Keaton and Craft “kept silent until they received orders from their chief,” referring to us. Did they receive any orders from us? No. We made inquiry as to the body of people Fairchild is identified with, as to whether they are considered orderly Baptists, and those brethren, as faithful brethren should, got the facts and informed us; and then we published the facts. That is what hurt Fairchild. We knew he was excluded from orderly Baptists in Mississippi. And we also knew that when a man is excluded from an orderly Old Baptist Church he is thereby excluded from every orderly Old Baptist Church on earth. But Fairchild admits that he is identified with a people who deny the humanity of Jesus. But of course that is all right, as he has set in to convert them from the error of their way. So did he join the Missionary Baptists one time—or was it twice? Wonder if he joined them and set in to convert them from the errors of their way? We believe he was also once identified with the Progressives. Wonder if he united with them and set in to convert them? But the error he admits is among the people he is identified with is not the only false theory they hold to and advocate.
He says, “Were it not for men like Elder Cayce, keeping up the strife, I believe they would soon be together living in love and fellowship.” Our life has been an open book, and the work we have done, and the labors we have engaged in, to bring our people to a better understanding, and to get troubles among them settled and adjusted, plainly and bluntly give the lie to [pg 413] this statement from Fairchild. But, according to the doctrine he advocates, when convenient, he could not help it, for God predestinated beforehand that he should do what he does. It is all according to God’s determinate counsel; God determined that everything should come to pass just as it does. According to his doctrine, we had to do what we did; we were just doing what God determined before to be done. He tried to line up some of our people in Arkansas and Louisiana with that “Absolute” stuff, and the result was a dead church, and to this day they have not recovered from the blow the cause received from Fairchild’s work.
Elder Fairchild accuses us of not laboring to bring the erring back into the fold, and of trying to destroy God’s true ministers. Well, we gave Fairchild a fair trial in this country, and the result with one church where he proposed to labor was as stated above. And that was done without any interference from us. We have had enough of it in this country, and we want no more of Fairchild. We do not say this alone for ourself (for C. H, Cayce), but we say it for the Baptists of this section of country. No detectives are necessary to find out some of the course Fairchild has pursued. Too many people know something about that for a detective to be needed.
As he so abused Elder G. W. Lewis in the foregoing article, we sent the paper to him, and asked him for a statement. Just here we will say that there is not a man in the whole state of Mississippi who stands higher as an honorable, upright Christian gentleman than Elder G. W. Lewis. He is not only highly respected by Primitive Baptists, but he is highly respected by all people who know him—especially in the [pg 414] section where he lives. We are too well acquainted with Elder Lewis and with his standing and conduct as a man and as a Baptist to even begin to believe a single word of the aspersion of Fairchild concerning his conduct. Following is the letter we received from Elder Lewis in response to our request for a statement:
Auburn, Miss., Aug. 8, 1938.
Elder C. H. Cayce:
Dear Brother— Replying to your letter of July 8 requesting that we send you a statement for publication in reply to what Elder Fairchild says in the May issue of the Footprints of the Flock, in regard to Providence Church and our attitude in the matter, will say: We are willing for Providence Church and our friends who were present to say whether or not we conducted ourself as a pastor and moderator should under such circumstances as confronted us at that time. We have served the church continuously since, and we have never been more kindly treated and shown any more consideration than these good Baptists have shown us. We feel grateful that we have the esteem, love, confidence and fellowship, not only of the church, but of the entire community. Providence Church belongs to the Good Hope Association, of Mississippi, com- posed of ten orderly churches. The association is in direct correspondence with the Bethany and Amite Associations, of Mississippi, and she is in fellowship with all the orderly Primitive Baptists of Mississippi. This is the home association of Elder J. E. Alderman, who is eighty-seven years of age, and has been in the work of the ministry for over forty-seven years, and has been moderator for many years. Elder C. N. Ware, of Taylorsville, Miss., is serving five churches in this association at present. Elder G. H. Banks, of Newton, Miss., has served churches in this association for years. These are godly men, and able ministers of the gospel. Orderly ministers of the Primitive Baptist faith visit Providence Church and the Good Hope Association from Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, and perhaps other states. These Baptists are recognized as orderly Primitive Baptists by the Primitive Baptists of the entire Southland. Elder [pg 415] Fairchild was excluded in an orderly way by an orderly Primitive Baptist church, and that is where he stands today. In hope, G. W. Lewis.
If Elder Fairchild, or any other man, objects to being investigated and ferreted out, it is very evident that something is wrong. The preacher who is all right does not object to being investigated or ferreted out. The man posing as a preacher should be investigated and ferreted out. If he is not all right, the sooner you find it out, the better it will be for you. The Lord has set somebody on the walls of Zion as watchmen. It is the duty of the watchman to watch. If he fails to sound the alarm he is a traitor. Yes, while the good Lord spares our life, we expect, by the help and grace of God, to watch and to sound the alarm when we see one endeavoring to represent himself as a Primitive Baptist when he is not.
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.”—Rom. xvi. 17, 18.
It is not pleasant to us to engage in exposing such matters as this, but faithfulness to our God and to His cause and people requires it. We would rejoice to I know that men would cease to do as some men do, but we do not expect it in this life.
“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, [pg 416] incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowlege of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.”—2 Tim. iii. 1-8. C. H. C.
STUDIES IN PREDESTINATION
November 3, 1938
In the Footprints of the Flock for May, 1938, Elder Fairchild has a continued article under the above heading. We copy the article in full, and recommend a careful reading of it before reading what we have to say concerning the same.
THE ARTICLE
Predestination is not the incentive or motive power that causes men to do either good or bad. Men do good deeds, not because it was predestinated they should do them, but because they are prompted by a righteous spirit to do them. And they do evil deeds, not because it was predestinated they should do them, but because they are moved by an evil spirit to do them. They do good deeds for the same reason a good tree bears good fruit, and evil deeds for the same reason that a corrupt tree bears corrupt fruit. Is not that clear? I believe we are all agreed on the above statement. The thing I am trying to get all my readers to understand is that there is a vast difference between God’s predestinating a thing and authorizing or causing that thing to come to pass. [pg 417] The Bible clearly teaches that God has predestinated many of the wicked deeds of men, but it as clearly condemns the idea that God ever causes, authorizes or influences men to do wrong. No more wicked deed was ever committed by men or devils than the betrayal, condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. And yet His inspired servants tell us, “For of a truth against thy holy child, Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do WHATSOEVER THY HAND AND THY COUNSEL DETER- MINED BEFORE TO BE DONE.”—Acts iv. 27, 28. The whole mob, Jews, Gentiles, Herod, Pontius Pilate, doing whatsoever the hand and counsel of God determined before to be done. Predestinate and determine before mean exactly the same, so those who condemned and crucified the Saviour did just what God had predestinated they should do.
Will anyone dispute this? If so, will he please tell me what the above Scripture means? But while God predestinated that this should be done, was He the author of those men’s sin? Did He cause or influence them to do it? Certainly not. Listen to Peter: “Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and with wicked hands have crucified and slain.”—Acts ii. 23.
God not only foreknew, but also determined that they should condemn and crucify Jesus, and yet they did it “with wicked hands.” They knew nothing about God’s purpose in the death of Jesus, and voluntarily condemned and put Him to death. They were just as guilty as they would have been if God had not “before deter- mined” or predestinated it. They knew Him not, nor understood the voice of the prophets which they read, and “fulfilled them in condemning Him.”—Acts xiii. 27.
Will any one claim that these men were not responsible for their deeds because they fulfilled God’s purpose? No, they did it “with wicked hands.”
No doubt some one will want to know how God can predestinate an act and not be the cause or author of it. I have already shown that predestination is not the force that causes men to act, but as this is the crux of the question, let me further illustrate. Over in Eastern Tennessee there are many large springs—good size streams springing out of the earth and wending their way toward the sea.
[pg 418] They run through rich narrow valleys, and often cut away the banks and carry off the soil. If left to take their course they would wash away much of the soil, but those farmers save their soil by keeping the stream in proper bounds. They cut a new channel and straighten the stream in one place, and put in an abutment to protect the bank in another. They do not cause the water to flow down stream, but they do fix its channel and thus save their farms.
These farmers go further than just preventing the streams from washing away their land. They sometimes direct it in an entirely new channel, cutting a race for it, and bringing it around the side of the mountain to where it will have a great fall. Here they build a mill and use the force of the water in its fall to run its machinery. They did not cause the water to flow down stream, but they fixed its channel, directed its course, utilized its power and not only prevented it from destroying their lands, but made it grind their wheat and corn, and in many other ways serve the community. And who will say those farmers did wrong in fixing the channel of the stream and turning it into a blessing instead of leaving it to take its course and wash away their best soil? God no more causes men to do wickedly than those men caused the water to flow down stream. The water runs down stream because the force of gravity draws it that way; and men do wick- edly because their evil lustful nature draws them that way. And as men fix the channel of the stream and turn the force of the water into a blessing, so God sets the bounds of the wicked, lays out the path they shall travel, determines or predestinates what things they may do and what things they shall not do, and thus confines their wickedness in such a channel that it works for the good of them that love God. That is not bad of God, is it? Aren’t you glad that God has fixed the bounds of the wicked? If the wicked were turned loose, unrestricted and unbounded by God’s decree, where would our safety be? I am not so much concerned as to whether God has predestinated the righteous deeds of men or not, for I have nothing to fear from them; but I am immensely concerned as to whether God has determined or predestinated the wicked acts of men. Only by the bounds of the wicked being unalterably set can the righteous be secure.
Aren’t we agreed on this? It seems to me that here our limited and unlimited predestinarians can find a common meeting ground. [pg 419] The contention of our limited brethren that God is not the author of sin and in no sense causes men to sin, is not only granted but advocated as strongly as they advocate it. And our unlimited brethren’s argument that God’s predestination or determinate counsel extends to all the wicked actions of men and devils, fixing their bounds, governing their deeds, determining what they may and may not do, is set forth in perfect harmony with His goodness and perfection. Does not each find here all for which he is con- tending and nothing contradictory to it?
OUR COMMENTS
The first thing we wish to say regarding the foregoing is that Elder Fairchild is here apparently engaging in his old tricks of trying to wrap up his doctrine so as to get our brethren to swallow it before they realize what it is that they are taking. Let the reader carefully note the fact that a strong effort is made in the article to convey the idea that predestination does not cause anything. Note the very first sentence in the article: “Predestination is not the incentive or motive power that causes men to do either good deeds or bad.” In the Footprints for June the elder says this:
I thought I made it plain last month that predestination is NEVER CAUSATIVE. Regarding predestination as causative is at the bottom of most of the schisms over that subject.
If God’s predestination is not causative, and never causes anything to come to pass—if predestination has nothing whatever to do with a thing coming to pass— then why be such a stickler for the doctrine that God predestinated all things that come to pass? Why be so bent on advocating that doctrine, if God’s predestination has nothing to do with things coming to pass? If God’s predestination of a thing has nothing whatever to do with that thing coming to pass, then the [pg 420] thing predestinated would come to pass just as well, and just the same, without God’s predestination as with it. God’s predestination, then, is a useless thing, and nothing ever comes of it, either good or bad. The doctrine may be the truth, but we are not yet ready to accept it. Are you? Let us try that just a little. Let us first call attention to Rom. viii. 28, 29, 30:
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified.
In this God the Father is for you in foreknowledge and predestination; the Holy Spirit is for you in calling; the Son is for you in justification; and the final end of all this is the final glorification of every heir of promise —every one that loves God; every one that was known beforehand by the Father in the covenant of grace. Take God’s foreknowledge out of the matter, and not one would be glorified. Take the calling out of it, and not one would be glorified. Take justification out of it, and not one would be glorified. Hence, all these, together, is the cause why one is glorified. Not only so, but take God’s predestination out of it, and not one would be glorified—unless it should be done by accident. Hence, God’s predestination is linked in as a part of the cause of one being glorified. To deny that God’s predestination is a part of the cause why one is glorified is to simply deny the certainty of the final salvation and glorification of any poor sinner. Primitive Baptists have always held that the final salvation and [pg 421] glorification of all the elect of God is certain and sure, because God has predestinated, determined beforehand, that they should be conformed to the image of His Son, and finally glorified in heaven. But if predestination has nothing whatever to do with a thing coming to pass, then the Primitive Baptists have been wrong in this contention all along the line. Are you ready to surrender, and to renounce the truthfulness of the doctrine which has been characteristic of our people all along? Let us have another text—Eph. i. 3, 4, 5, 6:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as He hath chosen us in Him before the founda- tion of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the beloved.
In this we have the fact that those who were chosen in Him before the ages of time began were predestinated unto the adoption of children. That is, God predestinated that those He chose should be adopted into the heavenly family—predestinated them unto the adoption of children. If predestination has nothing to do with a thing being done—and never causative —then God’s predestination is no part of the cause of one being adopted into the heavenly family—it has nothing to do with, and is no part of the cause of, one receiving the “adoption of children.” But God does adopt every one He chose, and they are taken finally into the heavenly family in glory, because He has “predestinated us unto the adoption of children.” God determined beforehand that they should be thus adopted, and He brings them [pg 422] into His heavenly family in accord with His previous determination, or His previous purpose thus to do. Predestination does have something to do with this coming to pass.
In the June issue of the Footprints Elder Fairchild also says: “Therefore, to be consistent we must contend for the predestination of all things or nothing.” There you are, flatly! If we must contend for the predestination of God in the salvation of sinners, we must also contend that He predestinated all things that come to pass. If He predestinated all things that come to pass, then He also predestinated all the crimes, and all the sins, that are committed in the world. According to this, God predestinated all the sins that we commit; then He predestinated to save us from our sins. If this is true, then He predestinated to save us from His own predes- tination! Bosh!
When Elder Fairchild was publishing the Footprints in 1909 he said in that paper for September, 1909:
This world is governed by the law of cause and effect—not one thing is left to blind chance. There is not only a cause for every effect, but there is a cause for every cause except the First Cause. The First Cause is an uncaused cause—all the reasons for its exist- ence are in itself. First Cause is another name for God. God is the first cause of all causes.
We replied to this in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of October 26, 1909. See page 314 of our Editorial Writings, Volume I. We quote these few words from that reply:
According to the logic of it God did not cause Adam to violate the law, but the devil caused Adam to do so. And Elder Fairchild says God is the first cause of all causes. Then God caused the devil to cause Adam to violate the law. Adam would not have violated the law if the devil had not caused him to do so; and the devil would not have caused Adam to violate the law if God had not [pg 423] caused him to do that. There can be no effect without a cause. Then Adam could not have violated the law if the devil had not caused him to do so, and the devil could not have caused Adam to violate the law if God had not caused him to do so. If this does not make God the author and the first cause of sin, we confess we do not know the meaning of the words. There is no use caviling over the matter; it simply makes God the first cause and the author of all sin.
In the article above Elder Fairchild refers to, and quotes, what we consider to be the strongest text in the Bible in support of the doctrine that God predestinated all things that come to pass (Acts iv. 27, 28). Note that He says the “whole mob, Jews, Gentiles, Herod, Pontius Pilate” “did just what God had predestinated they should do.” If God is pleased with His predestination, then He was pleased with what that ungodly mob did. According to that doctrine, they were doing the will of God. In Matt. xii. 50 Jesus said, “For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” According to Elder Fairchild’s doctrine, those wicked men—the whole mob —Jews, Gentiles, Herod, Pontius Pilate, and all the rest of that motley crowd—were, and are, brother, and sister, and mother of the blessed Son of God! And so is the devil brother, and sister, and mother of the blessed Jesus, for he does the will of God, too; for the Lord predestinated that he should do everything he does. As another said, who advocates the same doctrine Elder Fairchild does, “God could not lie, but He raised up a nasty little devil to do His lying for Him.” This doctrine these fellows advocate, sure enough, makes God meaner than the devil.
Let us here have the text above referred to. First, [pg 424] we will quote, as follows, beginning with verse 5 (Acts iv. 5) down to and including verse 22:
And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, and Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John [not the Apostle John], and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. And when they had set them [Peter and John] in the midst, they asked. By what power, or by what name, have ye done this? Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them. Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, if we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by Him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. And beholding the man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it. But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves, saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it. But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak hence- forth to no man in this name. And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them. Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done. For the man was above forty years old, on whom this miracle of heal- ing was shewed.
[pg 425] We have taken this long extract from this chapter to show plainly what gave rise to the following—or to what is embraced in verses 26, 27, 28. It is plainly seen here that these wicked men—the rulers, elders, scribes, Annas, Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and the kindred of the high priest—were threatening the apostles and forbidding them to speak in the name of Jesus. When Peter and John were thus threatened and forbidden to speak in the name of Jesus they were let go. See verse 23:
And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them.
Verse 24 says, “And when they heard that.” The antecedent of the pronoun they is their own company, in verse 23. Their own company, to whom Peter and John went, heard the report, which they made, of the threatenings of those wicked men. So, let us read verse 24:
And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said.
Just here let us interrupt the reading to ask a question or two. If God predestinated everything that comes to pass, and His predestination is according to His will, then
were not those wicked men doing what was God’s will for them to do? And, as the apostles lifted up their voice with one accord in prayer to God, did they pray for God’s will to be done? If so, did they not pray for those wicked men to do just what they were doing? Did not Jesus teach His disciples to pray to the Lord, “Thy will be done?”
Is it not a fact that the prayer of the apostles here simply resolves itself into a request, or a pleading, for the Lord to interpose and to interfere with these wicked men, and to hinder [pg 426] and prevent them from carrying out their wicked threats and designs? It is simply a pleading unto Him that He would do in this case as in another, to which they refer. Now, let us read on:
And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said. Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word, by stretching forth thy hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.— Acts iv. 24-30.
This is plainly a prayer to God to prevent these wicked men from carrying out their threats and designs. [Emphasis added. Ed.]
It is a prayer to God to interfere in this case, just as He did in the other case, when Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the wicked mob were gathered together against His Christ. Did the Lord interfere in that case, and hinder, or prevent, them from carrying out their design? He most surely did. They did not carry out His predestination. The Lord did not allow them to do that. He does not allow wicked men and devils to carry out His predestination; He carries that out Himself.
It was God’s predestination that Jesus should die—that He should lay down His life. Those wicked men had tried, from the time of His birth, to take His life; but the Lord did not allow them to take it. [emphasis added Ed.]
Jesus said (John x. 11, 15, 17, 18): “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth [pg 427] His life for the sheep.” “And I lay down my life for the sheep.” “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.” Here we have it plainly that they did not take His life; but it was according to the will of the Father that the Son die. So those wicked men were not allowed to take His life. Their purpose and design was thwarted and overthrown. [Emphasis added. Ed.] So, the apostles, in the text just referred to above, prayed the Father to thwart and prevent the carrying out of the designs of these wicked men in this instance, as He did before. When the soldiers came to the Saviour, as He hung on the cross, with the thieves, the thieves were not dead, but Jesus was dead already (see John xix. 33). In Acts ii. 23 it is said that He was delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God; but it does not say that what those people did was by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. What they did was not by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, but was by wicked hands. God’s determinate counsel was one thing, and what they did was another thing. [Emphasis added. Ed.] It was by nothing else than by the devil’s own lie and invention that men have advocated the idea that those wicked men and devils were fulfilling and doing and carrying out God’s will, purpose, pleasure, and predestination. We never have believed it, and we do not now believe it, and never expect to believe it. If that doctrine is the truth, the eternal God has unalterably fixed, pre- destinated and decreed from eternity that we should not believe it—and we are glad He did.
[pg 428] With these things before us, what shall we say? It is very clear and evident that all this pretense of pleading for peace and reconciliation is pure buncombe. This, above, is the blasphemous doctrine you swallow when you “swallow Fairchild.” Excuse us, please. We still stand just where we have stood all along the line. See our Editorial Writings, Volume I, pages 18, 335, 337, and 340; Volume II, page 218; Volume IV, page 389, as well as other articles in our writings on the same subject. Such doctrine always has caused trouble when advocated among Primitive Baptists, and it always will. It is heresy of the blackest sort and of the very deepest dye. The sooner the Primitive Baptists get rid of every mother’s son that advocates it, the better off they will be. Put such as that out of the boat, and stop up the leak, to keep it out, or else the boat will sink; the candlestick will be removed, and the blessings and privileges of gospel worship and service will be taken from that place. This is verified from the history of the past. May the Lord deliver His poor little children from such doctrine, is our humble prayer. C. H. C.
ENCOURAGING LETTER
November 3, 1938
Dear Brother Cayce:
I have just finished reading Volume II of your Editorial Writings. I read Volume I some time back. Surely THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST has been an Old Baptist paper all along the line. It is still contending for the same doctrine and principles that it did fifty years ago. We love that doctrine and those principles. We love those who have not been afraid to speak out in defense of that doctrine. Brother Cayce, you have been plain-spoken. We [pg 429] were never left to guess as to where you stood. We love you for that, and would love to encourage you while we can. We know that you have had many trials, and many burdens to bear; the world has tried hard to crush you, but God has upheld you through it all. You have never been willing to compromise with error, but always ready to expose it.
You are old now, and must soon lay your armor down; you have fought a good fight; you have contended earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. You have fought many battles for the dear old church; you have won many battles for it—and we love you. Some day we will go to our mail box and get our paper, and these words will stare us in the face: “Elder C. H. Cayce passes away.” Oh, how we will miss you! There will be weeping in Israel. We will then think of many things we should have said to encourage and help you along the way. I wish all of the Old Baptists would tell you of their appreciation for you now. We do appreciate you and your labors and efforts. We pray God to continue to uphold you by His righteous omnipotent hand. Remember us at a throne of grace. Your brother in hope, Lewis Keith.
Quay, New Mex.
REMARKS
Were it not for an occasional letter like the above we feel that we would have given up in despair long ago. “Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing to both small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come.”—Acts xxvi. 22. Not only has the world tried to crush us, but some of “our folks” have done the same. Persecutions from the world are not so hard to bear, but the daggers that come from within our own borders hurt. But the Lord has sustained us, and many brethren have been good to us, and have helped us much along the way. We have already forgiven those who have maligned us, and pray God to [pg 430] forgive them and help them to walk in the right and in the “good old way.” Pray for us. C. H. C.
HARDSHELL BRAGGING AGAIN
November 17, 1938
Under the above heading is an article on page 4 of the so-called Orthodox Baptist Searchlight of July 11, 1938, by the Hon. Rt. Rev. Ben M. Bogard (or, rather Blowhard), D. D., LL. D. (and as many other D’s as we suppose he could get), which some persons have asked us about. The article reads as follows:
Brother P. P. Heliums, Russellville, Ala., writes:
“I am sending you a clipping from a Hardshell paper. The reason I am sending this is that some of them around here are boasting that you will not meet Cayce, their big man, in debate. I want you to write me a personal letter telling me if you will meet him in debate, and also answer in your paper.”
It is very strange that Hardshells should boast of me not meeting Cayce in debate when I met him and so completely routed him that he cannot be induced to meet me again. It has been tried and he refuses to meet me. I met him at Little Flock Church near Burnsville, Miss., and he was OFFERED ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS IN CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK AT WINFIELD, Ala., if he would repeat the debate at Winfield, Ala. Witness, Mr. W. J. Perry, Winfield, Ala., and Elder Abner Green, Guin, Ala., and numerous others living near Burnsville, Miss. But what if I had refused to meet him in debate? I should not be blamed for according to the Hardshell doctrine it was thus foreordained from before the foundation of the world. Sic!
We do not know what clipping Mr. Heliums sent the Rev. (?) Blowhard. But the first thing we wish to call attention to is what Bogard says our doctrine is. This he knows very well is not true. He knows very [pg 431] well that we teach no such thing. That is what he charged on us in the debate near Leedy, Miss., and he knows we corrected him on it, and he refused to accept the correction and said we taught and argued it there. He knows we finally told him that he was a liar; that we said no such thing. He knows this, and still he makes the assertion that this is our doctrine. He knows better. He has read THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST enough to know that we have fought that doctrine all along. But there is no use to correct Bogard on anything.
So long as he can make his people believe that is our doctrine he will continue to try to do so. But he named some witnesses in his article that one hundred dollars had been put on deposit in a bank at Winfield for us to meet him there in a debate. He made that statement in his paper quite awhile ago— perhaps about the first of the year 1924, or earlier. On May 30, 1924, we wrote to Brother S. W. Lucas, Winfield, Ala., and asked him to find out the facts in regard to this matter. On June 17, 1924, Brother Lucas wrote to us, and in that letter he said:
Now as to the $100 being on deposit here at Winfield for you to meet Bogard. I did not know any better way to get atcts than to ask the Missionaries about it. One of them said he told an outsider (not a member of the Primitive order) that Cayce would not meet Bogard again for $100; but all of the other Missionaries whom I’ve talked with say there is not, nor has not, been any $100 as a standing offer for Cayce to meet Bogard at Winfield.
Since Brother Lucas wrote the letter of above date he has passed away. He was a man of unquestioned truth and veracity. So that shows the statement by Bogard to be untrue. But since he published the statement copied above in [pg 432] his paper of July 11, 1938, and gave the name of two parties as witnesses, we thought it might be prudent for us to investigate the matter a little farther. So we called on a friend of ours here in Thornton, who is an honorable man, and a member of the Missionary Baptist Church here, and showed him the paper, and asked if he would do us the favor of writing to those two witnesses given by Bogard and ask them about it. He readily granted the request, and wrote them as follows:
Thornton, Ark., Sept. 18, 1938.
Mr. W. J. Perry, Winfield, Ala.
Dear Sir: I am writing you in regard to a proposed debate between Elder Cayce and Elder Bogard at Winfield. I see in the Orthodox Baptist Searchlight that Elder Bogard says one hundred dollars was deposited in a bank there for Elder Cayce to meet him in debate. In what bank was the money deposited? Is it still on deposit there, to be paid to Elder Cayce if he will meet Elder Bogard there in debate? What bank is the money deposited in? I will thank you for this information. I belong to the First Baptist Church, Thornton, Ark. Respectfully,
C. C. Strickland.
A verbatim copy of the above letter was addressed to Elder Abner Green, and mailed to him at Guin, Ala. Mr. Perry replied as follows:
Sept. 26, 1938.
Dear Sir, Am sorry but I don’t know anything about the matters you mention above; if you will write me the particulars, I will try to investigate and see if there is now or has been such as you mention. Respt., W. J. Perry.
[pg 433] A few days after receiving the above letter from Mr. Perry our friend received the following:
Gum, Ala., Oct. 6, 1938.
Me. Strickland: There is nothing of a debate at Winfield between Elder Bogard and Cayce, but they are about to get up a debate at Winfield with the Campbellites, if they can get someone to debate with them. Well, Mr. Green has done passed over; he died the 10th of January. So I will answer, instead of him.
Mrs. A. W. Green.
R. 2, Guin, Ala.
Now, there you are! On July 11 Bogard gives a witness who passed over on the tenth of last January! The living witness says he knows nothing about it. Say, Bogard, your living witness will have to stand aside. He is not a competent witness, for he knows nothing about it! Wonderful witness! And the second witness is dead, and had been dead six months when you gave his name. Say, Bogard, have you had a letter from him since he left Alabama? Why did you not give his present address? Can you tell us how we can get information from him now? His wife answered for him, as he is beyond reach now, and says there is nothing of a debate between Bogard and Cayce. The reader may ponder these matters, and judge for yourself as to Bogard’s brag—for brag is all that it is, except that it is plainly void of truth. Poor Blowhard! Wonder if that is the way he expects to get to heaven! C. H. C.
[pg 434]
TITUS II. 9, 10
December 1, 1938
Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.—Titus ii. 9, 10.
In this the apostle has instructed Titus to teach and so instruct as is here quoted. Servants were to be taught, instructed, and exhorted to conduct themselves as here laid down. They were to be exhorted to be obedient unto their own masters. This does not necessarily mean that the masters were the actual owners of the servants. A servant is “any person employed by another and subject in his employment to his employer’s directions and control; an agent who is subject to the direction and control of his principal. One who serves, or does services, voluntarily or on compulsion; a person who is employed by another for menial offices, or for other labor, and is subject to his command; a person who labors or exerts himself for the benefit of another, his master or employer.” See Webster’s International Dictionary.
If one is employed by another, then he is a servant of that employer. He may not be a good servant, or he may be a good servant—depending upon how well he serves. If he is not a good servant, then he will not remain indefinitely in the employ of the master or principal—that is, if the principal, or manager of the business, cares for the success of the business he is engaged in. This is a self-evident fact, and needs no proof.
If one who is at the head of a business is aware of [pg 435] the fact that those under him are not conducting themselves according to the instruction given in our text, then it is manifest that the manager himself is not true! There is something wrong with him. The business is not his own; and so he becomes a servant over other servants. Allowing the servants under him to continue in their stations, and they not being true to the master, he thereby becomes a traitor to the master, or to the employer. This principle is true, and holds good in all walks of life, whether in business affairs or governmental affairs. Now make your own application of this, and see where our people stand.
Purloining means “to take away for one’s self; hence, to steal; filch; to practice theft; to steal.” See Webster’s International Dictionary. If one is employed by another, and is paid so much per day, or so much per week, or month; and is supposed to work so many hours per day, or per week, or per month, then that much of his time belongs to his employer. If he is to work one hour for the employer, then that hour of his time belongs to his employer. And that means for him to give the very best of his strength and talent to the work he is employed to do during that hour. If the servant wastes five minutes of that hour he has filched the employer that much; he has stolen that much from the employer.
If a man is employed by the government on W. P. A. work—or any other work, for that matter—and he wastes his time, by leaning on his shovel, or in any other way, he has stolen that time from the government. As the worker is, himself, a part of the government, of course he has stolen a small fraction of that wasted time from himself, and in the final accounting [pg 436] he and his own children, or family, will have it to pay for. About as mean a man, we believe, as we have ever heard of along that line is a man who will steal money out of one of his pockets and put it in another. But such a worker steals from all the taxpayers of the nation, for they have the bill to pay.
In the morning of time, according to the record we have in God’s Book, our Bible, we have it that God said, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground.”—Gen. ii. 19. “In the sweat of thy face” signifies labor, work. This is what God said about it. That is the fiat of the great King and Ruler over all. It has never been revoked or repealed, or even suspended. That is the only honorable way to obtain a living here in this world. This will remain true as long as the world stands. There are only three ways by which one may obtain a living here. One way is to work for it; another way is to beg; the other way is to steal. If one is able to work, it is dishonorable to beg. If one is not able to work and is in destitute circumstances, the same Ruler over all has made it the personal duty of those who have of this world’s goods to supply the needs of the destitute. But it was never made the duty of governments by the Ruler over all to supply those needs. When people attempt to carry out these things in such a way, it is no better than to presume that they have a better way of doing things than the all wise God has directed. No other way will do as well as God’s way. “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”—2 Thess. iii. 10. That way and plan seems to be all out of date in these times. That is too old and out of date for us in [pg 437] these latter days. The plan now seems to be to feed and take care of those who will not work, and all live easy.
In the law which God gave in ancient times He said, “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work.” This is found in Exodus xx. 9; in Exodus xxxiv. 21 He said, “Six days thou shalt work.” But now we must cut down on the work, and live without doing much of that. A flagrant violation of what God has commanded. If we want happiness and prosperity in the land, or in the church, do what God has commanded; live in obedience to His laws and commandments.
But does the infallible and sufficient rule—the Book of God—give any instruction to the masters? Yes, indeed. “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven. “—Col. iv. 1. Read also Eph. vi. 5-9. Which is the worse, for the servant to steal, or for the master? Is it not just as bad for one to steal as for the other? If the master fails to give that which is just to the servant, then the master is stealing from the servant; but that is no more wrong than for the servant to steal from the master. And if one does wrong that does not justify the other in doing wrong. Two wrongs never make a right.
“But shewing all good fidelity.” Fidelity means “faithfulness; adherence to right; careful and exact observance of duty, or discharge of obligations; especially, adherence to a person or party to which one is bound; loyalty.” See Webster’s International Dic- tionary. It seems to us that this is so clear that no further comment is needed. We should all be faithful and loyal in discharging every duty which devolves upon [pg 438] us, in every walk of life. May the Lord help us to think on these things, and give us strength for our day and for every trial. ” C. H. C.
CLOSE OF VOLUME LIII
December 15, 1938
This issue brings volume fifty-three of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST to a close. Fifty-three years of publishing this paper have been finished. Many changes have come during these years. There have been wars, and famines, and pestilences, and fires, and earthquakes, and storms, and cyclones, and tornadoes, and failures, and depressions, and high prices, and low prices, and surpluses, and short crops, uprisings, and downsittings, dark days, and days of sunshine, and extravagance, and bankruptcies, and poverty-stricken ones, and millionaires—and what not. Through it all the Lord has brought us to this good hour. His mercies have never failed, and He has not changed. He is the same God that He was fifty-three years ago, and the same that He has ever been. His truth is the same. There has been no change in the principles of truth. God is the author of all truth, and so there is no change in truth.
No matter what the circumstances may have been, or what they may be, what was a principle of truth any number of years ago is a principle of truth today. We asked a man once if he would then unqualifiedly endorse an article which he wrote several years before. After a time he answered that he would if the circumstances were the same. Would circumstances change a principle of truth? If it was wrong to lie fifty-three years [pg 439] ago, it is wrong to lie today. It has always been wrong to lie. It has always been wrong to steal. It has always been wrong to commit adultery, and it is wrong yet. It has always been right to contend for the truth, and it is right to do that yet. It has always been right for one to acknowledge his mistakes, and correct them when possible, and it is right yet. But there have been some men all along the line who would not do that, and there are some who are that way yet. We suppose it will always be that way. “Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived,” so says God’s Book, and we still believe that, as we have been doing all these years.
The Lord has cared for His church ever since He set it up here in the world, and He is caring for it yet. He has promised to preserve His kingdom, and “all the promises of God in Christ Jesus are yea and amen, to the glory of God.” There have been, and may yet be, dark and dismal scenes for His humble poor to pass through; but “God is faithful, by whom ye were called into the fellowship of His Son.” God cares for the sparrows, and He cares for His little children.
His mercies are everlasting. He never fails. He has never left us alone. He has been with us, and cared for us, in many deep sorrows and distresses. Blessed be His holy name, for His wonderful works to the children of men! Though the people forsake Him, though His children be forgetful and neglectful, yet He has never forgotten or been neglectful of them. He is rich in mercy. Being rich, the supply of mercy and grace is inexhaustible. There is no such thing as His mercy being exhausted. If it should be exhausted, everlasting ruin would be ours—not one would escape. [pg 440]
Notwithstanding the great wickedness in the world today, yet the Lord is merciful, and still preserves the universe and the world still stands. But there may be a great scourging ahead—unless some turn from their wicked way and from the course that things are going. May the Lord pity us, and preserve His faithful few from the awful catastrophe.
Let us count up our blessings, if we can. Surely the Lord has been good to us all. Notwithstanding the great wickedness going on in our own nation, yet the Lord has been good, and is good, to this wicked nation. Think of the war going on in Spain, and in China, and the serious and dire threatenings of war in the entire old world! Yet, this nation is still blessed with peace with other nations and among ourselves. Wonderful blessing! Do we appreciate it as we should? Should we not, with the close of this year and the ushering in of another New Year, consecrate and dedicate our lives anew to the service and praise and adoration of our God, and begin the coming year with renewed determination, and by His help, to be more devoted to Him than we have in the past? May His blessings rest upon you, dear reader; and when you pray, please remember us and our little family. Pray God to forgive all our past mistakes and follies, and to help us to live closer to Him what remaining days we have left us on earth. C. H. C.
[pg 441]
INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME LIV.
January 5, 1939
Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.—Phil. iii. 13, 14.
As we pondered in mind the matter of writing an article as an introductory to Volume LIV the above Scripture came to mind. The expression, “I count not myself to have apprehended” means that he did not claim that he yet possessed what he evidently desired to possess and to attain to, as expressed in the language following. But he expressed a desire and determination to “press toward the mark.” That signifies a desire to press forward. In a great measure the beloved apostle here expressed the desire of our poor heart as we enter this new year and new volume of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST.
We would be glad if every reader could and would join with us in “forgetting those things which are behind.” So many things have been done in the past which should be forgiven and forgotten. Things have been said which should not have been said. They cannot be unsaid. But we can confess our wrongs, whether those wrongs were wrong words or wrong deeds. And we can and should forgive those who have trespassed against us. “It is human to err and divine to forgive.”
We do not have a mind to write a long article as an introductory to this volume. We do feel, however, to say that it is our desire to labor for the unity and peace of the Lord’s dear children. It is our desire to labor for [pg 442] the unifying of the church in all places. We confess that sometimes things creep into our columns which should not be published. We confess that we make mistakes, and sometimes let things go in that should not be allowed. Perhaps some may think they could do better in the publishing of an Old Baptist paper than we do; and perhaps they could. It would be too bad if no one on earth could do any better than we do in some things. But sometimes we are imposed on. Sometimes things are sent to us for publication which should not be published, but it may be concerning something we know nothing about, and we are innocent in the matter. It may be a matter that looks good to one who does not know all about the matter. When such is the case, somebody has not dealt honestly with the editor; and the editor is blamed for the matter unless he will publish something contrary to the other, or make some statement about it, by way of correction or exposing it. If he does that he sure incurs the displeasure of some, and so somebody is “ruffled,” no matter how things may go in the premises. Things like this have been encountered by us along the line. But we desire to be as the apostle, “forgetting those things which are behind.” We still desire to be “reaching forth unto those things which are before.”
“The mark for the prize of the high calling” is before. So it is needful to press forward. Let us not go backward. “No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”—Luke ix. 62. If a man is plowing in a field and looks back, he is sure to plow a crooked furrow. Let us keep our faces turned toward Jerusalem. Let us “press toward the mark.” To press is to push hard. [pg 443] Labor to that end. “Strive for the things that make for peace.” Do the things that tend to peace and not confusion. DO as well as TALK. Let us not be found talking peace and about peace, and doing contrary to our talk. “And let the peace of God rule in your hearts. “—Col. iii. 15. If we let the peace of God rule in our hearts, we will labor for peace. May the Lord help us to thus labor in the publication of this volume of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, and every volume He may permit us to live and publish, is our humble prayer. Brethren, reader, will you pray for us to this end?
C. H. C.
REMEMBRANCES
January 5, 1939
Here we are now, wanting to say something, and we do not know what to say nor how to say it. We just do not know how to find words to tell how thankful we feel and how much we appreciate the kind remembrances we have received during the holidays. Many nice and beautiful and splendid cards have been received during the holidays. Many sent us substantial gifts as an expression of Christian love and affection. We appreciate all these things more than we have words to tell. These gifts and remembrances have all helped to lighten our burdens, and have helped to make us feel lighthearted, and have given us renewed courage to press on in our efforts to serve the Lord and His dear people. They have brought to us the assurance and renewed evidences that we are not without friends, and that we have them in different states [pg 444] and different parts of the country. Many times we have felt to be cast down and almost forsaken and alone; but we know now that we are not forsaken, nor are we alone. May Heaven’s richest blessings rest upon each and every one who has thus brought cheer and courage to us—to the editor and his dear companion and children—during these holidays. Our sincere and hearty thanks to each one. Again we say, may the Lord bless you. C. H. C.
TRIUNE GOD
January 19, 1939
Sister Bettie Murrie, of Avant, Okla., and Brother W. T. Parker, of Purvis, Miss., asked us some time ago to give our views on the Trinity in the Godhead. Sister Murrie asked if they are three spirit beings. We will try to give our views of the matter in a very brief way.
In the first verse of the Bible we have the language, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” The word which is here, as well as in other places in the Old Testament, translated God is a word which denotes a plurality—that is, more than one; rather, it denotes one composed of more than one. The word does not signify as to how many the one is composed of, but it is more than one. A plurality is an indefinite number; but it is more than one. It may be two, or three, or four, or any other number more than one. But though God be composed of more than one, yet He is but one God.
Christ (Jesus) was God; and He was also man. He [pg 445] was the Son of Mary; and He was also, at the same time, the Son of God. He was God manifest in the flesh (1 Tim. iii. 16). He was the Word; see John i. 1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Turn and read the following verses. Verse 14 tells us that “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” So, now we have the Son of God, which also carries with it the idea of a Father. Here is something which puzzles the finite mind—how that Christ could be God, or called God, and also called the Son of God; how He could be the Son, and still be as old as the Father. This is true, however, from the fact that He was and is the eternally begotten Son of God. Hence, though they be thus spoken of as Father and Son, yet they are one. They are one in divine essence, one in power, one in purpose, one in glory. Paul tells us in Heb. i. 3 that the Son is the express image of the Father. The terms “Holy Ghost” and “Holy Spirit” mean the same thing. “God is a Spirit. “—John iv. 24. So, we have three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. “—1 John V. 7. The three are the One God. But, though they are one, they are spoken of as separate, from the different office work of the three Divine Persons in the one Godhead. It was the office work of the Father to elect, make choice of His people, and to ” predestinate them unto the adoption of sons; it was the office work of the Son to redeem; and it is the office work of the Holy Spirit to regenerate those whom the
[pg 446] Son redeemed, and to bring them into divine relationship with God.
The work of the salvation of poor sinners is, therefore, all the work of God, and will end in the final glorification of all the heirs of promise.
In Gen. i. 26 we have this language, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” A likeness is a picture. Although God is a Spirit, yet man is a faint picture of Him. God is spoken of as having a head, eyes, ears, nostrils, body, hands, arms, feet, etc., and man has all these. We do not understand that God has these things literally, or materially, as we do; but these things picture God to us but faintly. He is an infinite being, and cannot be comprehended by finite beings, as we are. But man is one composed of three—the body, the soul, and the spirit. We can divide between the soul or the spirit and the body; but we cannot divide between the soul and the spirit; but the Lord can. Heb. iv. 12, 13, “For the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight,” etc. Here we have it that the Word of God can and does divide between the soul and the spirit; but man cannot do this. As God is one composed of three, so is man one composed of three—thus, not only in the likeness of God, but also in the image of God. The man, the one made in the likeness and image of God, is the only being of God’s creation that sinned. These are a few of our thoughts on this wonderful [pg 447] subject, though we have written more than we thought we would when we began this. May the Lord bless the same to the benefit of the reader.
C. H. C.
WHEN ARE WE SHEEP?
January 19. 1939
Quite a while ago Brother Pleasant Brown, of Bloomington, Ind., asked us to give a definition on “when are we sheep?” In the mind and purpose of God His people were always His sheep. Before they had any existence, even in eternity, before time was, they were embraced in the everlasting covenant, which is ordered in all things and sure. Hence, in His purpose they were His sheep then. But being members of the Adam family, they were involved in sin in the fall, or in the transgression of Adam. They went into bondage in that transgression, and so they needed to be redeemed. To redeem is to buy back. In the everlasting covenant they were given to the Son. When the fullness of the time was come Christ came into the world, made of a woman, born of the virgin Mary, and redeemed them from under the curse of the law. He paid the redemption price in full. Then they were His sheep by redemption. Then the Holy Spirit comes into the heart of every heir of promise, just at the right time—not a moment too soon, nor a moment too late, and quickens them into divine life; raises them up out of a state of death in sin to a life in Christ. By this work they are brought into divine relationship with God; they are made partakers of His divine nature. Then they are thus made His sheep by divine [pg 448] relationship. In the resurrection at the last day their bodies will be raised from the dead, made spiritual—for it is the same body that is sown a natural body that is raised a spiritual body. Then, in soul, body, and spirit, they will be received into glory—glorified—and will dwell with the Lord in eternity. May this be your happy lot, is our prayer. C. H. C.
COULD HE HAVE KEPT FROM IT?
February 2, 1939
A brother has asked us “if Adam, in the garden, could have kept from eating the apple?” We do not know whether the fruit he ate was an apple or not; we rather think, if it was an apple, it may have been a crab apple. A crab apple will make your mouth “pucker,” and the mouth of man seems to have been “puckered” all along down the line. Perhaps it was sour grapes that he ate, as the children’s teeth have been on edge. Do you know anything about ‘possum grapes? Maybe it was ‘possum grapes he ate. Or it might have been a peach, or an apricot.
Anyhow, laying aside foolishness, we have been under the impression that it was the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that he ate. It seems to us that this is the way we have learned it in the Book. The man violated the law which God gave him. If the man could not help doing what God told him not’ to do, then punishment could not possibly be inflicted upon any principle of justice. If the man did violate the law, which he did, and he is justly punished for the violation, then he could have kept from violating it. [pg 449] Paul, the inspired apostle to the Gentiles, said that “the law is just.” As the law is just, then the punishment of the violator is just; and as the punishment of the violator is just, then the man did not have to violate the law. If he could not have obeyed and kept the law, then he had to violate it. If it is argued that he had to violate it in order that people be saved in heaven, then that makes the salvation of men and women dependent upon wicked works— the very worst sort of Arminianism. God knew what the man could do just as well as He knew what he would do. To say that the man had to violate the law because God knew that he would is to deny that God knew the other side of the question. The man who argues that a thing had to be the way it was because God knew it would be that way denies the foreknowlege of God, for he denies that God knew the other side of the question. The servant that received one talent hid his Lord’s money; but the talent was given according to his ability. Hence he had the ability to improve the talent. God gave him the ability and then gave him the talent. As God knew he had the ability. He knew he could improve the talent. But He also knew that he would not improve it. He knew both sides of the question.
The brother also asks, “If he could, why did Christ stand as a lamb slain from the foundation of the world?” To this we will say that He did not. We have heard that said times without number. There is no such statement as that in God’s Book. Rev. xiii. 8 says, “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship Him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Their names were written from the foundation of the [pg 450] world. Where were they written? In the book of life. What book of life? Of the Lamb slain. If He stood, He was not slain. If He was slain, He did not stand. That very expression is self-contradictory, and we have often wondered why brethren would use it. Why not quit contradicting yourselves? Rev. xvii. 8 says: “And they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world.” This shows that what was from the foundation of the world was the writing of their names. The Lord knew that His people would fall into the bondage of sin, as well as He knew that man did not have to transgress, and so Christ was made surety for them.
C. H. C.
BIBLE CLASSES
February 2, 1939
We see in the Baptist Trumpet that they have some so-called Bible classes now. That is the way they usually start a Sunday school in Primitive Baptist churches. Just call the thing a Bible class. Of course they are following the Lord in this; for did not Paul say, in Titus i. 5, “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee?” The word wanting means left undone, according to the marginal reading. So the apostles left undone the matter of organizing Bible classes or Sunday schools, but authorized the organization of such things in this language. So they also left undone the [pg 451] organization of ladies’ aid societies, women’s missionary societies, junior leagues, senior leagues, ladies’ auxiliaries, and the thousand-and-one other things which the world has. You folks may be kept busy now for a few years in catching up with the world in these matters you have started into. Go to it, boys. You have imbibed the Campbellite theory that baptism is a cure- all, and now you are taking on the Sunday school idea. We suggest for your next move to get some Campbellite or other Arminian literature for your Sunday school, as we see your class is open to all. Phew! That thing stinks!
C. H. C.
MEETINGS RESUMED
February 2, 1939
In our issue of November 17, 1938, was a notice under the above heading of meetings being resumed at a certain place in New Mexico. After the paper was sent out some party wrote us that those people had been excluded. So we tried to investigate the matter to some extent, and we got the information that there has been some trouble there. We did not learn enough about the matter to form an opinion as to the merits or demerits of the case; but it seems to us that everything is not just right at that place. We feel that it is but justice to our readers for us to say this much about the matter.
It is a great pity that people will impose such things on the editors of our papers. It would be so much better if people would settle their troubles when they have them without pursuing a different course—trying to [pg 452] get in with somebody, or trying to get others involved in some way with their troubles. When a church has troubles we believe it would be better for them and for the cause if everybody would stay away from them, and take no part in their affairs, until they settle their troubles. Let them alone until they get straightened out. It would be still better if each one would behave himself in the house of God, and thereby have no trouble in the church. C. H. C.
MALACHI IV. 5, 6
February 2, 1939
Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.—Mai. iv. 5, 6.
About two years ago Sister A. M. Law, of Marvell, Ark., requested us to write some on Mal. iv. 5. We have quoted both verses 5 and 6 above. This is a prophecy of the coming of John the Baptist, and of the work he was to do. The same prophet spoke of him in iii. 1, “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me.” The Saviour lets us know in Matt. xi. 7-14 that the coming of John was a fulfillment of this prophecy. In verse 14 He says, “And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.” But John said he was not Elias; and he was not Elias in person; but he was Elias in that he came in the spirit and power of Elijah’s God. Concerning John the angel said, in Luke i. 16, 17, “And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. [pg 453] And he shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” C. H. C.
HOLY KISS
February 2, 1939
In 1935 a sister asked us what is meant by the “holy kiss,” as spoken of by the apostle in Rom. xvi. 16 and other places. We believe it would be as well, or better, to give Gill’s comments on that, rather than to write on it ourselves. Here is what Gill said in commenting on Rom. xvi. 16. C. H. C.
THE COMMENTS
Christian salutation is a wishing all temporal, spiritual, and eternal happiness to one another; and which, as it should be mutual, should be also hearty and sincere, and this is meant by the “holy kiss;” the allusion is a common custom in most nations, used by friends at meeting or parting, to kiss each other, in token of their hearty love, and sincere affection and friendship for each other; and is called “holy,” to distinguish it from an unchaste and lascivious one; and from an hypocritical and deceitful one, such an one as Joab gave to Amasa, when, inquiring of his health, he took him by the beard to kiss him, and stabbed him under the fifth rib; and as Judas, who cried, “hail Master,”to Christ, and kissed Him, and betrayed Him into the hands of His enemies. I say, it is an allusion to this custom, for it is only an allusion; the apostle did not mean that any outward action should be made use of, only that their Christian salutations should not be mere complaisance, or expressed by bare words, and outward gestures and actions, either of the hand or mouth; but that they should spring from real love and true friendship, and be without dissimulation, hearty and sincere.
[pg 454]
DOORS CLOSED
February 2, 1939
A brother has asked us what we think about a church closing her doors against a sound orderly preacher. Well, we might think there is something wrong somewhere. A man might be a good man, as we speak of men, and be sound and orderly, and yet can’t preach to the edifying of the body. He might be trying to work with a gift that he really does not possess. A man can’t preach just because he wants to, or has the desire. A man might have a desire to preach, and not have a call from God to preach. Perhaps the Lord has not bestowed that gift upon him. Then there might be something wrong with the church. They might be led by someone who should not be leading. There might be many things we could think. Circumstances might be such as for it to be imprudent for a sound orderly man to preach at a certain place. As to the conditions that exist where the question came from, we do not know, and we do not care to meddle with their affairs. We do not care to be a busybody. C. H. C.
JOHN V. 37-42
February 16, 1939
A brother has asked for our views on John v. 40-42, and asked, “Who was the Saviour talking to in the last two verses—are they children of God or not?” Let us here quote verses 37 to 42:
And the Father Himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His [pg 456] shape. And ye have not His word abiding in you: for whom He hath sent. Him ye believe not. Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. I receive not honor from men. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
To begin with, it seems to us that here is a very clear description of the persons addressed. They had never heard the voice of the Lord. “For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.”—John v. 21. “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.”—Verse 25. If one has never heard the voice of the Lord, he has never been made alive from the dead; he is still dead in trespasses and sins. It is by the voice of the Lord speaking that sinners are made alive from the dead. When He speaks they hear, and are made alive from the dead. So, if one has not heard that voice he is still dead in trespasses and sins.
“And ye have not His word abiding in you.” Word, here, is the logos word, ending in on, reading logon, which is the accusative case and singular number of logos. “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.”—Rom. viii. 9. “He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.”—1 John v. 12. It appears to us, from these statements, that here are two very plain evidences that these people were the unregenerated scribes and Pharisees. A Pharisee is a religionist all right; but that religion is a worldly religion. Paul was a strict Pharisee before he was regenerated. He was a strict religionist, but was not a child of God by regeneration. The Pharisee [pg456] religion was removed from his heart when he was regenerated.
“But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.” They were destitute of the love of God. That love was not in them. “Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.”—1 John iv. 7, 8. The command, or admonition, here given is not meant to convey the idea, nor in the sense, that we should manufacture in our hearts a love for one another. It does not mean that we can or should voluntarily love anyone that we do not love. But it is in line with the expression in verse 18 of the previous chapter, “My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.” Hence, it means for us to love one another in doing, for in deed means in doing. If we are not showing our love by our doing, we are not loving one another in the sense that we are here commanded. But “every one that loveth is born of God.” Then, if one does not love God, it is because he has not been born of God. “We love Him because He first loved us.”—1 John iv. 19. God’s love manifested is the cause; our loving Him is the effect. “Like causes under like circumstances always produce like effects.” This is a true scientific fact. Hence, where the cause exists, the effect will also always exist. These people did not have the love of God in them; and remember that God’s love is the cause. They did not have the cause in them to produce such an effect as for them to love God. They did not love God because they did not have the cause in them to produce it. We suppose, now, that this is enough on that line, or on that part of the subject. So we will proceed to verse 39.
[pg 457] On a part of this verse (39) we shall not express an opinion so much as we shall present a few facts. That verse reads: “Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” In the Interlinear the verse begins, “Ye search,” as though it might be simply a statement of fact; but the word in the original is ereunate, pronounced er-yoo-nah-ta. According to Bagster’s Analytical Greek Lexicon this is second person, plural number, present tense, imperative mood of ereunao. Hence, the Saviour was addressing the persons already described above; second person, signifying persons addressed. Plural number—more than one person addressed. Present tense, signifies present time. Imperative mood, according to Webster’s International Dictionary, is “expressive of command, entreaty, advice, or exhortation, as the imperative mood. Expressive of, or of the nature of, command; directive; commanding; authoritative; as, imperative orders. Not to be avoided or evaded; urgent; obligatory; binding; compulsory; as, an imperative duty or work.” According to Macmillan’s Modern Dictionary, “In grammar, expressing a command, entreaty, or exhortation.” So, it is necessarily a fact that the Saviour commanded these people to “search the Scriptures.” We do not give this as simply a view of the matter, but these are just simple facts.
There is no eternal life in the Scriptures, though worldly religionists may think so. Eternal life is in Jesus, and the Scriptures so testify. “And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.”—1 John v. 11. “This is the record” —it is so recorded. “And this life is in His Son.” Eternal life is in Jesus—not in the Scriptures. The [pg 458] Scriptures testify as to where the eternal life is. No man, even in nature, can take the plain language recorded in Scripture and make it appear therefrom that eternal life is in the Scriptures. The letter of the Book is too plain for that. Yet the unregenerate man does not, and will not, believe this truth; and that only evidences the truthfulness of the Book. The unregenerate man will not accept, or believe, the plain statements that are found in the Book, even though he knows what the language says. We remember once, in con- versation with a party, that we quoted some language recorded in the ninth chapter of Romans. The party said “that is a dangerous doctrine” and “would not do.” We replied that it was so recorded in the Book. The reply was, “I do not believe it, even if it is in the Book; it is a dangerous doctrine, and will not do.” Once in debate with a man we quoted this language of the Saviour: “And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.”—John xi. 26. Then we asked him, “Believest thou this?” He shook his head—answering that he did not believe it.
“And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.” They had no will to come to Him. The Interlinear reads: “And ye are unwilling to come to me, that life ye might have.” Their will was to not come to Him. Will springs from life. They had no such will because they had no life to produce such a will. The carnal mind is enmity against God. The mind being enmity against God, the will is contrary to Him and to His teaching.
All this clearly and plainly, to our mind, teaches the truthfulness of the doctrine taught by the Primitive Baptists. Brethren, we have the truth, and we should [pg 459] rejoice in it and delight in contending for it. We should “contend earnestly for the faith that was once delivered unto the saints.” It is the only doctrine that provides comfort and consolation for God’s humble poor here in this world. It is “our meat and drink.” May His blessings rest upon the reader, is our prayer. C. H. C.
ROMANS VIII. 13
February 16, 1939
For if ye live after the fiesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.—Rom. viii. 13. Some time ago Brother B. T. Altman, of Wauchula, Fla., asked us to write an article on this text. In compliance with the request we will try to write a few lines. This language was addressed to the church of God at Rome. Let this fact be noted first, and that for this very fact the language cannot be applied to alien sinners. To apply this language to alien sinners is to say that the church of God at Rome was made up of alien sinners. Note the address in the first chapter, down to and including verse 7. This language, then, is addressed to children of God, those who have been born of God, those who are in possession of the Spirit of God, and not to alien sinners. The word if as used in this text introduces a condition. This signifies that the result mentioned is sure to be reached by the doing of the thing introduced by the word if. “If ye live after the flesh.” The doing of this will surely and certainly lead to the thing the apostle [pg 460] names, which follows as a result: “Ye shall die.” There is a death which necessarily and surely follows as a result of these persons living after the flesh.
The word flesh here manifestly means the old and sinful nature and disposition. It could not possibly mean simply the body of flesh, or lump of flesh. In the absence of life the body itself is nothing but a lump of clay. Hence, to live after the flesh is to live after or follow the old sinful nature, sinful inclinations, sinful desires, which we possess. Even after regeneration we still find left in us that old sinful nature which we had before; and that is why we have a warfare within, which continues as long as we live in the world. In that warfare, if we give over to those old sinful desires, that old sinful nature, we live after the flesh, and that brings death as a result. We thereby lose the fellowship and communion of saints; we lose sweet communion with our blessed Lord and Master. It is called living after the flesh, because it is living after the old sinful nature, the sinful disposition, which we still have in the flesh, in the natural life—the Adamic life.
“But if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.” This could not possibly mean that one will receive spiritual or eternal life as a result of mortifying the deeds of the body through the Spirit. As already observed, this language is addressed to the children of God, to the church at Rome. Not only so, one must first have the Spirit, or be in possession of the Spirit, in order to do anything through the Spirit. Hence, it must necessarily be true that the Lord’s children are those who are here addressed; and they should, through the Spirit, mortify the deeds of the body. By so doing, and as a result of so doing, they enjoy a life [pg 461] that it is impossible to enjoy by doing any other way. They thereby live—not obtain life; but live. There is a living here promised which depends upon them doing what is laid down—it depends upon what they do. May the Lord help us to live closer to Him, and to be more obedient than we have in days gone by, and thereby enjoy the sweet manifestations of His glorious presence and approving smiles while we live here in the world. C. H. C.
SCIOTO ASSOCIATION
March 2, 1939
We have a history of the Scioto Association which was published when that association was one hundred years old, then an outline since that time (1904) to 1938. We also have a copy of the proceedings of the organization of the association in October, 1805. It was our intention to publish a little history of the association in our columns in some detail; but our space is so limited that we will have to abridge much more than we had intended.
The meeting of the organization was held Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, October 12, 13, and 14, 1805. The introductory sermon was delivered by Elder Cyrus Paulk, from Zech. iv. 11, 12. Four churches were represented—Ames, 49 members; Pleasant Run, 36 members; Old Chillicothe, 14 members; Salt Creek, 33 members. A circular letter was inserted in the minutes. To show where those old soldiers of the cross stood, and that the Primitive Baptists are still [pg 462] occupying the same ground today, we will take the space to insert that circular letter here.
THE CIRCULAR LETTER
The Elders and Brethren convened at Old Chillicothe, to the Churches in our Union, send Christian Salutation: Dearly Beloved in the Lord: We call upon you to rejoice that the great Head of His church is set upon His holy hill, Zion, and that the government is upon His shoulders; He will build His church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is He that stands amidst the golden candlesticks, and holds the stars in His right hand. He has all gifts, and ’tis He that has promised that the wilderness and the solitary places shall be glad for Him.
The design of our corresponding in an association we wish to be understood, to become acquainted the better with each other; to be an advisory council, and not to give up the independence of each individual church. We consider that each church is possessed of full power to rule itself under Christ and His divine laws; and that no rule or vote of the association is to bind any church, farther than in love and entire satisfaction they may accept it. We believe it is the privilege of any brethren who want help in conducting any of their special business to apply to such church, or particular brethren, as they shall choose, to constitute a church, ordain a minister, or settle differences, where a church or churches think themselves unable to do it.
We only want to know that our churches are built upon the foundation of the apostles, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone; that they keep the ordinances as they were delivered, and that they walk in the fellowship of the gospel of peace. These will doubtless be the grounds of the churches participating in mutual joy. On this ground they will feel a confidence to stir up one another to love and good works, and enjoy a satisfactory interview. At this meeting we trust we have had the blessing of our dear Lord’s presence, when we have given attention to the preaching of His Word, in our prayers, praises and special interview; thanks to His name. And now may [pg 463] the peace of God rule in your hearts through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. Signed,
Nathan Cory, Moderator.
Peter Jackson, Clerk.
Right here we wish to digress, inserting this little paragraph by way of parenthesis: The idea that an association is not a higher court is no new thing among Baptists. To hold that an association is a higher court, and has the right or authority to sit in judgment over the church is a departure. Note carefully what these brethren said more than one hundred years ago. It is no new thing among Baptists that the church is the highest ecclesiastical authority on earth. The statement along this line the Nashville (Tenn.) Peace Meeting in 1937 is in perfect harmony with what these old brethren said in October, 1805. The following are the names of those who served as moderator, and the years they served: Nathan Cory, 1805-06; Samuel Comer, 1807; Nathan Cory, 1808-1819; John Littleton, 1820-21; Nathan Cory, 1822; Alex. Holden, 1823; Nathan Cory, 1824-26; Wm. Baker, 1827; Nathan Cory, 1828; Wm. Baker, 1829-38; J. B. Moore, 1839; Wm. Baker, 1840; J. B. Moore, 1841-45; Geo. Ambrose, 1846-47; Wm. Baker, 1848-50; J. B. Moore, 1851-55; J. S. Johnson, 1856-57; D. Scofield, 1858-68; G. N. Tusing, 1869; D. Scofield, 1870; G. N. Tusing, 1871; D. Hess, 1872; S. C. Stover, 1873-74; D. Hess, 1875-77; D. G. Baker, 1878-80; no session listed in the history for 1881-82; D. Hess, 1883; D. T. Poynter, 1884- 90; L. T. Ruffner, 1891-92; J. W. Hoppes, 1893-94; G. N. Tusing, 1895-1904; R. W. Peters, 1905 06; Walter Yeoman, 1907-20; L. T. Ruffner, 1921-23; M. 0. Curp, 1924-28; G. F. Hanover, 1929-38.
The following are the names of those who served as [pg 464] clerk, and the years they served: Peter Jackson, 1805-1819; J. Root, 1820; Peter Jackson, 1821-22; J. Root, 1823-26; Peter Jackson, 1827; J. Root, 1828-29; Ewel Jeffries, 1830-33; T. McNaghten, 1834-38; Geo. Ambrose, 1839-45; J. Peters, 1846 47; S. P. Ashbrook, 1848-62; T. A. Peters, 1863-72; T. Cole, 1873-78; W. D. Wood, 1879-80 and 1883; no session listed for 1881 and 1882; L. T. Ruffner, 1884-87; T. J. McNaghten, 1888- 92; H. 0. Blue, 1893-94; T. Cole, 1895-96; T. J. McNaghten, 1897-1908; E. A. Huchison, 1909-12; G. F, Hanover, 1913-20; Chester Peters, 1921-22; 0. W. Cory, 1923-1938.
The second session, in 1806, and third session, in 1807, and the last session, in 1938, were held with Pleasant Run Church. According to the records this church has entertained thirty sessions of the association. The 1938 session was the one hundred thirty-fourth. Pleasant Run Church was organized in Virginia in 1790, and went to Ohio as a body in 1801. From the history of the association we quote this language concerning this church: “It has been blessed all along its history with a sound ministry and a discerning membership, and none of the delusions of the day were allowed to take permanent root. It was the first church that called a halt in the attempt made by the modern Missionaries to obtain a permanent foothold among us.”
At the seventy-third session (in 1877) a committee, consisting of Jonathan Peters and Elders Daniel Hess and Thomas Cole, was appointed to prepare a history of the association, and to present the same at the next session, which was done, and the history was published in the minutes of the seventy-fourth session (1878). At the one hundredth session (in 1904) a committee was [pg 465] appointed to bring the history down to that date, a period of one hundred years. Elders L. T. Ruffner and Thomas Cole and Brother T. J. McNaghten were appointed on this committee.
The first eleven sessions were held in October, the next twenty in September. Since then the sessions have been held in August.
The earliest confession of faith on record was adopted in 1816. This confession contained an article which prohibited correspondence with any church or association that did, in principle or practice, hold to involuntary slavery. The confession was revised at later dates, and this article left out. Article 2 of the confession was as follows, and has been retained all along the line:
We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and are the only sufficient and infallible rule of saving knowledge, faith and practice; and that the doctrine of unconditional election, original sin, total depravity of man, justification by Christ; redemption and the forgiveness of sins through His blood and according to the riches of His grace, regeneration, conversion and sanctification by the Spirit, baptism by immersion, final perseverance of the saints through grace to glory, resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment, are the fundamental doctrines thereof, which we feel ourselves bound to maintain.
The association continues in these same principles. From the report of the committee at the seventy- fourth session we take the following:
Each individual church of Jesus Christ derives its existence from the Great Head of the church, Jesus Christ Himself, to whom alone is each one amenable. He alone is the Lawgiver, and He alone the one who has the right to walk as judge among the seven golden candlesticks or churches. To each one He gives of the same Spirit, the same laws, the same power; hence all are equal, and no one is [pg 466] superior, and none inferior. The mutual association of two or more equal servants does not change their relation to their master, or create an additional fund of power; but when so gathered together their highest duty is to “comfort each other with the same comfort wherewith we are comforted of God,” and to “walk in the comfort of the Holy Ghost,” and to “observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”
Hence, no decision of any church, or assembly of churches, can be a law, and should not be obeyed as such; but is valuable only as it may ascertain and point out the mind of Christ. The association is wholly the creature of the several churches. When they fail to meet together, it falls; but it has no power whatever to affect their existence separately. Hence, when queries have been presented, the object has only been to consult as brethren, and no individual church or association of churches can do more than give their advice. Hence, an association is called an “advisory council.” Various queries have been submitted to the association, at different times, for her counsel or advice, a few of which are submitted:
At twenty-first session—Query from Union Church: Can a member that is guilty of a public transgression be restored without general satisfaction? Answer: He cannot. There must be a general satisfaction to the body to wliich he belongs.
Twenty-fourth session—Query from two churches: Has any church a right to silence a minister without a council? Answer: We consider the church independent; but in most cases of difficulty with the preacher, that amounts to a division in the church, we conceive that a council is expedient.
Twenty-ninth session—Query from Laurel: Is it good order for a church to exclude members on the evidence of non-professors? Answer: In some instances testimony from credible persons not belonging to the church may, and ought to, be received; but as to the propriety and weight of such testimony, in any particular case, the church acquainted with the circumstances can best judge.
Fifty-fifth session—Query from Pleasant Run: Is it according to Holy Writ for the church of Christ to receive the administration of ordinances as just, either baptism or the Lord’s Supper, administered by any man not regularly ordained by the church? The [pg 467] association deferred an expression until the fifty-seventh session, when it decided that it was not gospel order to do so.
In the work and report of the committee in 1904 they said:
For information we are indebted to statements made by David Benedict, as quoted in Hassell’s Church History, pages 747, 776, including Judson’s letter to the ladies of America, Black Rock Convention of 1832, Life of J. B. Moore, Mosheim’s Church History, pages 202 and 203, and extracts from minutes and church records; also History of Ketocton Association, by Wm. Fristoe.
Thus it will be observed that they thereby endorsed the Black Rock Address, and held to the same principles the brethren did at Black Rock in contending against the new measures introduced by Fuller and his followers.
The following is so full of good information and good reading that we take the space to copy the same from the history:
It will be observed that this association first met under the simple name of Baptist. It is an ancient name, the most so of all claiming a Christian profession. “In those days came John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness of Judea.” “There was a man sent from God whose name was John.” Under the name Baptist and Anabaptist and the names of those who adhered to Baptist principles was the true God worshiped from the first dawn of Christianity to the present time, though the gates of hell have opposed the travel of God’s people through all past time, as it was declared to the serpent in Eden, “Thou shalt bruise his heel.” This heel bruising is to continue to the end, “for all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” The “young child’s life was sought;” John the Baptist was beheaded; the apostles suffered martyrdom and were made “as the filth of the world and the offscouring of all things.” They were “chosen in the furnace of affliction.” They were to be “hated of all men” for Christ’s sake. They “should not be reckoned among the nations.” They were a “holy nation, a peculiar people.”
[pg 468] Their great persecutor is presented under the figure of a beast having seven heads and ten horns, having a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and to continue forty and two months (1260 years), to make war with the saints and overcome them. See Rev. xiii. The second beast spoken of in that chapter, having two horns like a lamb, but a voice like a dragon, a pleasant exterior, but inwardly having the same nature as the first beast, is another persecutor of the saints. Under all these adverse circumstances were they to live, and great numbers of them sealed their faith with their lives, in the prison or at the fagot. All this was the result of the unholy alliance of church and state, a union forbidden of God and denominated in the Scriptures as adultery and fornication, a crime for which the Jews, as a figurative nation, suffered severely.
How often were friendly overtures made to the Jews, “Cast in thy lot among us, let us all have one purse.”—Prov. i. 14. See also Ezra iv. 2. The adversaries said, “Let us build with you; for we seek your God, as ye do.” But the proposition was wisely rejected; an example set by the typical Jews, not followed in these last days by all professed Baptists. These adversaries of Judah and Benjamin were really enemies, as appeared shortly afterwards. But their snare they thought was concealed, knowing that “in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird.”—Prov. i. 17.
The name Anabaptist was applied to those who repudiated the Catholic order and would not recognize their baptism. Says Mosheim, in the epitome of his Ecclesiastical History, pages 202 and 203, “The true origin of that sect which acquired the denomination of Anabaptists, by their administering anew the rite of baptism to those who came over to their communion, is hid in the remote depths of antiquity and is extremely difficult to be ascer- tained.” “Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay concealed in almost all the countries of Europe * * * * many persons who adhered tenaciously to the following doctrine which the Waldenses and others had maintained, some in a more disguised, and others in a more open way, viz., That the kingdom of Christ, or the visible church He had established upon earth, was an assemblage of true and real saints, and ought to be inaccessible to the wicked and unrighteous, and also exempt from all those institutions which [pg 469] human prudence suggests, to oppose the progress of iniquity or to correct and reform transgressors.”
Two learned members of the Dutch Reformed Church, appointed by the king of Holland to examine into the origin and the history of the Dutch Baptists, reported in their book published in 1819 as follows: “The Baptists may be considered as the only Christian community which has stood since the days of the apostles, and as a Christian society which has preserved the pure doctrine of the gospel through all ages.” See Hassell, page 471. From the first of their organization in apostolic times they were antagonized by Pagan powers, next by Papists, and as they always protested against them, even at the risk of their own lives, even unto death, they were the first and original protestants long before the rise of Luther and Calvin.
The figurative Israel, in coming up out of Egypt, were accompanied by a mixed multitude, which were found along the line down to the end of the Jewish world. When the types ended and the antitype succeeded, there was also a mixed multitude peculiar to itself. But in both type and antitype, Israel has been and is a “speckled bird,” “the birds round about are against her.”—Jar. xii. 9.
As before stated, at the setting up of the gospel kingdom the term Baptist was sufficient to distinguish this “peculiar people” from others of Christian profession, when their denominational name was referred to, though they were afterward referred to as sects or heretics by way of derision in Mosheim’s and Ruter’s histories and others. The same name Baptist alone served to distinguish them in this association until A. D. 1837, when the most remarkable event in her history occurred. A division in the general body occurred, and as both sides claimed the name Baptist the adjectives “Old School” and “New School” Baptists were used to distinguish them. As different views were held on the doctrine of the atonement, the words special and particular atonement were used to designate the Old School party, and still later the word Predestinarian was used. The title Primitive Baptist obtains now generally. All these adjective terms describe those of apostolic origin.
The causes that led to the division, and made necessary the above descriptive words, form the most important part of our history, to [pg 470] which we will now briefly allude. The division referred to was not caused by open and outward foes, whose violent persecutions had a tendency to unite rather than divide. Paul prophesied that after his departure “grievous wolves should 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.” The Saviour gave warning. “Beware of false prophets who come among you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” A further caution is, “Take heed how you hear,” and “take heed what ye hear.” We read also that “in the last days perilous times shall come. Men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. From such turn away.” “Of this sort are they which creep into houses (churches), laden with sins, led away with divers lusts.” Again, “Mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them. For they are such as serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.”
It was by good words and fair speeches that sin entered into the world; “for when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also to her husband, and he did eat.” The plan of the subtle serpent has never been improved upon. Notice, he did not tell the woman that she would surely not die, thus boldly denying God’s word, but that she should not surely die. As much as to say, “You may die or you may not die; and in case you do not die, ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” This was the first open promulgation of the chance system on the lottery plan.
In like manner the Bible doctrine of the special, definite, atonement was not at first violently antagonized by anyone claiming our name, but by artfully substituting an indefinite atonement, sufficient for the whole world were the whole world to believe in Him, thus pivoting the eternal salvation of any or every one on belief as a condition instead of the blood of Christ, and keeping out of view that “it is the work of God that ye believe in Him whom He hath sent. “—John vi. 27. Thus virtually denying the Bible doctrine of [pg 471] eternal election, or being chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. “Knowing, brethren, your election of God.”—1 Thess. i. 4. Thus transferring the place of election from the precincts of eternity to the precincts of time, and taking it out of the hands of God and putting it in the hands of carnal man. “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.”—John xv. 16. “How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed! The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold, how are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands of the potter!”—Lamentations of Jeremiah iv. 1, 2.
All of the foregoing was introduced among our people in England over one hundred years ago, not by outside enemies but by men of themselves, soon to be transferred to American churches, and from small and tentative beginnings it took root, and by affiliating with kindred systems of similar age, all unknown to the Bible of our original principles of faith, it developed more and more its inherent character and its paternity. Apostolic fellowship is based alone on apostolic doctrine, and errors, however small, cannot be defended by the truth, but only by good words and fair speeches and following cunningly devised fables. Becoming more and more amplified, it claimed the power of saving souls from eternal burnings by the preaching of their gospel and patterning after Papal Rome and Mahomet, and more recently the Mormons. Missionaries were sent the world over, ostensibly to save souls, but gold in abundance being necessary, to propel the gospel, the Papal system of the fourteenth century was adopted. They abridged the Decalogue into two words, “fine gold,” without which gold millions had gone to hell and millions more would follow. See Hassell’s Church History, pages 772, 773, and 774. No difference between the holy and profane was searched after. And, as in Ezekiel’s time, great and still greater abominations were shown, even so now. Strong delusions are sent of God to manifest more and more the mystery of iniquity. “He that hath an ear to hear let him hear.”
Much is said lately about helping the Lord. Uzzah put forth his hand to steady the ark, to help the Lord. We read his fate for so doing. The tabernacle built by Moses had no windows to admit natural light into the holy place, but an inner light continually burned, all typical of the church, the antitype, the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man. This tabernacle is supplied [pg 472] with a continual inner light, needing no natural light. Yet vain man ignores the power of God, in whom is no darkness at all, ignores Him who is the light of the world, and sets at naught the anointing of the Holy One by which the recipient is enabled to know all things, and needs not that any man teach, save “as that same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie.”—1 John ii. 27. Ignoring all this, they teach in the words that man’s wisdom teacheth, and having itching ears and not enduring sound doctrine, teachers are heaped up who can teach man’s wisdom. Not being satisfied with altars made of rough stones, they must pollute them by lifting up their tools upon them to polish them. The unhewed oratory of the brogue of Galilee does not suit the ears of the men of taste. They fear, as did Fuller, that the Baptists would “become a dunghill in society” unless they could induce those to preach who could come with excellency of speech and human wisdom. This was contrary to Paul’s practice who went among the saints, not with excellency of speech or of man’s wisdom, and whose speech and preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. This was in order that their faith might not stand in the wisdom of men but in the power of God, for the wisdom of this world and princes of this world come to nought.
Enough has been said to show cause for withdrawing church fellowship from all that ignored the plain teaching of the Bible, and who so plainly departed from the old landmarks. The question may arise. How or why did any, for a time at least, embrace erroneous views that resulted eventually in a great departure in many sections of America among our people? Snares are always hidden pitfalls; are not at first discernable. Nets are concealed, for “in vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird.” Leaven does not manifest its power and nature suddenly. The spittle at first applied did not give clear sight. The blind man could only see men as trees walking, but afterwards saw clearly. Mark viii. The typical Jews were commanded to drive out the Canaanites from the land the Lord had promised to the children of Abraham. They fought against those that occupied their own land. In the business of discipling they gathered together those whom the Lord had prepared beforehand. They were made fit for heaven by the Holy Ghost before they were qualified to be gathered together in a church [pg 473] capacity. The Holy Ghost first brought the gospel, and no man can do more than to bear witness to it. The Christian is strictly commanded to “be ye separate” from the world,” “for ye are not of the world,” and all intermarriages with the world, spiritually, is forbidden. The evils resulting thereby are typically set forth in the last chapter of Nehemiah. Also in the seventh chapter of Proverbs antichrist is brought to view under the figure of a lewd woman. Now let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: “Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” One commandment is, “Follow me.” Not to go ahead of Him and ask Him to follow us and bless us, as does the world, but to follow Him.
There are many places the children are sometimes found in where Christ never went first, and were it not that the name of God and Christ are sometimes connected with such places, thus giving them a lamb-like appearance, perhaps they would not be so often frequented by the children of the kingdom. How willing are our adversaries to say, as in Ezra iv. 1, “We worship the Lord as you do; let us build together; let us have one purse,” to which sentiment all the world seems to agree except that sect that is everywhere spoken against. Oh, that we would give the same answer the adversaries then received! Please read. Again, let us remember we cannot improve the rule given us in the Holy Scriptures for our conduct, either as churches or individuals. The world furnishes no pattern for the church.
Remember, brethren, your high calling as members of His mystical body. You belong to an ancient family, a royal family. Your history cannot be written without consulting the records of eternity; altogether unlike the harlot daughters of Babylon, whose pedigree, at most, dates back but a few hundred years. Why should we court the favor of so small a thing? Let Zion’s “breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?” Why carry on a commerce with the world, contrary to God’s law? You are entitled to the coin of the realm. O trade in that alone, “For the merchandise” of heavenly wisdom “is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold.” Christ is head to His church, His body, and is head to no other body whatever. Therefore no
[pg 474] one has a charter from Christ to organize or build up anything he pleases and call it by His name, or conduct it in His name. In conclusion we will say that we are at the close of our one hundredth session in 1904. We, as an association, are not alone in our past history. The experience of different associations in America has been the same as ours, and at near the same time. Since 1837 all our churches are as one on all vital points. What hidden snares await us, or what nets may be woven in the looms of Babylon to entangle the feet of the “speckled bird” in its meshes, we know not, during the coming one hundred years, but may we hope that we shall not be ashamed of the gospel of Christ, that we may all along be esteemed as the “filth and off scouring of all things,” and may we not be ashamed of being regarded as the “dung hills of society” by an antichristian world.
Would we be shown the bride, the Lamb’s wife (Rev. xxi. 9) clothed in raiment of needle work, adorned with all the jewelry of heaven, and who, by virtue of her divine relationship to the King of kings, is mistress of the universe? whose name is found in the archives of eternity, who is compared to a city that hath no need of the light of the sun or moon, but is lighted alone by the glory of God and the Lamb? Then behold it in the church of the First Born.
From all the foregoing it will be seen that this old body of Baptists has stood for 134 years, through the storms that have come and gone, and are still holding to the same principles of doctrine which have characterized the church all through the ages. May the Lord bless and prosper them, is our prayer. C. H. C.
ELDER MORGAN REPLIES
March 2, 1939
Elder Morgan, editor of the Trumpet, in that paper of February 16, replies to our article on “Bible Classes,” in our issue of February 2. He makes practically the same argument for having that little baby among them [pg 475] as the Burnamites made when they introduced them a number of years ago. That was one thing they introduced in some churches in Virginia, Kentucky, and other states years ago. The introduction of so-called Bible classes, with other trumpery, brought a division in the church in different states. It did so at Luray, Va., which resulted in a lawsuit over the church property, in which suit the property was awarded to our people who opposed such departures. The introduction of so-called Bible classes frequently is followed by the bringing in of other trumpery, unless the thing is soon abandoned.
Elder Morgan, though, says he “knows nothing of Primitive Baptist starting Sunday school in the Primitive Baptist church.” We had given him credit for being better informed than this. We did not know he was so ignorant of the history of the Primitive Baptists. Did he not know that the Sunday school, or so-called Bible class, was one of the things introduced by the followers of Fuller and Carey? Did he not know that this was also one of the things introduced by E. H. Burnam and his followers—as Pence and Bradley? These matters are historical facts. Better read a little history, Brother Morgan.
Another little matter of history. Brother Morgan, did you not know that there was some trouble in your own section years ago, brought on by a man joining one of the churches there on a forged letter?— that he had been excluded from a church in Tennessee; moved to Texas, and forged a letter and joined a church there on that letter? Did you not know this, Brother Morgan? Did you not also know, Brother Morgan, that this fact was finally found out, and that it caused a [pg 476] great disturbance and division? Honest, Brother Morgan, did you not know something about this affair? Are you totally ignorant of all that? Are you wholly ignorant of the fact that those churches, after being divided for several years, came together and accepted all official work done, not only while they were apart, but also that done by the preacher who was excluded in Tennessee and was a member of one of your churches on a forged letter? Do you not know, Brother Morgan, that the church of your membership was in that matter? Or, are you altogether ignorant of all this? Come clean. Brother Morgan, and tell us whether you have been ignorant of this all the time, or have you known about it? Brother Morgan, did your baptism come through that which was administered by that excluded preacher, or did it not? Be candid with us. Brother Morgan, and tell us what you know about your own baptism—whether it is “Simon-pure” or not.
Brother Morgan, we are not writing this in a spirit of ill-will, nor madness, nor to ridicule. But we would be glad to make you see some of your inconsistencies, if your eyes are not so blinded by prejudice that you cannot see.
We still say that you folks go over the country looking for a job of disturbing folks and getting them to let some of your boys baptize them again and re-organize them into so-called churches. Witness a case in Louisiana; also a recent case in Arkansas. We do not know personally what was wrong in the case in Arkansas, but have read a little about it in the Trumpet. Brother Morgan, do you not know that it is an age-old practice for the Primitive Baptists to settle their [pg 477] troubles, when and where they have had them, and divided, and to come together accepting the baptisms administered by them? Do you not know. Brother Morgan, that it is impossible for you to trace your own baptism back without going through just such procedure? And do you not realize, this being a fact, that your contention and practice unchurches and destroys the identity of every Primitive Baptist church in Texas, as well as in the whole south? You can’t trace your baptism back without going through the Kehukee Association, or through Daniel Parker. Can you? If so, please trace out the line for us, will you? We are not “from Missouri,” but a large number of us need to be cited.
Also, Brother Morgan, please tell us what church excluded some whose baptism you denounce—and what was the charge? Tell us the man, the church, and the charge, please. Prejudice, jealousy, and stubbornness have caused more of these troubles than real disorders or heresy. What a pity. C. H. C.
COMMUNION SERVICE
March 2, 1939
Brother Thomas Herbison, of Dickson, Tenn., has asked us this question, and wants us to answer through the paper: “If there is no deacon present at a communion service, who should wait on the table?” It is the business of the minister to administer the ordinances, and not the deacon. Hence, the minister should break the bread and pour the wine. Then it is customary for the deacon, or deacons, to pass the [pg 478] emblems to the members; but, if no deacon is present, any other brother could do that as well as the deacon. C. H. C.
DEUTERONOMY XIV.
AND LEVITICUS XXV.
March 2, 1939
In July, 1937, Sister Lena Bowlin, of Madison, N. C. asked us to give our views on these two chapters. They are too long to quote here, but we will make a few remarks on them. In a portion of Deut. xiv. the Lord gives instruction to Israel concerning things that they might eat and things they were forbidden to eat. Certain kinds of animals were to be unclean to them, and which they were forbidden to eat. We take it that the observance of the law thus laid down was conducive to good health, as well as that they enjoyed blessings in obedience. In the chapter was given instruction, also, concerning tithing. They were required to give one-tenth of their earnings for the Lord’s cause. Here is one place where many people get their idea of tithing in the present age; but under the gospel what is done is to be as a matter of freewill offering.
In Leviticus xxv. the Lord gave instruction concerning the sabbath years. Under the law every seventh day was a sabbath day and every seventh year was a sabbath year; then every seventh sabbath year there was to be a jubilee year. In the jubilee year, or the fiftieth year, all property was restored to the original owner; debts were cancelled, and servants set free— that is, servants who were Jews. The land could not [pg 479] be sold for perpetual ownership. When the Jews were driven out of the land of Palestine the land was not sold by them nor bought from them. It is their land to this good day. God gave it to them for an everlasting possession, and no land in the country was to be sold, so as to be conveyed forever. The land is still theirs, and some day they will return and possess it. C. H. C.
VIEWS REQUESTED
March 16, 1939
During, or about, January, 1937, Brother G. A. Sweetland, Damascus, Ark., asked for our views on Matt. V. 12; xvi. 27; Luke vi. 23; 1 Cor. iii. 14; Rev. xi. 18, and xxii. 12. Matt. v. 11, 12 reads, “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.” The Saviour did not mean to teach us in this that we should rejoice and be glad that some men will lie or tell falsehoods on us; but to rejoice and be glad that we are not guilty. We may rejoice that we are counted worthy to suffer for Jesus’ sake. Remember that this is when they are saying evil of us falsely—not when they are saying evil and telling the truth. If we are guilty of wrong doing, and they tell that on us, we are not being persecuted. When we suffer for evil doing we are not being persecuted; it may be, though, that we are being prosecuted. No place for rejoicing or being glad in that.
[pg 480] In Matt. xvi. 27 the Saviour is teaching the fact that there are rewards and punishments here in the world for obedience and disobedience. It cannot have reference to a future state after death, for He says in verse 28, “Verily I say unto you. There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom.” The matter contained in the text, then, had special reference to what was in store for that present generation.
Luke vi. 23 is right along on the same line as the foregoing, and is the same teaching. That is, it is along the same line as Matt. v. 12.
We wrote an article on 1 Cor. iii. 14 which was published in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of October 30, 1906, which article is on page 128 in Volume I of our Editorial Writings. We do not have space to publish the article again now. Our views have not changed.
Rev. xi. 18 is also along the same line, teaching how that the Lord blesses His obedient children here on earth. They are judged and chastised here for their disobedience.
Rev. xxii. 12 says, “And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.” He does come, in the person of His Spirit, and chastises us for our disobedience, and blesses us in obedience to Him. We receive our rewards here, according to the way we do. Heaven, which the saints receive after death, is not a reward; that is an inheritance. The bliss and glory of heaven is in store for them as an inheritance, and not as a reward. The rewards are here in this life. And this has special reference to the church state here in the world. Notice verses 14 and 15, where He refers to the city, which is [pg 481] the church, and what is without—on the outside—of the church. When the Lord’s children remain on the outside of His kingdom, and fail to walk in obedience to His commandments, they stay in bad company. C. H. C.
SOME QUESTIONS
March 16, 1939
In September, 1937, Brother J. M. Thornbury, of Wyoming, W. Va., asked us the following questions:
1. When, in point of time, does God forgive the sinner?
2. If Christ made complete satisfaction for the sins of the elect, were their sins ever against them? If so, when and why?
3. If they were never against them by reason of Christ’s death, how could they be forgiven?
4. In what sense are we justified by faith? By the blood of Christ?
We will try to give a brief answer to these questions:
1. He forgives His people every day—all along the line of time. If not, why did the Saviour teach His disciples to pray for forgiveness?
2. In a law sense the sins of the elect were charged to Christ as their surety. The work Christ did was to make atonement—to satisfy the demands of the broken law. Atonement is one thing and chastisement is another thing. And atonement is one thing and forgiveness is another thing. All such as the above is from a failure to distinguish between atonement to satisfy the broken law and fatherly chastisement and forgiveness. We gave some questions some time ago on these matters, and no man on earth could give an [pg 482] answer to them without dividing between these matters and keeping them in mind. If your child breaks the law you would satisfy the law, if you could, and thereby make atonement for him; but you would also chastise him for his wrongs. This answers question 3 also. 4. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”— Heb. xi. 1. Evidence is produced by a witness. “He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself.”—1 John v. 10. The Spirit bears witness in our heart that Jesus is our Saviour. This brings joy and peace, and one is thereby justified by faith. This faith received in the heart is what enables one to believe in Jesus as his Saviour. But this faith is brought to none only those who have already been justified in the eyes of the law by the blood of Christ. C. H. C.
PLEASE HAVE MERCY
April 6, 1939
In every issue of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST under the obituary heading we have a request that obituaries be short, and that they must be limited to 300 words. This is frequently disregarded. Now, please tell us how we can consistently insert an obituary of 350 to 400 words (and sometimes longer) for the gratification of one writer, and not do the same for others?
Sometimes an obituary is sent us which much exceeds the limit we ask, and perhaps it is of some child, or very young person, unknown to nearly all our readers. We have sometimes cut them down; but sometimes that is hard to do. And if we can very well abridge them it puts [pg 488] needless and unnecessary work upon us. If such things are published as sent—much too long—it causes us a loss of much time to give the matter study and consideration.
We do not wish to wound the feelings of any. But sometimes we wonder if some people have any regard for the feelings of the poor editor. Look through the columns of this issue and see how many obituaries and resolutions of respect this paper contains. During last year we published 189 obituaries and 39 resolutions of respect, making a total of 228. We do not object to publishing obituaries and resolutions of respect, but we do ask that they be short. Please have some mercy on us, and do not send us long obituaries and resolutions of respect. C. H. C.
1 JOHN I I 2, 15-17
April 6, 1939
In January, 1938, Brother W. M. Blackwell, of Meadowview, Va., asked for our views on 1 John ii. 2, and asked if it means the same as verses 15, 16, 17. Verse 2 reads, “And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” If the word world in this text means the whole race of Adam, then of what race were the our and ours in the text? Propitiation means expiation, satisfaction. If He expiated the sins of all the race of Adam, what could send one of the race to eternal torment? What could condemn one of them? There is more than one world spoken of in the Book. Sometimes that word is used with reference to the Gentiles. He was the propitiation for the sins of His people
[pg 484] among the Jews, and also for the world—His people among the Gentiles, or among the nations of the world, as well as Jews. Verses 15-17 refer to another world— the world of the ungodly, the things of the natural realm, and that are contrary to God and godliness. In v. 19 John says, “And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness,” or in the wicked one. There was the world of the redeemed in ii. 2, and the unredeemed or ungodly world in v. 19.
C. H. C.
REVELATION III. 5
April 6, 1939
In January, 1938, Sister John A. Crouse, Sparta, N. C., asked our views on this text. In November Thurmon Loftis made the same request. It is included in the message written to the church at Sardis. The one who overcomes will be clothed in white raiment. Obedience to the Lord’s commands makes a beautiful robe. White raiment of the Lord’s furnishing to His obedient children is a garment that is worth having on. See verse 18, in the language to the church at Laodicea. The name, of the one who overcomes will not be blotted out of the book of life. A blessing to be enjoyed here in the world. And the Saviour will confess his name before His Father, and blessings will be thus enjoyed which cannot be had any other way than in obedience to the Master. This language is all to the church, and not to the world, and has to do with their life here on earth and not in the glory world. “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.”—Verse 6. C. H. C.
[pg 485]
A REMINDER
April 6, 1939
Dear Brother Cayce: I will write you a few lines. This leaves us well once more. We have had a lot of sickness this winter. Hope this finds you and family in good health. I received the copies of papers and gave them out Sunday at Crawfordsville Church. In looking through an old song book I saw where you were there in 1907. I am sending you the note as it was written in the book. This is the home church of Elder Harvey Oliphant. I have been pastor there eight years. I think you will get some new subscribers from there. I am going to send for your Editorial books as soon as possible. I think I can sell some of them also. We need a weekly paper; so I am going to do my best to help you get it. Your little brother in labor and love, Elder J. E. Sparks.
Clermont, Ind.
THE NOTE
April 12, 1907-10:30 a. m.— Elder Claud Cayce; text, 1 Thess. i. 4, 5, “Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power,” etc.
REMARKS
Dear brother, we thank you for sending this. We remember being there, and being in the home of our precious brother. Elder J. H. Oliphant. We also remember dear old Brother Luckett very well. The writing looks to us very much like his. We loved those dear people; but we suppose most of those who were there then are gone to their long eternal home. May the Lord bless them, and continue to bless your labors among them. C. H. C.
[pg 486]
JOHN X.
April 20, 1939
Brother M. B. Purvis, Cordele, Ga., has asked for our views on this chapter. He did not say what particular verse he wanted our views on. It would take quite a lot of space to give our views in full on the entire chapter.
Verses 1 to 5 the Saviour teaches that He came in by the door, which is the door of prophecy. Every prophecy concerning Him was fulfilled by Him when He left the world. He came according to prophecy, and is therefore the true shepherd. All others who came professing to be the Messiah were thieves and robbers.
In verse 7 He presents another matter, as that He Himself is the door of the sheep. As He is the door, there is no other way by which a poor sinner can be saved or enter into eternal life. He is not only the door by which His people enter in, but He is also the good and true Shepherd, and He cares for His sheep. He laid down His life for the sheep—not for the sheep and the goats. To the wicked Jews He said, “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” If one has to believe in order to become one of His sheep, then they could have become sheep by believing, and the Saviour was mistaken in what He said. “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” He, as the good Shepherd, gives all His sheep eternal life, and not one of them
[pg 487] shall ever perish. They shall all finally live with Him in glory. C. H. C.
ECCLESIASTES IX. 14-16
April 20, 1939
There was a little city, and few men within it; and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it: now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man. Then said I, Wisdom is better than strength: nevertheless the poor man’s wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard. —Eccl. ix. 14-16.
Brother W. H. Dearman, of Chunky, Miss., has asked us to give our views on this text. The little city seems to us to be the true church, or the Lord’s humble followers. That has always been just a few. The poor wise man appears to us to be the blessed Saviour. He became poor that we, through His poverty, might be rich. He delivered the city, notwithstanding all the powers of darkness were arrayed against her.
Satan and his cohorts have besieged the city all along the line. It was by the Lord’s own power and wisdom that His people are delivered from everlasting destruction and ruin, which Satan would bring upon them. No man remembered that same poor man. He trod the winepress alone, and of the people there was none to help. All His disciples forsook Him. Peter even cursed and swore and said “I know not the man.” And His children, even now, often forsake His sweet and delightful service; and His service is so often made a secondary matter, when it should be first. How forgetful we are. C. H. C,
[pg 488]
PROVERBS XIII. 22
April 20, 1939
A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just.—Prov. xiii. 22.
Brother R. L. Barrett, of Fontana, Calif., has asked us for our views on this text. “A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches,” said an inspired writer. The man who walks uprightly, in the service of the Master, who diligently fights the good fight of faith, who lets his light so shine that others may see his good works, who lives in such a way as that those who are personally acquainted with him can but say that there is a reality in the profession he has made, leaves an inheritance of much more value and greater worth than the wealth of this old world. He leaves a good name for his children and for their children. And such a one will be fed. God has so promised, and His every promise is sure. But ill-gotten gain never profits much, or for long. Wealth that is obtained by other means than honest toil and labor will not stay. It slips away. Much more could be written, but we have to be brief. C. H. C.
PREACHING AND SINGING
Article Number 1
May 4, 1939
So far as we know it has always been believed by Primitive Baptists that the Lord’s ministers are called of God and put into the work of the ministry, and that the ability to preach the gospel in the spirit of the [pg 489] matter is a gift from God, and that God gives ministers to His church. “And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.”—Eph. iv. 11. These are the different gifts in the ministerial office, and they are all gifts from God. “And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry.”—Eph. i. 12. The Lord put this man into the ministry; He made him a minister. “For I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee.”—Acts xxvi. 16.
While it is true that the Lord makes His ministers— puts men in the ministry, it is also true that there is something for them to do. From one standpoint the Lord qualifies His ministers; but He does not do their studying for them. The apostle admonished, or instructed, Timothy to “study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”—2 Tim. ii. 15. It is necessary for the minister to study the Bible in order that he know the right application of its teachings, and then to make that right application. He needs to know the truth, or what the truth is, and then he should faithfully preach, or teach, or proclaim, the truth. He should teach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. In order to do this, he needs to study the Scriptures so that he may know what is the truth. It is a flagrant violation of Holy Writ to teach any doctrine that is not the truth. “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be [pg 490] accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”—Gal. i. 8, 9. Here it is very plain that a curse is pronounced against any man for teaching a doctrine that is not the truth.
The doctrine a man promulgates is the doctrine he teaches. We are sure that all our brethren will agree with us that it is very important that a minister preach the truth, and nothing but the truth. Now, we would be glad for some person to tell us what the difference is in a man speaking a false doctrine in preaching and speaking a false doctrine in song? The sentiment is spoken in either case.
We cannot sing. We have tried, but could not control our voice in song. If we had been trained or taught in our childhood we might have learned to sing, though we doubt it very much. The Lord did not bestow that gift upon us. Now, will you please tell us which is worse—we to preach a false doctrine to you, or you to sing a false doctrine to us? Is it not “about six of one, and a half dozen of the other?”
If you set forth a false doctrine in your speaking in song, is there not just as much curse pronounced upon or against you by the God of heaven as upon us for setting forth a false doctrine in preaching? If not, why not, since it is a false doctrine spoken in each case?
“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.”—Col. iii. 16. Here we have it that teaching is done in songs. And remember that a curse is pronounced against one who teaches a false doctrine. Then, should we not be just as [pg 491] careful and particular to sing the truth as to preach it? Paul instructed Titus thus: “In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.”—Titus ii. 7, 8. It is certainly just as important to use sound speech in singing as in preaching. There is no question but that the singing of a false doctrine is just as much and as strongly forbidden in Holy Writ as preaching a false doctrine. One should always speak the truth.
Look at the following lines a moment, please:
This world is not my home,
I’m just a passing through;
My treasures are laid up
somewhere beyond the blue;
The angels beckon me
from heaven’s open door,
They’re all expecting me,
and that’s one thing I know,
I fixed it up with Jesus forty years ago;
I know He’ll take me through,
though I am weak and poor.
Now, just imagine yourselves gathered together at the church for the worship and service of God; the congregation sings this song; then the preacher gets up and delivers a discourse in harmony with the sentiment of the song. The angels are expecting you. Are you going to disappoint them? You should fix it up with Jesus—and do it today. Tomorrow may be everlastingly too late. You may die before the sun goes down, and your soul will be launched into eternal hell— everlasting burnings—unless you fix it up with Jesus. I fixed it up with Jesus forty years ago, and you can fix it up with Him right now.
Suppose your preacher should advocate such a [pg 492] doctrine as that—would you not think he should be excluded from the church, unless he would recant and apologize? If he should be excluded for advocating such a doctrine, why should you not be excluded for advocating it? That’s the doctrine you are advocating when you set forth such sentiment in singing.
We do not wish to wound the feelings of any, but we do desire that our people sing the truth, as well as preach it. We cannot help but doubt the real soundness of any Old Baptist who will sing such sentiment. For the sake of the truth, which you profess to love, if you have been guilty of singing such unsound sentiment, quit it at once, and do so no more. The Lord willing, we will write some more next issue concerning this matter. C. H. C.
THE RESURRECTION
May 4, 1939
Brother R. B. King, of Bakersfield, Mo., asked us if the Saviour was talking about the resurrection of the body in Matt. xxii. 25-27, Mark xii. 20-27, and Luke XX. 29-38, and asked if it is not a fact that the bodies of the non-elect are left in their graves if this is what was the subject under consideration. We answer that it was the resurrection from the grave that was under consideration; but the Saviour was not talking about whether it was a certain class, or all classes, of human beings that would be raised. He was refuting the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection of the body. They were a set of non-resurrectionists, and went to the Saviour with a question designed to entangle Him in [pg 493] His speech and in His doctrine. This they utterly failed to do; and the Saviour taught the doctrine of the resurrection in refuting them. But that the Saviour taught the doctrine of a universal resurrection of the dead from the grave is evident from His statement in John v. 28, 29: “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” It is not necessary to argue here why they do good; it is because they were first made good by the work of the Holy Spirit. The Sadducees denied there being any resurrection at all, but the Pharisees believed in the resurrection. See Acts xxiii. 8. Paul was called in question for his teaching. The multitude accusing him was composed of both Sadducees and Pharisees. In the midst of them Paul said, “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: and having hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.”—Acts xxiv. 14, 15. See also Rev. xx 11-15. God’s people were written in the book of life, and were not judged out of the things written in the books. Others were judged out of the things written in the books, and were all cast into the lake of fire. C. H. C.
[pg 494]
NO WEEKLY PAPER
May 4, 1939
It is a fact that our people do not have a weekly periodical in the whole United States. Is this to our credit? We have some periodicals published twice a month and some published once a month—and some of them occasionally skip an issue. Does it not look like our people could support at least one weekly periodical in the whole United States? Of course they COULD. But what are you doing toward getting a weekly? Are you trying to get more to subscribe for one of our papers— one of the papers being published in defense of our cause? Do you ever try to persuade some to take THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST who are not taking it? Perhaps you may sometimes ask someone to take it, and that one may refuse, or put you off. Do you then get discouraged, and quit? How about a quitter? Do you not remember a poem we used to see in our old school reader, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try, again?” If you start in to do a certain piece of work around your place, and you meet with set-backs, do you quit— or do you keep on trying? Do we not believe in perse- verance? To persevere is to keep on at it. There was once a business concern that had this for a slogan: “Keeping everlastingly at it brings success.” In order to do what you can to help us make THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST a weekly, it is necessary for you to keep on trying to get others to take the paper. Try using your powers of persuasion on those who are not subscribers. Do not stop at simply asking them if they are taking the paper, and just asking them to do so—persuade them to try the paper for awhile—for one year, at [pg 495] least. Will you try this? If we will all try, and do our best, for the rest of this year, we can have a weekly. Some of our readers have been doing some good work during the past few months. But we need the help of others. Co-operation, and helping each other, will go a long ways. Let us show by our work on this line that we have an interest in the cause. May we count on YOU? Let us WORK together? Will you work with us, to the end that we may make THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST a weekly? C. H. C.
I. CORINTHIANS VI. 1-7
May 4, 1939
Brother G. A. Waid, of Steele, Ala., has asked for our views on verse 4 in the above citation, and refers to verse 5. This language in the verses named is in regard to brethren going to law with one another, which some Corinthian brethren had done. The apostle sharply rebukes them for this. He instructs them in verse 4 to set them who are little esteemed among them to judge between the brethren in regard to matters of this life, where difference exists; and then in verse 5 he shames them, and asks the question, “Is it so that there is not a wise man among you?” Were they all so ignorant that they could not judge worldly differences between their brethren? He also asks, “Is there not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?” These questions naturally answer themselves. They are affirmative questions, and must necessarily be answered yes. Then, they were to be shamed, rebuked sharply, and reproved for going to
[pg 496] law. It is a shame for Primitive Baptists to go to law before the world with their differences. Better suffer wrong than to do that. It has always been against the rules of the Primitive Baptist Church for brethren to go to law with one another. C. H. C
CONDEMNATION AND SALVATION
May 18, 1939
Brother W. M. Jenkins, of Bold Spring, Tenn., asked us: “What is the cause of anyone’s eternal damnation? Sin, I understand, but what sin? One Baptist preacher said it was what we do. If so, damnation is conditional. I can’t so understand. That is what he understands Primitive Baptists have always believed.”
The preacher is right, as we understand the matter. “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”—Rom. v. 23. Wages is what you get for what you do. Sin is the transgression of the law; and that is what you do, and death is what you get for it. On the other hand, “the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” It is true that Adam’s sin was ours, as he represented us, and we are born into this world with the same life which he had; and that life became poisoned with sin when he transgressed the law. But as we grow old enough to do anything we commit actual sin. Either way, it is enough to condemn us, and when we have both, a sinful nature and actual transgressions, it makes condemnation doubly sure without the intervention of divine grace—without the intervention of mercy and the work of our Saviour. So, God’s gift is eternal life.
[pg 497] The old Westminister Confession of Faith, the old Presbyterian Confession, made condemnation unconditional as well as salvation. Chapter III, Sec. 3, reads: “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels were predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.” This the Primitive Baptists have always denied. They have always believed that eternal salvation is unconditional, but have never believed that people were sent to hell unconditionally. The London Confession, Chapter III, Sec. 3, says: “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated or foreordained to eternal life, through Jesus Christ, others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of His glorious justice.” The Presbyterian Confession was put forth several years before the London Confession, by the Baptists, which was put forth in 1689. The Baptists, in their confession, copied largely from the Presbyterian Confession, where they very well could do so. If the Baptists believed as the Presbyterians, in unconditional reprobation, why did they change that article? There is quite a difference in one being predestinated to condemnation and being left to act in his sins. If God predestinated the damnation of some of the race, and predestinated the salvation of others, then the salvation of those who are saved is not a matter of grace—no more than the damnation of the others is a matter of grace. C. H. C.
[pg 498]
EXODUS III. 1-6
May 18, 1939
Brother J. R. Woodard, of Cullman, Ala., has requested our views on the language recorded in the above citation, concerning Moses and the burning bush. We will not take space to quote the language here. An angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. The bush burned with fire, and was not consumed. The Israelites had been in bondage, and were afflicted, and yet they were not consumed. We think this was a type of the church. Notwithstanding the burning, and the afflictions which the church has endured all along the line, yet the church is not consumed. The reason the bush was not consumed was that God was in the midst of the bush. The reason why the church is not consumed is because God is there. Moses drew nigh to the bush to see the great sight, and God said to him, “Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place where thou standest is holy ground.” The church is a holy place; it is holy ground. God requires that when we draw nigh, to enter into His service, we put off our shoes from off our feet. We cannot serve God with any of the inventions of men, or with what men have made. The commandments of men being observed or obeyed is not rendering service to God. Nothing but what God has commanded in His Word will do as service to Him. The world, and worldly things, the things of the world, must be put off. They must be laid aside. The church is in the world, but is not of the world. The world must be kept out of the church, or else there will be a going down of the church in that place. “Whosoever he be [pg 499] of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.”—Luke xiv. 33. The church—the true church—is an institution which the Lord established here in the world. It is holy ground. It is not to be esteemed lightly. May the Lord help us to serve Him in a way that we may show that we esteem the church above everything else in the world. C. H. C.
PREACHING AND SINGING
Article Number 2
May 18, 1939
In the conclusion of our article in the last issue under the above heading we promised to try to write some more for this issue along the same line. We have not had the time to devote to this that we would like to have had, and so we will have to make this article brief.
There are some hymns which have been very popular among our people, and are yet, that are good and soul-inspiring in the main, and yet a few words have crept into them in the books that our people have generally used that are corrupt and unsound. Why the compilers of our books have used those hymns with such unsound sentiment retained we are unable to say. Perhaps some of the compilers did not notice the sentiment. Perhaps some of them used the hymns without making any effort to correct the sentiment just because the hymns were popular. Be that as it may—it is a question we cannot answer; but we find such hymns—a number of them. Take this good old hymn as one example, the [pg 500] first line of which is, “There is a fountain filled with blood.” Let us here quote the second stanza:
The dying thief rejoiced to see
That fountain in his day;
And there may I, though vile as he,
Wash all my sins away.
There can be no question but what the pronoun I, in the third line, is the subject of the verb wash in the last line. Hence, the sense of it cannot possibly be anything else than that I wash my sins away. The language cannot possibly be twisted to mean anything else. Now, get yourself up a “distracted” meeting, and get your modern evangelist to “go to it” to get sinners to come up to the altar and wash their sins away! Just as well do that as to sing the sentiment! Just as well preach it as to sing it. We had in our possession years ago an old song book which went out of use before the Civil War. In that book we found this hymn to read this way:
The dying thief rejoiced to see
That fountain in his day;
I hope that blood was shed for me.
And washed my sins away.
When you sing that hymn that way you sing the truth. There are more things we will try to write about along this line later on. For this time we must stop now. May the Lord help us to consider. C. H. C.
[pg 501]
CHURCH A WIDOW
June 1, 1939
A brother writes us that it is being advocated that the church was a widow for three days and nights that Jesus lay in the tomb, and asks our views of the matter. A widow is a woman whose husband is dead. The church is represented in the Bible as being the bride of Christ. “Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife.”—Rev. xxi. 9. “For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is His name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel. “— Isa. liv. 5.
We remember being in debate with a Campbellite years ago on the question of the identity of the church. We took the position that the church was established by the Master during His personal ministry on earth. He said that if that be true, then the church was a widow for three days and nights, while Jesus was dead. We replied that he was correct, and that she was a widow for three days and nights, for her husband was dead just three days and nights; but the Lord’s promise and assurance to her was, “Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.”— Isaiah liv. 4. We told him that his so-called church was not the Lord’s church, for she had never been a widow, for the simple reason she had never been married or had a husband. The church was a widow for awhile—three days and nights; but she is not a widow now, and never will be again, for her Husband is alive forevermore. May the Lord bless these thoughts to your good. C. H. C.
THEY WERE JEWS
June 1, 1939
Brother P. S. Walton, of Danville, Va., asked us these questions: “Was Abraham a Jew? Was Christ a Jew? Was Mary, Christ’s mother, a Jew?” Abraham was the father of the Jewish nation. Christ was a Jew. He was a descendant of Abraham, of the lineage of David. David was a Jew. Mary was a Jew—that is, her par- ents were Jews. She was of the Jewish nation. But Jesus had some Gentile blood in Him, through the lineage of Ruth. Ruth was a Gentile, the daughter-in-law of Naomi, and was married to Boaz, a Jew, and it was through his lineage that Christ came.
C. H. C.
COMMUNION MEETING
June 1, 1939
Our regular communion time here at Thornton is the first Sunday in July. The meeting will be on Saturday and Sunday, 11 o’clock both days, and Sunday night, as usual. At our last meeting the church extended a special invitation for members of sister churches to be with us at that time. We will appreciate your coming. Remember, too, that we are to have two ministers with us at that time from Iowa. We hope to have a large number of brethren and sisters with us then. C. H. C.
[pg 503]
PREACHING AND SINGING
Article Number 3
June 15, 1939
We promised in our issue of May 18 that we would try to write something more along the line of preaching and singing at a later date. We could not very well get to it for the last issue. Will call attention now to a few things along that line.
We begin this little article by asking a question. What is religion? True, there is more than one kind of religion. “For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it.”—Gal. i. 13. Here we have mentioned the “Jews’ religion,” and how the Apostle Paul had practiced that religion, and in so doing he persecuted the church of God, beyond measure, and wasted it. It appears to us that this was not a very good religion; but it consisted of a very bad practice. He continues, in the next verse, thus: “And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.” Get your Book and read on in the chapter and you will see how the Jews’ religion was taken from him. But here is a religion that we would certainly all agree was not good.
There is a vain religion also mentioned in the Book. “If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.”—James i. 26. A thing that is vain is something “having no real substance, value, or importance; empty; void; idle; worthless.”— Webster. So, here is a religion that is of no value; it has no real [pg 504] substance; it is of no importance; it is void; it is worthless. And this is what some practice. It is the things they do.
But here is another kind of religion the Book tells us about: “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”— James i. 27. Here is a religion that is approved of God; and it is something to do. In doing this one is practicing the pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father. It is “to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction is not to go to where they stay and “eat up what they may have,” or to heap burdens upon them, but it is to minister to them; it is to do something, or say something, that will help them to bear their burdens and sorrows; it is to be of help to them in their distresses. To keep one’s self unspotted from the world is not to visit the grog shop, or the whisky store; it is not to go to the races; it is not to go to the theater or the picture show; it is not to engage in card playing; it is not to engage in “shooting dice;” it is not to engage in raffling off quilts; it is not to engage in selling chances in or on anything, even in the name of the church, or for the church; it is not to engage in any kind of gambling scheme; it is not to curse and swear, or to take the name of God in vain; it is not to engage in question- able things, means, or measures, in business; it is not to go to places where you would be ashamed for your wife, or daughter, or sweetheart to go with you; it is not to do many other things we might mention that the world engages in, and which are unbecoming in the [pg 505] membership of the Lord’s church or kingdom.
In fine, the pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is to visit and administer to the needs and for the comfort of the fatherless and the widows, and to do just what God has taught in His Book, and to strictly leave undone the things that are not taught therein. That is the way, and the only way, to practice the religion which God the Father and our blessed Saviour approve of. In the practice of this religion there are blessings which come to those who engage therein, and which no one can ever realize or enjoy any other way.
“But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed” (or in his doing).—James i. 25. The blessing enjoyed by such a person is here in this life; it is in his doing, and follows as a result of it. But there is no blessing to be enjoyed after this life as a result of our doing. All the joys of heaven come to one as a result of, and because of, what the Lord has done for us and what He will do for us. The blessings and joys of heaven are an inheritance—yours because you are God’s child, and not because of what you have done, or can do, or may do. That is all a matter of sovereign grace and mercy. Yet, in the face of these manifest and evident facts, we sometimes hear Old Baptists sing:
‘Tis religion that can give
Sweetest pleasures while we live;
‘Tis religion must supply
Solid comfort when we die.
After death its joys will be
Lasting as eternity;
[pg 506] Be the living God my Friend,
Then my bliss shall never end.
If you have nothing but religion to supply solid comfort when you come to die, how do you think it will be with you? Remember that religion is what you do. “After death its joys will be”—What does the word its refer to? That word is a pronoun, and must have an antecedent. No grammarian in the whole universe would deny that religion is the antecedent of the word its. Then the joys of religion are lasting as eternity. The practice of religion here in this world will bring joys to you in eternity, for those joys are lasting as eternity. Do you believe that rank Arminianism? Frankly, we do not. When you sing that to us, you sing something that is not the truth—it is a flagrant contradiction of the truth taught in God’s Book. It teaches that unless you practice the religion everlasting hell, eternal destruction, everlasting burnings, will be yours; but that in the practice of religion heaven and all its joys and glories will be yours. Now, how about praising and using a book containing such rottenness? We have to beg you to excuse us, please. Someone may hear you sing that sentiment, and then you preach contrary to it; then he would have a right to say, “Which way do you believe—the way you preach, or the way you sing?” May the Lord help us to consider. We may write some more concerning these things later on.
C. H. C.
[pg 507]
RESURRECTION
June 15, 1939
We have been asked to give our views as to the order of the resurrection; or if those who were members of the church militant will be raised first, and then after a thousand years the others of the children of God be raised. No such thing as there being two resurrections of the children of God has ever been advocated or believed by Primitive Baptists—that a part of God’s children will be raised when Christ comes back to earth, and then after a period of a thousand years the others of God’s children will be raised. This seems to us to be rather akin to Russellism, or to the doctrine that is now being advocated by Judge Rutherford. It is not the truth, and is only another one of Satan’s inventions to deceive the Lord’s people.
“For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” —1 Thess. iv. 16, 17. There is no room for a mistake here—that all God’s people will be raised at the same time; they will all be raised together. Not only is it clear in this that they will all be raised at the same time, but it is also clear that they will be caught up from this earth. This earth is not their home. They are pilgrims and strangers here. They have a better country beyond this life. The Lord was taken up in a cloud. He went away in a cloud of glory, and He is coming back the same way; see Acts i. 9, 10. And [pg 508] when He comes in the cloud of His glory all the dead in Christ shall be raised, and the saints who are still living on the earth will be changed and caught up together with them to meet the Lord in the air, and shall ever be with the Lord.
“Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.”—1 Cor. xv. 51, 52. Here we are plainly told that the bodies of all the saints shall be changed, and that this will take place in the twinkling of an eye. Not only so, but that those who may be living at the time of His coming will be changed at the same time and just as quickly.
John Gill, the learned Baptist divine, said that all the saints will be raised at the same time. No Baptist of any note has ever advocated anything else, and any other theory is a departure from Primitive Baptist doctrine. Departures are what cause trouble in Zion. Let us be careful to let finespun theories and speculation severely alone. No man can get a good name for himself among the Lord’s people by speculation. He may deceive some, and have a few followers; but such has a woe pronounced against him. May the Lord help us to stay with the truth, and to steer clear of the inventions of men. C. H. C.
WOMEN PROPHESY
June 1.5, 1939
Elder C. H. Cayce: Dear Brother in Christ, I Hope—I am sending $1 to subscribe for your paper. Through a miracle of sovereign grace I was permitted to come in contact with your paper, and it is the only thing that can satisfy my soul. You see, God’s wonderful loving grace came into my heart over three years ago. I fought it, not knowing what church to join until last summer, I joined the Missionary Baptists; but they never have seemed to satisfy my hungry soul. But since I borrowed some of your papers I began searching the Scriptures and praying for understanding, and I know God is leading me in the way of truth. Brother Cayce, do you believe in women preaching? And what does the Scripture mean where it says in the last days your sons and daughters shall prophesy? Pray for me. M. B. Jones.
Adamson, Okla.
REMARKS
Paul says to let the elders be the husband of one wife. If women can fill this requirement, as Elder Newman once said, then, by all means, let them be ordained to preach. Whatever the above prophesying may mean, it cannot mean for them to be put in the ministry. C.H. C.
PREACHING AND SINGING
Article Number 4
July 6, 1939
Years ago we engaged in a debate in Texas with Mr. J. W. Chism, who represented the Campbellites. The debate was to have been between Mr. Chism and Elder S. A. Paine. We were present to attend the debate. [pg 510] but Elder Paine was called home after the session of the first day, on account of sickness in his home. So we had to take his place, beginning on the morning of the second day. During the debate Mr. Chism took the position and argued that Christ was our security; that when the debt which the sinner owed became due. He paid the Father, and satisfied the Father, and had the claim or debt transferred; that we now owe the debt to the Son instead of the Father; that it is like the song says, “Jesus paid it all—all to Him I owe;” that as Jesus then held the claim against us. He had the right to make the terms of settlement; that He has made the terms of settlement, and laid them down in the New Testament; and when we meet those terms of settlement by doing what He has commanded and required therein, then the debt is cancelled, or marked paid—and so on, and so on.
Our contention was that Jesus did not simply go our security, but that He was our surety. “By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.”—Heb. vii. 22. Modern law makes very little difference between security and surety; but there is a difference. If James buys goods of a merchant, and John goes security for James, when the debt is due the merchant looks to James for payment; if James fails to pay, then he will endeavor to collect from John. The merchant looks to James first, and, if James fails, then he looks to John. He does not look to John first. The merchandise, or goods, is charged to James, with John’s name on the book as security. Thus John guarantees the payment of the debt in case James fails. The name of James is first on the bill, and the name of John is second. That is security. That is not what Jesus was to His people; [pg 511] but He was their surety. In law, originally, surety is a person given, or who gives himself as a pledge. Jesus “gave Himself for us.”
If John stands as surety for James, when the debt is made it is charged to John, and not to James. The goods are charged to John, and put on the book as against John, by James; which shows that the goods were bought by James, but they were things to be paid for by John. If John is security for James, he would say to the merchant, “Whatever debt James contracts, I will pay if he fails.” But if he is surety for James he says to the merchant, “Whatever debt James contracts, I will pay it.” He stands with the merchant in the place of, in the stead of, James. So Jesus was the surety of His people. Your sins, if you are one of His children, were not charged to you; they were charged to Jesus, by you, as your surety. The Father has never looked to you for the payment of the debt. He looked to Jesus for the payment. He looked to your surety. He was able to pay, and did pay, the debt in full. As your surety He satisfied every demand of divine justice in your stead. No demand will ever be made of His people for the payment of the debt you owed. The law has been satisfied by Him; He has met all its demands, and hushed all its claims. It cannot condemn you now, for Jesus has met and performed all that it ever demanded or could demand. The surety paid the debt, and the transgressor goes free. This having been done for His people by their surety, the Holy Spirit is sure to regenerate each and every one of them, and bring them into divine relationship with the Lord, and they will be finally landed safe in glory.
But if we should owe a merchant, or a bank, a [pg 512] thousand dollars, and we are penniless, and the debt is due, and the merchant’s son, or the banker’s son, should go to our creditor and satisfy that creditor, and have the debt transferred to him, so that we now have to pay the son instead of the old man, we cannot see how the son has benefitted us in the least, or has done us any good. We would just as soon pay the old man as to pay the boy. If we are penniless (and the sinner is penniless), we are no more able to pay the boy than we are to pay the old man. That position simply denies that Jesus has done the sinner any good. As to what the gentleman called a song we told him it was not a song, but a chorus to a song; and as originally written the chorus was,
Jesus paid it all—
All the debt I owed—
Sin had left a crimson stain,
He washed it white as snow.
Now, we said, what is the matter with that chorus? The trouble with it is that some of you fellows have “doctored” it, and got it out of fix. Look at it a moment. “Jesus paid it all”—all what? What you owed, of course—or else He paid part of it and left part for you or someone else to pay. So far as we are concerned, if He did not pay the whole thing we are in as deplorable a condition as before, and He has done us no good. How about you? Were you in so deplorable a state as that—or could you pay a part of the debt yourself? All right. He paid it all—the whole debt; He paid it in full. Now take the next line, as quoted by our opponent, and as it is so often sung, “All to Him I owe.” Then what do you owe to Him? According to the language, you owe to Him just what He paid. [pg 513] No use to try to twist the language and say we owe Him our service and praise—we know that is true; but what does the language say? That is the question. There is not a grammarian in the whole country who would say that is what the language teaches. He would say that, according to the language, we owe to Him just what He paid. And that is what it was changed and made to— read that way for. The truth is that Jesus paid what His people owed; He paid all the debt; He paid it in full, and then they are given the benefit of it. Hence the inspired apostle said, “But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”—1 Cor. xv. 57. As long as sixty years ago we heard our precious old mother sing No. 567 in the old Thomas Hymn Book with that chorus. For the benefit of our readers we close this article with that old sweet experimental hymn, with the old-time chorus. Remember that the hymn and chorus are not on practical lines, but law and experimental—the law satisfied by your Saviour and Redeemer, and your experimental knowledge of your insufficiency and failure to save yourself:
Nothing, either great or small,
Remains for me to do;
Jesus died and paid it all—
Yes, all the debt I owe.
Chorus
Jesus paid it all—
All the debt I owe—
Sin had left a crimson stain,
He washed it white as snow.
When He from His lofty throne,
Stooped down to do and die,
[pg 514] Everything was fully done;
Yes, “finished,” was His cry.
Weary, working, plodding one.
Oh, wherefore toil you so?
Cease your “doing;” all was done,
Yes, ages long ago.
Till to Jesus’ work you cling.
Alone by simple faith,
“Doing” is a deadly thing—
All “doing” ends in death.
Cast your deadly “doing” down,
Down, all at Jesus’ feet;
Stand in Him—in Him alone—
All glorious and complete.
Perhaps you know the tune—you have it in some of the books, though changed just a little so as to suit the new song and to suit the change the Arminians have made. Do not sing such sentiment as to leave some to wonder whether you believe the way you sing or the way you preach. Preach the truth in its sweetness and simplicity, and then sing the truth, and nothing but the truth. Just as well mix up your preaching as to mix up your singing. May the Lord help us to stand for truth in all we do. We may write some more concerning these matters later on. Do you stand with us on these things? C. H. C.
[pg 515]
COMMUNION AT BETHEL
July 6, 1939
Elsewhere in this paper will be found an article headed “Quaint Ritual of Foot Washing Observed at Church Near City.” The article is copied from the Shreveport Journal. We feel sure that many of our readers will enjoy reading the article. Not many newspaper articles give our people such an unbiased report as this. Most articles in metropolitan journals are on the order of ridicule and sarcasm, though sometimes veiled. The reporter used an expression which we wish to call to the attention of our readers. It is this: “Regardless of the viewpoint on the meniality of foot washing, one would have to be void of sentiment’ or respect for things sacred to scoff at the foot-washing ceremony. It is a solemn, impressive rite that can create a lump in one’s throat.” Let us say, and we say the truth, that it does not, it will not, it cannot, create a lump in the throat of one whose heart has not been touched and softened by the work of the Spirit of the eternal God. Whatever may be the religious belief of the reporter, he has here “given away” to us the fact that he knows something experimentally of the work of grace; and God’s predestination embraced him—this is an evidence of that to us and the “joys to come,” which the Old Baptists draw a wordy picture of, are his.
Another expression: “Then the pastor, Elder Garner, read some passage of Scripture from which he later took his text. I refer to him as ‘Elder’ because there are no ‘Reverends’ among Old Baptists. They think the term is too exalted to apply even to a minister.” [pg 516] The Old Baptists have good reason for their position regarding the use of the word reverend. That word is found one time in the Bible, and that is in Psalm cxi. 9, which reads thus: “He sent redemption unto His people: He hath commanded His covenant for ever, holy and reverend is His name.” The one whose name is reverend is the one who sent redemption unto His people. That was the work of God, and not the work of the preacher. And He sent redemption by His Son— He is the Redeemer. Of course, worldly religionists, or modern religionists, do not understand our people in this matter, as well as other matters. But there is one expression in the article in which our friendly reporter is mistaken. We are sure that he made the statement from the information which he had received. It was this: “His faith and creed are the same as when Roger Williams brought them to America.” The mistake here is that “Roger Williams brought them to America.” Roger Williams did not bring our faith or creed to America. We are aware of the fact that some have said that Roger Williams was the founder of the first Baptist Church in America; but that is a mistake. Roger Williams organized his church at Providence, Rhode Island, in 1639, upon the Baptist principles of freedom of worship. The first Baptist Church organized in America was by Dr. John Clark (a physician) and eleven others at Newport, Rhode Island, in 1638, Although the Roger Williams church was organized upon the Baptist principles of freedom of worship, yet his church was never really identified with the Baptists, and was not listed as being among them in those days. It was later on that some claimed him and his church as Baptists. We appreciate the good article from the reporter concerning our people. C. H. C.
THE ARTICLE
BY RUPERT PEYTON
(From Shreveport Journal)
Just beyond the outskirts of Shreveport in a spot from which, but for the terrain and trees, the spires of the city could be seen, is a little community where tradition and custom more quaint than the ante bellum period, still prevail. Here one may witness religious rites that have been unchanged in centuries and unaffected by the modern world growing about.
Here is Bethel Primitive Baptist Church, a little shrine nestled in a grove of oak and pine which, to the faithful flock who worship there, is one of the loveliest spots on earth.
Here is a church that exists without a collection plate, a Sunday school, a salaried pastor, an organ or a new song book.
It has no missionary program, no drives, no revival meetings, no ladies’ society, nor a custom that was not initiated centuries ago. The members say their rites have not changed, except in language, since the days of Jesus—they claim apostolic origin.
Here the solemn ceremony of feetwashing is observed at every communion with the same devotion as when it was customary among several creeds ages ago. Here is real wine served from a common cup—not grape juice from individual glasses. The bread is unleavened. Real wine is served, says the good pastor, because it is more symbolic of the blood of Christ—it doesn’t spoil.
I went to Bethel recently and spent several hours, and it was with some reluctance that I departed from the scene of religious fraternity. Hospitality is a trait of those good people.
Bethel is but a few miles north of Shreveport. One goes up the Blanchard road, past the second K. C. S. underpass, then follows a gravel road to the right. A sign at the end of a sandy lane that intersects the road informs the traveler that Bethel is a quarter of a mile to the right. I found the service under way with the congregation singing an old hymn. No newfangled tunes for these Primitive Baptists. They still sing the songs their grandparents
[pg 518] sang and their parents before them. “Amazing Grace” and “How Firm a Foundation” are among their favorites.
Officially they are known as Primitive Baptists, but the adherents usually refer to themselves as “Old Baptists.” However, they are known to the uninitiated as “Hardshells.” This derisive appellation has been applied so long that “Old Baptists” have gracefully bowed to it without offense.
Old Baptists present a unique and incongruous picture in the modern ecclesiastical realm. Their quaintness, their adherence to the old customs, their staunch belief in the doctrine of predestination, long since relegated to oblivion or never adopted by other creeds, set them apart. This is the very essence of their faith and accounts, principally, for their unchanging customs and mode of worship. It accounts, too, for their old songs, for most of the modern hymns contain words out of harmony with the tenets of foreordination. Though there is no article of faith against instrumental music in the church, Old Baptists do not believe an organ necessary to worship, so there is none.
I took my seat near the rear and listened to the old hymns that sounded like the chants of bygone years. Then the pastor. Elder Garner, read some passage of Scripture from which he later took his text. I refer to him as “Elder” because there are no “Reverends” among Old Baptists. They think the term is too exalted to apply even to a minister. Humility is one of their strongest traits.
A restless child in the seat near me gave its mother some trouble and slightly disturbed proceedings. A young mother with a cute baby sat in front of me. The baby was but a few months old, but was in a good humor and smiled at me. I liked it. But soon the baby began to cry, and the mother stepped outside. She returned a few moments later with a nursing bottle. The baby was satisfied and fell asleep. There is no such thing as a nursery at a Primitive Baptist Church, and rural folks can’t leave babies at home unattended. Some people, unacquainted with this situation, don’t understand this.
An old man, apparently 80, pronounced the invocation in a voice that was feeble but fervent, then took his seat directly in front of the pulpit a few feet from the minister and cupped his ear with his hand. His hearing was impaired, but he appeared very happy.
The pastor started his sermon in typical Old Baptist fashion—an [pg 519] humble apology for his human frailties and expression of his profound love for the “brethren” and the great responsibility of the duty of “trying to say something of comfort to God’s people.” The sermon was over sooner than usual. There was a brief intermission while the men of the church arranged two rows of seats facing each other for the women to observe the communion ritual. The wine and unleavened bread were on a table in front of the pulpit covered with a cloth. There was a prayer and the pastor read the account of the last supper, emphasizing that Jesus had washed the feet of the disciples and had enjoined them and “all of God’s children to wash each other’s feet.”
“We Old Baptists,” said the good man, “believe in going all the way. We do not believe in going half way and then stopping. On that memorable night our Lord washed the feet of the disciples.” So saying. Elder Garner pulled off his coat, girded himself with a long towel, as Jesus did. Two deacons drew forth basins from under the communion table and filled them with water from a pail. The pastor took one of the basins, knelt before the old man in front of the pulpit, who had pulled off his shoes, and washed his feet, wiping them with the towel. Then he arose, divested himself of the towel, gave it to the old man who girded it on. The old man knelt, washed the pastor’s feet, then the two arose, grasped each other’s hands and embraced. Both wept silently.
Meanwhile, this same procedure went on among the members of the congregation as, two by two, they paired off and observed the ritual. Women washed women’s feet and men washed men’s. The women embraced each other at the conclusion of their part in the rite, and some of the men did also. Nearly all wept silently. Primitive Baptists do not shout, but they weep silently at intervals in their service. They say these are tears of joy. Regardless of the viewpoint on the meniality of foot washing, one would have to be void of sentiment or respect for things sacred to scoff at the footwashing ceremony. It is a solemn, impressive rite that can create a lump in one’s throat.
Realizing that their customs are unique and strange to the moderns. Old Baptists accept their position with kindly stoicism. Laugh at them and they will pity you. You do not understand their ways or know their joys. Only those with the faith and will to humble [pg 520] themselves in the ritual of footwashing can enjoy the pleasure of “obeying His commandments,” say this band of faithful adherents.
“Secret societies,” said the pastor, “have a secret they could tell but won’t. We have a secret that we would tell but can’t. This is the secret of our joy in serving the commandments of our Lord.”
Old Baptists do not approve of divorce except for “Bible grounds,” which is infidelity on the part of either party contracting the marriage. There is also a church rule which forbids any member to defraud any person, or to evade the payment of a debt when able to do so. These rules are applied occasionally.
Old Baptist pastors are paid no salary. However, they usually receive free-will offerings after each service. The clerk or a deacon notifies the congregation that donations will be received after the service. Those wishing to contribute do so by going to the clerk after benediction. No plates are passed during the service.
Old Baptist pastors receive no special training, as the church maintains no schools and confers no degrees. Convinced that a brother has received the “divine call” any congregation can ordain a minister. The test of his eligibility is his understanding of the creed, good character and devotion.
Usually the minister is a farmer who spends his weekends serving four or five churches over a rather wide area. Few are full- time pastors and services are seldom held more than once a month.
No sermon in an Old Baptist Church is complete unless it touches on the cornerstone of Old Baptist faith—predestination. This, with a wordy picture of the joys to come, is the spiritual meat and drink of the followers of faith. Believing as they do in predestination. Old Baptists see the gospel not as a “means unto salvation,” but an evidence of it—a way to enjoy it. Eternal salvation, they contend, comes by the choice and act of God to which man, depraved by Adam’s sin and curse, is wholly passive. Hence preaching, to them, is not a soul-winning duty but an obedient service and a joy unto the “saved.” Other creeds call this fatalism. Old Baptists, however, deny this, contending that “God is not the Father of sin but the Almighty who exercises His will and pleasure.” No wonder the missionary spirit does not exist among Old Baptists. The Primitive Baptists will accept anything modern but his religion and religious rites. He likes the radio, the automobile, modern [pg 521] things, and is, to the best of his ability, adapting himself to the changing material world. But on the spiritual side, he belongs to the old order. His faith and creed are the same as when Roger Williams brought them to America.
Though profoundly faithful to his creed and satisfied with no other, the Old Baptist is tolerant. He has no dislike for Jew or Gentile, Catholic or Protestant. He only wants to live and let live and enjoy his peculiar faith in the way that his ancestors have for centuries.
The communion ritual over, the members of the flock closed their services with a procedure unique to the faith—the “parting hand.” There is a special song for this occasion. It is called “The Parting Hand.” There are many stanzas and the tempo is slow and the air doleful. As they sing this song the members walk about and shake hands, singing as they go. This is a part of their rites in which non-members may participate. The communion is for members only.
Following the parting hand the crowd assembled under a big oak on the churchyard where a wooden table, about 50 feet long, stood. Then from near-by automobiles men and women drew forth boxes and baskets filled with treasures of culinary art of the countryside. Soon the table groaned under the weight of a feast fit for the gods. Certainly these people who know the economy of doing without do not practice it in their dining rooms, for they know nothing of the shortage of food.
Here before us lay a feast—meats of every description, fried chicken, roast chicken, chicken pie, fruit pies, custards, salads of various assortment, cakes, cakes, and cakes, all prepared according to those delicate recipes that seem to be a secret of the rural South.
On my plate I had a piece of roast beef, a la rural, a helping of chicken pie, two kinds of salad, a slice of roast chicken, a slice of fried country ham, a slice of custard, a slice of delectable apple pie, plus a few pickles. I managed to do justice to this generous plate and was offered more, but had to forego the pleasure of sampling other tempting morsels. Space would not permit.
After the meal there was no hurry. Women cleared away the tables, the men pulled out their pipes, children began to play about the churchyard. Some boys tossed a baseball. Men and women [pg 522] huddled in little groups under the trees, or sat on benches and talked. No European crisis bothered these people— not even the latest sins of the new deal. They were but slightly interested in state politics.
A group of farmers looked at the clouds in the west and wondered if it would rain. Crops were suffering, they said, from both drought and cold. Women talked about the neighborhood matters. They were worried about “Sister” Jones, who was too ill to be present. She had been specially mentioned in a prayer.
A group of little children toddled about and played with a dog. A baby laughed with glee on its father’s knee while a bevy of teen- aged girls looked admiringly on. A curious little boy whose picture I snapped, wanted to know whether it would be in the paper. It was a scene of naive peace, contentment and happiness that made the departure to urban artificiality exceedingly difficult. As I drove away I silently wished that this scene would never change.
SOME QUESTIONS ASKED
July 20, 1939
We are in receipt of a letter containing the following questions, with the request that we answer the same:
1. Does the spirit come back, from where it is, to the body at the resurrection?
2. Is sin the cause of death, or does God especially cause one, at any age, to die?
3. What constitutes man—the soul, or the dust he was made of?
4. Do we have immortality while we live here in this life before we are resurrected from the grave?
5. Where does the Bible first mention a literal burning hell, and by whom first preached?
We will comment just a little on the questions by number.
1. Yes, the spirit comes back to the body at the resurrection of the body.
[pg 523] 2. All and every kind of death is a result of sin. Primarily death in sin, a loss of all moral standing with God, was the result of sin. All death follows as a result of sin.
3. The man complete is composed of soul, body, and spirit; yet the body is sometimes called a man, and the soul is called the soul of man, and the spirit is called the spirit of man. Sometimes the man is called a living soul, or persons are sometimes referred to as souls.
4. Yes, we have immortality in some sense before the resurrection. The very life of Christ—eternal life—is implanted in the soul or spirit in the work of regeneration; so that when the body dies the spirit does not die. Even the unregenerate possess immortality in the sense of never ceasing to exist, or in the sense of always dying, but not in the sense of always living and never dying. The literal translation of the sentence of the law of God in the morning of time is, “dying, thou shalt die;” which means always dying and never ceasing to be. The children of God are made alive from that state of death, and then are always living and never dying. This principle of always living is implanted in the soul, but not in the body, and so the body dies; but though the body dies, on account of sin, yet the spirit lives on account of righteousness. When the body is raised at the last day, in the resurrection, then the bodies of the saints will be changed and made immortal—always living and never dying.
5. We have not looked the matter up as to where the hell referred to is first mentioned. What difference does it make where it is first mentioned, if it teaches at all that there is an actual place of eternal punishment? And what difference does it make whether it is [pg 524] a literal fire, or some other kind of fire? Are you interested in that place? Is your interest there, or is your interest in a better place than that? The apostle said, “Our conversation is in heaven, from whence we also look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.”—Phil, iii. 20. This is the place where the interest of the Lord’s children is. The Saviour preached that there is such a thing as everlasting punishment, for He said, “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”—Matt. xxv. 46. The word translated eternal here, with reference to the life of the righteous, is the same word that is translated everlasting with reference to the punishment of the wicked. If the life of the righteous is of endless duration, and it is, then so is the punishment of the wicked of endless duration. The word in the original means, “Of endless duration, interminable, never ending.” C. H. C.
A GOOD MEETING
July 20, 1939
Our last meeting here at home, Saturday and first Sunday, was a wonderful meeting, to us. To say it was a good meeting does not express it. This was our regular communion time. Elders A. W. Thompson and W. A. Holmes, of Iowa, were with us. After the preaching on Saturday, when the opportunity was given for any to present themselves who desired a home with us, our oldest boy, Claudis, Jr., came forward and asked for a home in the old church. He was gladly and joyfully received as a candidate for baptism. He [pg 525] said that it was his desire, if it was all right for us to do so, for us to baptize him. It made us feel so thankful, and yet so insignificant, for our own precious boy to express a desire that we lay him beneath the yielding wave in following the blessed Saviour. On Sunday morning we assembled at the water, at a large pond near-by, and led him down into the water and laid him beneath the wave, in obedience to our blessed Lord, and raised him up again—setting forth both a burial and a resurrection—to walk in newness of life. The Lord graciously smiled on us all in this delightful, yet solemn, service. Then we all went to the meeting- house, and had preaching—good preaching, after which the communion and feetwashing service was attended to, in which we had the delightful privilege of washing the feet of our precious boy. We had often wondered if we would ever have this privilege. Elders Thompson and Holmes, and Sisters Holmes and Hill, who were with the two brethren from Iowa, all took part in the service. The service was delightful. We all got a taste of what is meant in the promise of our Saviour when He said, “If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.” Many tears of joy were shed. The joy and love that was manifested cannot be told.
Lacking from the first Sunday in July to Thursday before the second Sunday in September it was just fifty years from the time our father baptized us (his oldest son) till we had the sweet pleasure of baptizing our oldest son. “O give thanks unto the Lord; for He is good: for His mercy endureth forever.”— Psalm cxxxvi. 1. Read the entire Psalm. Each verse in it ends with “for His mercy endureth forever.” Help us to praise His wonderful and glorious name. C. H. C.
[pg 526]
SELLING CHANCES
July 20, 1939
We have been asked if we think it right for the sisters to piece a quilt and dispose of it by selling chances; the “lucky number” to get the quilt, some little article to be given to the parties who “take a chance;” this to pay a debt the church may owe. Just as well ask us if we think it is right to gamble, or conduct a lottery, for this is nothing but a lottery. If such a project should be advertised in a newspaper, that paper would be barred from the mails by United States law, because it contained an advertisement of a lottery. A paper containing an advertisement of any kind of lottery scheme is barred from the United States mails by law. Is it right to gamble? Who, but a perverse renegade, would say there is no harm in gambling, or that it is right to gamble? It is no worse to gamble in a game of poker with cards, or to shoot dice for the money, than to raffle off a quilt, or any other article. If it is done “for the benefit of the church” it is only a cloak to hide behind. If one would gamble “for the church” he would gamble for his own gain. Wrong is wrong, no matter under what name it sails; and gambling is gambling, no matter if it is engaged in for the pretext of paying a church debt, or what not. Such conduct is reprehensible, and so far as we are personally concerned, we “have no time” for any such practice. May the Lord pity the rising generation when they see the professed followers of the humble Master engaging in such immoral and ungodly practice. It brings shame and disgrace on the cause of the Master. C. H. C.
[pg 527]
PREACHING AND SINGING
Article Number 5
August 3, 1939
In the four articles we have written on this subject we trust we have given our readers something to think about—or that we have caused some of them to stop and think. It is a matter that deserves to be thought about seriously. But thinking will do very little good unless we act on the matter. We need to do something about it. And the thing we need to do is to quit singing a falsehood. The Arminian world recognizes the fact that many people will be unconsciously brought to believe the sentiment they sing. Realizing this fact, they take advantage of it, and make strenuous efforts to get their books, containing unsound sentiment, into the hands of the people; and they take great pains and put forth much effort to get those books to be used. This calls for strenuous effort on the part of our people to overcome such labor, and to strive to get songs and books containing nothing but sound sentiment to be used in our churches and homes.
Here we wish to give you another sample of a song frequently used: “Brethren, we have met to worship.” In some of the books in use the second stanza reads as follows:
Look, and see poor sinners round you
Trembling on the brink of woe;
Death is coming; how alarming!
Can you bear to let them go?
Let us tell them of the Saviour;
Tell them that He may be found.
Let us pray that holy manna
May be scattered all around.
[pg 528] Now, look at that! Poor sinners trembling on the brink of woe! Death is coming—Look out! Warn ’em, good and strong! Will you tell a few graveyard tales to get them frightened, and scare them into making a “profession?” “Can you bear to let them go?” What are you going to do about it? Will you get up a “distracted meeting,” get your professional evangelist, bring in some straw and some sawdust, and “take them down the sawdust trail?” Will you set up a “mourner’s bench,” and get up there, and go into the “old- fashioned” revival business, beat them in the back, and have a hot old time, and “bring them through?” What are you going to do about it? To suit your actions to your singing, when you sing that language, you must “get a move on you.” Some of the books do not have all that verse that way. Some of them have it this way:
Look, and see poor mourners round you Fearing, trembling, as they go;
Longing for a hope in Jesus,
Will you comfort them or no?
Let us tell them of the Saviour;
Tell them that He may be found.
Let us pray that holy manna
May be scattered all around.
The changes here made in the first five lines of this stanza are well and good; but why stop at that? Notice the sixth line: “Tell them that He may be found.” As here used the word may can mean nothing more than that it is possible for Him to be found—there is no certainty about it; it depends wholly and solely upon the amount of effort that is put forth by us and the mourners! He MAY be found! How do you like that? [pg 529] Do you want it preached that way? Is that your faith or belief ? Remember that the Master said: “Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.”— Matt. v. 5. Do you believe what He said? or do you believe that He MAY be found? Why not sing the truth and let us in song “Tell them that He will be found?”
Suppose we notice the last stanza, as it reads in some books our people use:
Let us love our God supremely;
Let us love each other too;
Let us love and pray for sinners,
That our God their souls renew;
Then we’ll love them still the better;
Take them to our kind embrace.
Journey with them on to glory,
There to sing redeeming grace.
Notice the word renew. You will have God to renew some by your prayers, will you? You will get out, now, will you, and help the Lord to save souls? Why not, seeing you sing it that way? Renew means to make new again; to restore to freshness, perfection, or vigor; to make new spiritually; to regenerate. So, as here used, the word cannot possibly mean anything else than to regenerate, or to make new spiritually. So, you Old Baptists who sing that language, are you going to teach people in your song that you can help the Lord to regenerate sinners by your prayers? Or that you, by your prayers, can and will help sinners to be regenerated? We should, at least, be consistent—either go, “boot and baggage,” to the Arminian camps, or else quit singing such rot. We will, the Lord willing, write some more later. C. H. C.
[pg 530]
MILLENNIUM
AND II. PETER II. 10-12
August 3, 1939
Dear Brother Cayce: I have a few questions I would like to have your views on briefly.
1. The people I am affiliated with have a lot to say about the premillennial coming of Christ—about the millennial reign.
2. Some of these same people teach that children will be born naturally; also that people will be saved from sin, or born again.
3. Also, 2 Peter ii. 10-12. When will this take place? at His coming for His church? This is for my benefit, as well as others. Yours in hope, John L. Brennen.
Webster Springs, W. Va.
OUR REMARKS
The writer of the above is not affilliated with the Primitive Baptists. We do not know what people he is affiliated with. On No. 1 we do not understand what he means to ask us. But we will just remark that we do not expect other people than the Primitive Baptists to advocate the truth. They are as liable to advocate one false doctrine as another.
As to question 2 will only say that we do not understand how children will be born naturally and in sin during the millennial reign of Christ, as we understand those people to teach who hold that Christ will come back to earth and reign on earth in person for a thousand years. If the earth is renovated, and sin taken out of the world, as we have understood them to teach, then we do not see how any would be born in sin during that thousand years. Neither can we understand how any would or could be saved from sin during that time, for there would then be no sin for them to be saved from. But this whole matter of the millennium. [pg 531] as taught by the world, is nothing but speculation, and is plainly contradicted by plain declarations in Holy Writ. The inspired writers have plainly taught that when Christ comes again it will be to gather His children home in glory, and that their bodies are to be then—right then, not a thousand years later—changed and made spiritual, and that they will then be forever with the Lord. See 1 Thess. iv. 13-17; 1 Cor. xv. 22-26 and 51–57.
Third. The false teachers described here are in the world now, and have been here all along since the Lord began to send out His true ministers. In the prophetic age the Lord sent out His prophets among His people. Then old Satan began to send his prophets, too. He is a great imitator—just like a monkey; or a monkey is like him. If you have a pet monkey he will try to do everything he sees you do. Old Satan is like that; he saw the Lord send out prophets, and he sent out a lot more. Then when the gospel day was ushered in, and the Lord sent His ministers out, old Satan soon began to send his preachers out, too. And as it was in the prophetic age, when he had so many more prophets than the Lord had, so now he has many more preachers than the Lord has. Satan’s ministers “walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government.” They have no use for the Lord’s government; they despise His kingdom and the subjects of it; they despise the laws the Lord has given to govern in that kingdom. They are “presumptuous, self willed.” They presume to do the work Jesus came to do. Their will is contrary to God and His way. “They are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.” They are simply natural men; they are like natural brute beasts; they [pg 532] have only one nature, one life, and that is poisoned and contaminated with sin. They speak evil of things they understand not, “and shall utterly perish in their own corruption.” They have eyes full of adultery, and cannot cease from sin. They have no life that is above sin. Sin is their element. Nothing can live above its own element. They beguile unstable souls. They deceive every child of God possible who is not thoroughly established in God’s doctrine. That is one thing the devil sends them out for, and some of them work at it very industriously. They get big money for it, sometimes. They are exercised with covetous practices; and are cursed children; they are not blessed children. They are wells without water. They never bring that which will satisfy the spiritual thirst of the heaven-born soul. They are clouds all right, but they are carried about with a tempest. They are not rain clouds; they bring no gospel showers. Beware of them. Read the Bible for yourself, and shun those vain deceivers. May the Lord deliver His little ones from their clutches. C. H. C.
A DRUNKEN FEAST
August 3, 1939
If you will read 1 Cor. xi. 21 you will see that some of the members of the church at Corinth converted the sacramental supper into a drunken feast—that some of’ them were drunken. In some places they use grape juice in the sacramental supper. Will some of those who use grape juice please tell us how those people at Corinth could get drunk on grape juice? They were [pg 533] sharply rebuked by the apostle for getting drunk, but he did not reprove them for using wine (the fermented juice) in the sacramental supper. C. H. C.
ROMANS XI. 2-5
August 17, 1939
God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew. Wot ye not what the Scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.— Rom. xi. 2-6.
We have been asked who the seven thousand men were. This was in the days of Elias, or Elijah, and refers to the time this old prophet had to flee for his life. God’s plan was for Israel to care for the prophets He sent unto them; but they sometimes failed to do that, and even persecuted those prophets. They perse- cuted Elias, and he had to flee for his life. That was when he made the intercession referred to above by the apostle. It appeared to him that he was left alone; that he was the only one left who had not gone after false gods and false ways. But the Lord assured him that he was not alone; that there were others who had not bowed down to idol gods, or to Baal. Of those who had not thus departed the Lord assured him that there were seven thousand men. They were a few in comparison with the whole of Israel. They constituted a remnant—just a small part of the whole number. But [pg 534]
that was a sufficient number for the truth to be maintained and for the right worship and service of God to be engaged in. God was not then without witness. Then the apostle said that there was still a remnant in his day. It has been that way in every age of the world—that the truth of God and His true worship and service has been maintained by a few. God has reserved to Himself a remnant in every age of the world to maintain the cause of truth and righteousness. What was done, and what was true, then, is still true. The truth is still maintained by just a few. The Lord will not be left without a witness in the earth. Things may look dark and gloomy, and we may sometimes feel that we are alone in the world, but there is still a remnant reserved. May the Lord help us to be identified with the remnant, and sustain us, who try to follow Him, in every trial.
C. H. C.
GENERAL ADDRESS
September 7, 1939
From November 14 to 18, 1900, there were gathered and assembled together at Fulton, Ky., a large number of Primitive Baptists from different states of the Union. Fifty-one ministers were present and took part in the meeting. In that meeting a general address was read and approved by a unanimous vote of all present. When the proceedings of that meeting were printed or published this address was in the book, under the above heading. On account of circumstances which exist in some parts of the country, and some things being done in some places, we feel that this address is timely now, [pg 535] and worthy of serious and prayerful consideration by the Primitive Baptists in every section of our country. When that address was put forth thirty-nine (almost) years ago it was evidently the sentiment then of the great body of Baptists. We were at that meeting, and we then fully indorsed the sentiment and principles set forth in that address—and we stand there yet. What do you say, dear reader? Do you stand now where the Baptists stood thirty-nine years ago? Remember that principles are eternal and never change. Following this address, which we copy below in full, are the names of the fifty-one ministers who were in attendance at the meeting, with the post office address of each one at that time. Many of them have crossed over the river, and some left our people and went to another order.
Following this address we also copy an article which was written by several ministers and brethren assembled at-Oakland City, Ind., on September 27, 1900. This article was unanimously approved by the Fulton meeting in November, same year, and published as an “Appendix.”
We recommend a careful reading and study of these addresses. If the things set forth therein were good then, they are good now. The Primitive Baptists as a body raised no objection then to the principles set forth therein. We stand now on the same principles as set forth therein. , C. H. C.
THE ADDRESS
Pursuant to a call of the Primitive Baptist Church of Pulton, Ky., the elders and messengers of the Church of God known as Primitive Baptists, being convened from various places in the [pg 536] United States of America, in the city of Fulton, Ky., from the fourteenth day of November to the eighteenth day of the same month, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred. To all of like precious faith with us. Greeting.
Recognizing with humble gratitude the gracious and divine providence of God in giving us the kingdom and preserving its order and purity through the lapse of many hundred years, fraught with commotions, revolutions, and other vicissitudes of human life, we do feel under profound obligations to thank God and labor faithfully for the prosperity of His holy cause.
1. The Importance of Fellowship cannot be overestimated. It is the sacred cord that binds together the members of this holy community. Since there is no tribunal higher than the local churches to which they may appeal, their safety and perpetuity depends on the preservation of their fellowship.
2. 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 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. 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.
The gospel is God’s appointed remedy for the correction of errors in his Church, and it is in every way sufficient to correct errors among the children of God, if lovingly and faithfully employed. When bars of fellowship are raised they exclude the erring from [pg 537] the God-appointed remedy for the correction of their errors and render restoration hopeless.
When bars of fellowship are unlawfully raised among our people the bond of union by which our churches are held together is broken and the welfare of the cause exposed to the most uncertain results. 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 actions and have no connection with them until they withdraw such bars of fellowship.
3. Heresy being so positively forbidden by the Scriptures, we deem it important to have a clear, accurate, and concise understanding of what the word implies. We take heresy to mean a departure from the teachings of the Scripture as explained in our acknowledged Confession of Faith, but not mere differences of opinion upon immaterial points of doctrine and practice upon which the Bible makes no positive statements.
The Bible does not state the day nor the hour upon which members shall be received in the Church, nor the Lord’s Supper administered. It mentions neither hymnbooks, 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.
No doctrine nor practice that violates neither the Scripture nor acknowledged confession should be construed as heresy. The treatment of heresy requires but little comment. The Bible plainly states that a heretic, after the first and second admonition, shall be rejected (Titus iii. 10), but let it be fully known that an action or doctrine is heresy before action is taken against it. We deem it unsafe to deal with a man as a heretic unless he avows the heresy. In cases where divisions have been forced in the Church by bars of fellowship or otherwise we do earnestly and prayerfully beg our brethren not to go to law over Church property. We believe it is better to take what would be paid out in cost of suit and expend it in a house than to gain the house by law, and much more in harmony with the teaching of our dear Saviour.
4. The Right of an Individual Church to discipline her members is clearly taught in the Scriptures. From the decision of an orderly church, in matters of discipline, there is no appeal. The church is the only authority to which complaint may be made. Only when a [pg 538] church has refused or neglected to discipline a member or members whose actions are bringing reproach or distress upon the cause in general, or when a church, in the opinion of sister churches, has so far indulged in disorderly practices as to render her incapable of proper self-government, or when she has departed from the faith, has a council of churches any right to consider her case, unless they are specially called on by her to do so. For instruction of churches in such cases as described above we refer them to the London Confession of Faith, Chapter XXVI., Section 15.
5. Restoration of Disorderly Churches is a subject that has given much concern to our people. When churches are guilty of only irregularity in doctrine and practice and are willing to disclaim such irregularities and return to primitive order it is our candid opinion that they should be received into the general fellowship of the denomination without being required to perform the impos- sible task of counteracting every individual irregularity.
6. That Associations may be made an advantage to the churches none would hardly deny. That they have sometimes been abused and made a disadvantage none will dare deny. Associations are useful in keeping the churches in sympathetic touch with each other. They can be made useful by making them a place of worship, a place to obtain news from the different churches in the community, by laboring to cultivate a spirit of love and fellowship and of Christian forbearance by putting in the time in trying to build up the cause of Christ rather than trying to impose our peculiar notions on others. Associations may be abused and rendered injurious by the opposite of the above.
7. The Care and Encouragement and Duties of the Ministry is a subject of too great magnitude to be passed by lightly. It is very thoroughly, however, in the London Confession of Faith, approved by this convention. We most earnestly request a careful study of the subject in that document (read Confession, Chapter XXVI., Section 10. See also Minutes of Black Rock Convention). It was evidently the belief of our London brethren, supported by the Holy Scriptures, that ministers of the Word should give their entire time, energy, and talent to their ministry, and the brethren should divide with them a sufficient portion of their living to keep them and their families who are not capable of self-support above want. It is a positive fact that our appreciation of any object is increased
[pg 539] by the amount of care and labor we bestow upon it. It is natural for a mother to love her babe, but as she cares for it from day to day the intensity of her affection increases. A father and mother may take a child not their own to rear, and at first feel a slight indifference, but nights of watchful solicitude and days of toil and care will render that child so dear that they with difficulty distinguish it from their own children. So a church that cares for her pastor loves him better and appreciates his service more than one that does not. There is a holy relation between pastor and evangelist that should not be ignored. The pastor should welcome the evangelist and his labor and show him due courtesy and consideration. In return the evangelist should remember that it is the pastor’s duty and privilege to preside over the church and administer its ordinances. No evangelist should assume to administer any ordinance in the church when the pastor is present unless he is specially requested to do so by the church and pastor. The work of an evangelist is indispensable. Without such work the gospel kingdom would be extended no farther, as it is the chief work of an evangelist to introduce the gospel where it is not known, and to organize churches. There should be no lack of appreciation of either pastor or evangelist, as both are indispensable in the upbuilding and progress of the church and authorized by the Word of God. (See Ephesians iv. 11.) If the claim of Primitive Baptists be true, no one has access to baptism, the elements in the Lord’s Supper, or any other gospel privilege, where there is no Primitive Baptist Church, or ministry. In view of the vast territory in our own country that is absolutely ignorant of Primitive Baptist doctrine, and therefore totally destitute of church privileges, and as the redeemed of the Lord are among every nation, kindred, tongue, and people under heaven (Rev. v. 9) we behold the great necessity of stirring our people up on this subject.
This clearly demonstrates that we claim too much or do too little. We earnestly solicit our people to encourage the work of an evangelist. Not to spend his time in visiting large and well-organized churches, but to labor with the feeble and destitute churches and in places where there is no church. The churches should lovingly, freely, and faithfully contribute of their carnal means as God has blessed them to the support of brethren engaged in this needful work. We would not be understood to regard that [pg 540] there are degrees in the ministry, but different lines of work in the same office.
It is the special duty of the deacons to superintend the financial interest of the church. They should have control of the church treasury and expend it in serving tables. First, the table of the Lord. Secondly, the table of the poor. Thirdly, the table of elders that labor for them. They should receive the donations from the brethren and keep a correct account of same and report to the church, that it may know who are bearing the burdens of the church. The object of the deacons is to equalize the burdens of the churches. (See Practical Suggestions to Primitive Baptists, by Elder Cash.)
8. The 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’ interpre- tation of the Bible from then till now. At the present assembly of fifty-one ministers, representing three hundred and thirty-five churches, aggregating fourteen thousand five hundred members in direct correspondence with over one hundred thousand Baptists, the Confession has been carefully read and approved. Language through the lapse of many years undergoes variations in applica- tions and meanings, whereby certain clauses become more or less obscure in meaning. Wherever, in the opinion of this assembly, the meaning of a section was not apparent footnotes were added to bring out the meaning. The office of this Confession of Faith is not to be regarded as a standard of faith and practice, but as an expression of our interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, which is the only rule of faith and practice. We recommend the Confession with the notes to the careful perusal of all Primitive Baptists, and insist that they make themselves familiar with its teaching. Believing that such a course would obviate many of the difficulties that have so sadly distressed our beloved Zion in the few years passed, we would be glad to see this document, that has stood the test as an expression of our faith for more than two hundred years, become uniformly used in our local churches as their expression of faith and practice.
[pg 541] Praying God’s blessings on His holy cause everywhere and that general prosperity may soon follow, we are your obedient servants and ministers of the gospel in the fear and love of God.
John M. Thompson, Greenfield, Ind.; James H. Oliphant, Crawfordsville, Ind.; J. W. Richardson, Petersburg, Ind.; E. W. Thomas, Danville, Ind.; Will M. Strickland, Fort Branch, Ind.; H. A. Todd, Grayville, Ill.; C. F. Stuckey, Carmi, Ill.; I. J. Fuller, West Salem, Ill.; Simon Reeder, Cottonwood, Ill.; John Williford, Greenville, Ill.; Daniel Lowery, Dahlgren, Ill.; W. A. Fish, Benton, Ill.; J. B. Hardy, Calvin, Ill.; J. V. Kirkland, Fulton, Ky.; R. S. Kirkland, Fulton, Ky.; J. J. Kirkland, Fulton, Ky.; J. C. Ross, Crutehfield, Ky.; L. F. Wallace, Elva, Ky.; W. M. Hopper, Pottertown, Ky.; K. M. Myatt, Clinton, Ky.; A. M. Kirkland, Whitlock, Tenn.; S. L. Pettus, Triune, Tenn.; S. F. Cayce, Martin, Tenn.; W. E. Brush, Clarksburg, Tenn.; John Grist, Friendship, Tenn.; B. O. Dearing, Covington, Tenn.; P. G. Johnson, Rutherford, Tenn.; C. F. Caruthers, Friendship, Tenn.; G. T. Mayo, Dresden, Tenn.; R. C. Taylor, Milan, Tenn.; E. B. Simmons, Mixie, Tenn.; J. N. Wallace, Tumbling, Tenn.; J. L. Butler, West, Tenn.; C. H. Cayce, Martin, Tenn.; J. B. Halbrook, Rutherford, Tenn.; W. T. Jackson, Ruthville, Tenn.; Church Peel, Maury City, Tenn.; J. G. Webb, Bonham, Tex.; J. T. Stewart, Diamond, Ala.; W. J. Mc Cormick, Monroe. Ala.; R. L. Piles, Hon, Ark.; J. B. Little, Abbott, Ark.; J. K. Stephens, Brinkley, Ark.; Lee Hanks, Boston, Ga.; E. M. Verell, Trebloc, Miss.; W. T. Goddard, Milner, Ga.; T. E. Sikes, Cox, Ga.; E. D. WilHams, Taylor, Miss.; J. C. Wilkinson, McComb City, Miss.; Ira Turner, Ashland, Mo.; I. N. Newkirk, Dayton, Wash.
APPENDIX
We, the undersigned elders and brethren, pursuant to a request made by brethren of Patoka Association of Primitive Baptists, now convened at Oakland City Church, in Oakland City, Ind., on the 27th day of September, 1900, to our brethren of like precious faith everywhere:
We sincerely regret the division and strife that have been among us, and earnestly desire that we may be led to see alike, and to unite in our understanding of truth as taught in God’s Word. We [pg 542] represent in this meeting about one hundred congregations in Indiana and Illinois.
We recommend the London Confession of Faith as an expression of Bible truth. The articles of faith of our churches are substantially in harmony with the doctrine and practice set forth in that instrument, and we do heartily recommend the London Confession to the household of faith everywhere. Inasmuch as there is some difference of opinion concerning the teaching of some of the articles in the London Confession of Faith, we will submit the following in the way of explaining our understanding of their teaching:
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.
God’s purpose concerning sin does not sustain the same relation to sin that it does to holiness. While we think that God’s purpose concerning sin is more than barely permissive, it is such as to exclude all chance and uncertainty, yet we hold that God is in no sense the cause of sin.
We do not believe that God requires or forbids anything in His law, and then by a power irresistible moves His creatures to act contrary to His commands. In Chapter III., Section 1, of London Confession, we read: “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; yet so as thereby neither is God 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,” etc.
In this they deny that God’s attitude to sin is causative, and in the body of this Confession we insist that they maintain that God’s attitude to holiness is causative. So they clearly distinguish between God’s efficacious decree of holiness and His purpose concerning sin. Section 2: “Although God knoweth whatever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.” Here they distinguish between the knowledge of God as an attribute of God and the decree of God as an act of God, which we believe to be Scriptural.
[pg 543] For God to foresee that man will yield to influences of a secondary nature does not imply that God moves man to sin, but only that He is the Permitter of sin. Webster defines “permit,” “to suffer, without giving authority.” We use it in the sense of “not hinder.” Section 3 they say: “Others being left to act in their sins to their just condemnation, to the praise of His glorious justice.” If they had believed that God moves men to sin, they would not have said, “being left to act in their sins,” etc. We insist that we should not use language implying that God’s attitude to sin is the same as His attitude to holiness, for this tends to destroy the distinction between right and wrong. The expression, “unlimited predestination of all things,” seems to convey the idea that God’s purpose concerning sin is as unlimited and as unrestricted as it is concerning holiness; and if so, then God’s decree concerning sin would be causative, since it is causative concerning holiness, and this view would destroy all distinction between right and wrong. Chapter XVI., Section 2: “These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith; and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God,” etc.
Section 3: “Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ; and that they may be enabled thereto, besides the graces they have already received, there is necessary an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit to work in them to will and to do of His good pleasure; yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit,” etc. They do neglect, not being forced in duty irresistibly.
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.
Besides the efficacious grace of God in the heart in regeneration, we need the company of God’s Holy Spirit to comfort, lead, and bless us, which He has promised to give to every one that will ask Him (Luke xi. 13). The act of God necessary to our regeneration must in some sense be distinguished from His act necessary to our [pg 544] obedience. We are never commanded to be born again, but in hundreds of places we are called on to obey. We are passive in regeneration, but in obedience we are active. Regeneration is neither a vice nor a virtue; obedience is a virtue and disobedience is a vice. Regeneration is wholly independent of the will. There could be no such a thing as obedience or disobedience independent of the will. Men do not neglect to be born again, but they do neglect their duty.
In Section 5, Chapter XVI., we read: “We cannot by our best of works merit pardon of sin, or eternal life, at the hand of God,” etc. They did not place obedience in the place of Christ, or His atonement, and so we believe it would be exceeding sinful to mention good works as essential to these ends, yet we believe there is an important use for good works aside from these ends. In Section 2, same chapter, they say of good works: “By them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries,” etc. We think these uses of good works Scriptural. We hold that God’s government of His people is moral. We hold, too, that conditionality is an essential element of moral government. We distinguish between God’s government of mind and His govern- ment of matter.
Section 5, Chapter III.: “God hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any other thing in the creature as condition or cause moving Him thereto.” Although the two-seed doctrine was not thought of at the time this Confession was written, yet this article clearly condemns the two-seed doctrine in all its phases.
Chapter XXXI., Section 1: “The souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torment and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. Besides these two places [heaven and hell] for souls separated from their bodies the Scripture acknowledgeth none.” Christ will resurrect the wicked by His power, exerted in His office as King through a proceeding of law, and not under the new covenant, as the righteous will be, each to their endless reward. There is a sentiment prevailing in some parts of our beloved Zion that the wicked will be annihilated at death, and we call attention to the sentiment in this quotation [pg 545] on that subject. The annihilation theory is an innovation, and contrary to every Confession of Faith, and also contrary to the Scriptures.
In Chapters III., IV., and IX., the London Confession mentions the freedom of the will. We do not understand them to mean that the will is free in the sense that it is self-determining, as the Arminians hold; nor that man is capable of choosing things of which he has no knowledge, nor things above and beyond his nature; we do not understand the Confession to mean that men dead in sin are, while in that state, capable of choosing holiness, but we understand it to mean that men are capable of choosing things in harmony with their nature—things most agreeable to them. They are and must be capable of voluntary action in order to their being accountable. Liberty of will in this sense is essential to moral government, as we believe. Men before regeneration are capable of choosing things agreeable to them, as they are afterwards.
In conclusion, we love the doctrine of grace, and we believe that any view of predestination, or of the will, that will tend in any degree to apologize for sin will also tend to minimize the doctrine of grace. Paul says: “To the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the beloved.” Paul so preached as to make grace glitter and shine as a star of the first magnitude. He puts word upon word to lift up our ideas of God’s grace, so we feel it important to oppose any view of the decrees of God that will in the least excuse any sin in man, or point out mitigating circumstances for sin, because just in proportion as we excuse or apologize for sin we also belittle the doctrine of grace; so we oppose the two-seed doctrine because it seeks to find some quality in man that stands as the cause of his election to glory, while Paul speaks of God’s people, “were children of wrath even as others.” We were no better in our nature or conduct than others, and this is the lesson of our experience. When low bowed before the Lord in the darkest hour of our lives, we confessed, and we knew there was nothing in us that could merit esteem, or give the Creator delight. So we oppose every feature of Arminianism as opposed to the doctrine of grace. We feel bound to contend for those principles that most exalt the doctrine of grace, and we feel sure that if we stay with those lessons that we learned in our first [pg 546] experience, we will expose everything that tends to minimize the doctrine of grace.
J. T. Oliphant, E. L. Kerr, J. H. Ohphant, E. W. Thomas, J. W. Richardson, H. A. Todd, J. B. Hardy, C. P. Stuckey, W. C. Arnold, A. J. Willis, William E. Williams, Archie Brown, James Crane, Will M. Strickland, Charles Arnold.
Unanimously approved by the National Convention of Primitive Baptists at Fulton, Ky.
MATTHEW 1. 1
AND I. PETER II. 9
September 21, 1939
A brother has asked us to give our views on Matt. i. 1 and 1 Peter ii. 9. The two citations read as follows:
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.—Matt. i. 1.
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light. —1 Peter ii. 9.
The brother wishes to know if the two places refer to the same generation, and asks when those were chosen, as mentioned in the last quotation.
In Matt. i. 1 the writer is giving the line of ancestry of Jesus, the Son of Mary, our Saviour, showing the line of descent from Abraham to Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born. This is the matter recorded here. You will find practically the same thing in the third chapter of Luke.
In the other citation the apostle is referring to the Lord’s children as a generation, and calls them a chosen generation. The people this apostle was writing to were not natural Jews. He was addressing “the [pg 547] strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappa- docia, Asia, and Bithynia;”and he calls them the “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” As they were elect, they were chosen of God—that is, God had chosen them, and as such they were “a chosen generation.” They were “a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people.” They were different from the world—made so by the work of the Lord. As to when they were chosen, we may see from Eph. i. 3, 4: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love.” The choice was made before the ages of time began, before they had existence. “Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, when as yet there was none of them.”—Psalm cxxxix. 16. The chosen generation were His members. That is, the whole complete body of Christ; the redeemed family is His body. They were written in God’s book before any of them existed—”when as yet there were was none of them.” The choice, then, was before time— before they had existence. The Father made choice of them, and predestinated that they should be conformed to the image of His Son. They will be finally glorified. C. H. C.
[pg 548]
LIKES THE GOOD OLD SONGS
September 21, 1939
Dear Brother in Christ: I like your Good Old Songs very much, if you only had different music written for them. It seems like they are awful hard for the people to sing them. We like the words and the sentiment of the songs. I am with you when it comes to singing. I believe singing the truth is as necessary as preaching the truth. May God give you wisdom and strength to go right ahead in what you are doing. Your unworthy brother, I hope, saved by grace, if saved at all,
Oscar Wallace.
8034 Sarena, Detroit, Mich.
REMARKS
We appreciate your kind expressions of approval and indorsement. The music to the songs in the Good Old Songs were the tunes written, usually, originally for those songs. They were all taken from old-time books, just as they were written in those books. We agree that the tunes are some harder to learn than the tunes written according to modern music. Things that are worth little are easy to learn. Things that are worth while are harder to learn than things worth less. The best things are harder to accomplish than other things are. To us, modern music only entertains and excites natural emotion; the old music stirs the soul, and excites solemn praise and adoration to God. They are deep in spiritual expression. The worship of God should be a solemn thing. The church is a city of solemnities. Deep spiritual and solemn music is, therefore, better suited to the worship of God. Light fantastic music is suitable for some things, perhaps, but we do not think it so suitable for the worship of God. We have heard some of this light fantastic music sung [pg 549] at times and places that absolutely disgusted us, and made us really wish we were somewhere else. Study the music in that book, and learn it, and sing it, and then you will be glad that you did. May the Lord bless you in your labors. Pray for us. C. H. C.
GOD’S WAY—THE RIGHT WAY
October 19, 1939
Note.—The following article was written as a comment on an article by Elder H. L. Golston, Brush Creek, Tenn., in which he was commending some deacons who called on a minister’s family where there was sickness. They reported to the church some of their needs when the church met in conference. Elder Golston commended them for what they did. Our comments were as follows:
The foregoing was good as far as it went. The deacons did the right thing in seeing after the needs in the case. But suppose there had been no church meeting the next night, or for a week or two. Then what? The Bible way is to lay by in store, as God has prospered us. The funds should be laid by, and put in the hands of the deacons. Then when the need arises they have the funds ready. That is God’s way. If the church cannot risk the deacons to dispense the funds to those in need they should remove them from the office. God’s way is the right way, and the best way. One in need might suffer much before time for the church to meet. C. H. C.
[pg 550]
PREACHING AND SINGING
Article Number 6
November 2, 1939
We have received many letters of indorsement of our articles which we have written upon this subject, as well as some letters of criticism. We did not expect it to be otherwise. Of course we could not well expect an indorsement of our writing on the question from many who think it will do to sing just “any old thing,” no matter what the sentiment may be. But that does not deter us from calling attention to such matters, and warning our people and our readers of the danger there is in such things.
Some have seemingly accused us of a wrong motive in the matter. Well, they did that in regard to the prophets and apostles of old. As sure as one endeavors to get the people to cease practicing a wrong, or to correct an error, somebody will accuse him of selfish and wrong motives, or of being a “grouch.” If one is faithful to his trust, will he cease from giving such warning, because of such accusations? We all know that he will not. He will bear all such as that, and continue to issue the warnings.
We do not expect to sell all the song books our people use, nor do we expect to print and publish all the papers our people read; but, whether we do that or not, we do desire our people to put out literature and songs without unsound sentiment, and desire that our people use nothing but sound sentiment. We should be consistent. It seems that somebody in England has been disturbed a little in regard to this matter of singing, as [pg 551] well as here in the United States. We exchange with the Zion’s Witness, published in England. We copy the following extract from the “Annual Address” of the editor of that magazine, as published in that paper of October, 1939:
Many a man of God is sent to feed one solitary saint, be the congregation five hundred or a mere handful. The poor minister likes a nice congregation; yes, flesh is flesh, whether in a vessel of mercy or a vessel of wrath. But the Lord has better employment for His servants than trying to keep a people together who merely meet for old association’s sake, or because wedded to a building, a pew, a denomination, or to worship the musical god. And how the devotees of the latter have increased since the appearance of the ——- Tune Book! From its first inception we felt it would prove more of a curse than a blessing, introducing, as it does, a spirit antagonistic to that of true worship—the very spirit of the congregations of the dead. A real blight we consider many modern tunes to real devotion. The spirit that prompted the worthies of Gower Street to rise up in arms against the introduction of even ——- into their service many years ago was a right one. What would they say now about the tunes almost universally sung throughout the denomination, not to mention worse evils. We doubt whether they would own the sect at all. And if fashionable in the tunes, we must be up-to-date * * * * Besides, “quick’s the word” in the world today, and we must move a little with the times * * * Thus they wrap it up. Oh, the emptiness of it all! the death! Probably a neurotic female presides at the organ, * * * whilst the slow solemn voice of the aged saint is silenced * * * and, alas! parson, deacon, member dare not, or will not object. Ah, “the Lord is a God of judgment, and by Him actions are weighed.”
How true is so much of the sentiment expressed in the above extract. It is a fact that the modern, light, quick, frivolous music of these latter times utterly destroys the spiritual emotions, and only animates the natural, baser, sentiment and instincts. The music [pg 552] sung in our assemblies in these days, where they have adopted so much of the modern sort, is not as sweet and soul-comforting and uplifting as it was in our youthful days. May the Lord help us to return to the old soul-enlivening and soul-cheering tunes that were so sweet to our ancestors, and to be careful to promulgate the truth in song as well as in preaching. May the Lord help us to “save yourselves from this untoward generation.”
C. H. C.
SPECIAL MEETING
November 2, 1939
On January 4, 1890, in the home of a Sister Morris, Elder Cayce made his first attempt to speak in the name of his Master. This coming January 4 will mark the fiftieth year that he has labored in the Lord’s vineyard—worked in that vineyard in the South, North, East and West; worked hard serving churches, debating and preaching, and with his pen.
For some reason, I trust not from a proud or selfish viewpoint, I have desired to have services at our church, here in Thornton, on January 4, 1940; and that Elder Cayce preach the opening sermon. The first Sunday and Saturday before in each month is our regular monthly meeting. I told the church my desire. They, by motion and second, agreed to have services Thursday, January 4, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. We desire our kindred in the Lord to be with us. We want you to come. Come, praying the dear Lord to be in our midst, to own and bless. Pray—pray the Lord [pg 553] to send more laborers in His vineyard, for truly the harvest is white. We would like to have representatives from each church Elder Cayce has served during these fifty years, as well as Baptists from all parts of the country. He loves the cause of his Master. His greatest delight is in serving his Lord, and his brethren. He delights in having his brethren and friends with him in the house of the Lord. January is a winter month, and, sometimes, ’tis harder to care for a crowd comfortably at this time of the year than at other times. We are asking that, as soon as you can, write me and tell me you are coming; and, if you intend to come by private conveyance, tell me how many will be in your crowd. This will enable us to know how many to prepare for.
This invitation is to all Primitive Baptists and friends. We are sincere when we say, we want you to come. Yes, come; and may the sentiment expressed by the poet be the prayer of each:
‘Tis my desire with God to walk,
And with His children pray and talk;
Altho’ I persecuted be,
Yet Jesus suffered so for me.
‘Tis my desire, around the board
To meet thy saints, my dearest Lord;
In union with thy saints to be,
And oft commune with them and Thee.
I will tell you more about our plans in the next issue of the paper. Yours in hope,
Mrs. C. H. Cayce.
[pg 554]
UNIVERSALISM, RUTHERFORDISM, GOATS, ESAU
November 16, 1939
About a year ago we received a request from a brother for us to write a lengthy editorial refuting Universalism, Rutherfordism, and that the goats are the disobedient children of God, and that Esau represented the flesh. We do not have the time or space to write a lengthy article on these matters. In our issue of August 15, 1935, we had an article on the subject of the sheep and the goats. What we wrote on that subject in that article were simple facts then, and they are plain and simple facts yet. It is not necessary to go over those matters again here. That article will be in Volume VI. of our Editorial Writings, which has been begun, but will not be ready to send out for quite awhile yet. We had to lay that work aside for a time, as we are busy now printing minutes, and we let them come first after the paper.
In Volume II., page 262, is an article on General Judgment and Eternal Hell, and in Volume IV., page 153, is an article on the subject of Eternal Punishment. In those articles we gave some plain and simple facts, some of which the child of grace is taught in his experience. Universalism and Russellism (Rutherfordism) both deny that there is any such thing as eternal punishment. This doctrine has always been embraced in the Confessions of Faith of Baptists. If it is not the truth, the Baptists have always been heretics. If it is the truth, then those who deny it are
heretics. A heretic should be admonished twice, and then if he will not cease and desist, he should be excluded promptly. If [pg 555] you fail or refuse to do that, then you are a rebel— rebelling against the laws of the King of Zion. Heresy is like a canker (cancer); it will eat. The only remedy is to cut it out, or put a plaster on it that will kill it and take it out. To let it run on, it will destroy and kill. Better attend to it quickly, as the imperative law of the King commands and requires.
If Universalism is the truth, then the doctrine of election is not the truth. Election means that some are chosen out of and from among others. If all the race are saved, then there was and is no election, no choice. No use to cite Scriptures here to prove the doctrine of election. The man who advocates Universalism denies the doctrine of election, and is a heretic. He should be excluded for heresy and for denying the faith.
If Esau represents the flesh, then God hates the flesh of His children. Jacob had flesh, as well as Esau; but God loved Jacob. On this question read the article on page 482 of Editorial Writings, Volume IV. Paul tells us plainly in Romans ix. that this was election—not flesh and spirit. To deny this is to deny the Bible.
It seems to us that in some places the church is becoming entirely too loose in her discipline regarding the doctrine the church has always stood for. The devil is evidently working on the inside for the destruction of the church of God and God’s doctrine. But there will be a few faithful ones, who will stand for the truth, in every age of the world. But if you want the church to stand in your community, and do not want the candlestick removed, you had better be awake to the situation, and administer the laws the King has given you. “Awake, thou that sleepest.” C. H. C.
[pg 556]
A SHORT TRIP
November 16, 1939
We left home Thursday night before the fourth Sunday in September for Tupelo, Miss., where we attended the Tombigbee Association Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. To us it was a wonderful meeting. The preaching was all in the spirit of the Master. Then on the following days, including Thursday, we filled some appointments in the bounds of the New Hope Association, and then on Thursday night in Jackson, Tenn. Friday morning we went with Elder W. A. Bishop to the Mississippi River Association, which met with Mt. Moriah Church, near Friendship, Tenn. The congre- gation was small on Friday and Saturday, on account of rain. But it was a fine meeting. The following week we filled appointments at West Plains, New Hope, Rutherford, and Union City Churches. Friday morning we went from there to Paducah, with Brother A. E. Luten, to attend the meeting of the Soldier Creek Association, held there. This was a wonderful meeting, yet some sadness on account of the fact that Brother C. K. Hopper was confined upon his bed in affliction. He had counted so much on being in the meeting. The last word we had from him a few days ago he was improving. We trust he may soon be restored to his usual health. May the Lord bless him and his loved ones, is our prayer.
From the Soldier Creek we filled appointments at Middle Fork, Puryear, and Harmony. Then to the Greenfield Association, held with Bethel Church, near Fulton, Ky. This was another good meeting. From there we came home, filling an appointment in Memphis [pg 557]
Sunday night, arriving home about 2 o’clock Monday morning, finding all as well as usual—the family meeting us at the train. We were glad to see them once again. The meetings were all good and pleasant. Fellowship and love abounds among the brethren in that country. May the Lord help them to continue in peace and love. Let us live right, and the Lord’s blessings will follow. We were glad to visit that section once more before we go hence. They were all good and kind to us. We shall not forget your kindness, though we feel unworthy. C. H. C.
GREAT BODY NOT GONE
November 16, 1939
We do not think the great body of Baptists have ever gone astray at once. True, there have been irregularities, and some have departed from the faith; but still “What is Baptistic is Scriptural.” Troubles have been brought into the church by some failing to follow Christ, and some of us followed the preacher instead of following Christ. But at no time did the great body of Baptists follow the preacher, or preachers, who went wrong. If we follow what is, and has been, recognized as Baptist doctrine and practice all along the line, we think we will be following the Master and His teaching. May the Lord help us all thus to do. Pray the Lord for us, that He will help us to walk in that “good old way” the Lord has directed. C. H. C.
[pg 558]
PREACHING AND SINGING
Article Number 7
December 7, 1939
We feel like we should call attention to a few more words in some of our songs which convey a wrong idea, sentiment that is altogether wrong and untrue. Take a serious look at these lines:
In fellowship of joys and woes,
We’ll bear the common strife,
And onward press thro’ all our foes.
And win eternal life.
Do we win eternal life by our own efforts? or by pressing onward through all our foes? That is not the way we read our Book. We read in our Book language like this: “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”— Rom. vi. 23. We are aware of the fact that the apostle said, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.” —Gal. vi. 7, 8. It is most certainly true that one reaps in and from the same field where the sowing is done. It is also true that one reaps the same thing that he sows. What he sows is multiplied, and he reaps what he sows. This being true, if one reaps everlasting life by sowing to the Spirit, he must have had everlasting life before the sowing was done. That is what one sows, if he sows to the Spirit; and then he reaps what he has sown. Then, it cannot possibly be true that one has to do the sowing in order to [pg 559] procure, or to obtain, or to win, everlasting life. Study this text.
Here is another line we wish to call attention to:
My nature is so prone to sin,
Which makes my duty so unclean,
That when I count up all the cost,
If not free grace then I am lost.
Our duty is what the Lord has required of us. Does the Lord require something unclean? Certainly not. What the Lord requires—what is our duty to do—is clean. But sin is mixed with all we do. Hence, it is our doing that is unclean. Put the word doing in the second line, instead of the word duty, and then you will sing the truth. Here is another instance:
Lord, submissive make us go,
Gladly leaving all below;
Only Thou our leader be.
And we still will follow Thee.
If the Lord makes us go in the path of duty, in following Him, then we are not going submissively. If we are made to do a thing, it is done against our will, or our will has but little part to play in the matter. We are made to be children of God, and our will has nothing to do with it. But God requires a willing service. “If any man will come after me,” etc. “If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord.”—Lev. i. 3. God works in His children to will—not the will, as we have sometimes heard it said; but He works in them to will. God gives them the [pg 560] divine life, and the will springs from the life, and they will to follow Him. Hence, if they render acceptable service, it is a willing service. They serve God because they love His service, and then it is acceptable to Him. Then, let us sing it this way:
Lord, submissive we would go,
Gladly leaving all below;
Only Thou our leader be,
And we still will follow Thee.
One more we wish to mention in this article, and that is the song titled, “Death Is Only a Dream.” There are four stanzas in the song, and they end this way: “And yet ’tis no more than a dream;” “For death is no more than a dream;” “They find it no more than a dream;” “To wake with glad smiles from their dream.” If the title of that song, and the last line in each stanza be true, then death is not a reality. A dream is “a series of thoughts, images, or emotions occurring during sleep; any seeming of reality or events occurring to one sleeping,” etc. A dream is a seeming reality. If “Death Is Only a Dream,” it is only a seeming of reality, and is not a reality. But, according to God’s blessed Book, death is an awful reality. Death in sin is a reality. Physical death is a reality. Our loved ones who have gone down into the dark valley went down into an awful reality. Jesus died for our sins (1 Cor. xv. 3). If that song and the title of it be true, Jesus only dreamed; it was only a seeming reality! The whole thing is a myth! Nothing but a dream— just an imaginary thing! Lord, help us all to think; help us to study and to consider the teaching of thy Book, and help us to consider what we are setting forth in our [pg 561] songs as well as in our preaching. Lord, help us to “contend earnestly for the faith that was once delivered to the saints.” Let us be found “speaking the truth in love” in song as well as in preaching. We may write some more later on. C. H. C.
HOLIDAY GREETINGS
December 21, 1939
The holidays will soon be here, and we wish every reader may have a “Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.” May the coming holidays bring joy and gladness to every heart. May the New Year bring renewed hope and courage to you, to last all the whole year through. May many joys be yours, with little sadness and sorrow. We would say no sadness or sorrow; really that is what we wish for you; but we know some sadness comes to each person along life’s pathway. We would be glad to send a Christmas card to each one; but we cannot do that, as the cost would be too much for so many; but we can try to express our good wishes for you this way; and we desire this to be a personal message to each reader. May the Lord’s richest blessings be yours to enjoy, is our sincere prayer and wish for you.
Just here we would suggest a year’s subscription to THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST for some poor widow, or to your pastor, or to some afflicted saint, would be a very acceptable and appropriate gift. So, also, would a Bible, or a Testament, or one or more volumes of Editorial Writings. No better gift could be made. Either of these would bring help, and comfort, and joy, [pg 562] and satisfaction to the recipient. If you wish to do something for some person that will be of real help or benefit, consider this suggestion. And may the Lord help us to scatter flowers in the pathway of His children. C. H. C.
MOVED TO THORNTON
December 21, 1939
Brother M. B. Claggett and daughter, Sister Grace Claggett, have moved to Thornton from Newark, Ohio. Sister Grace will work in our office, and will help the editor and wife with our work. Many things have needed to be done which we have had to allow to go undone because there was more to do than we could possibly get done. We trust that Sister Claggett will be a great help to us in our work in the office, both to the editor and the wife; and we trust that she will also be pleased with her position with us, and will not have cause to regret making the change, and that neither she nor her father will ever have cause to regret moving into our midst. We ask our readers to pray the Lord to bless all our labors to the good of the cause of the Master. C. H. C.
DESIRE EXPRESSED
December 21, 1939
This is the last paper to go out in 1939. I wish for each reader the very best of the season’s Greetings. In bidding adieu to 1939, and thinking of a few of my many blessings, I feel that my desire and aim for [pg 563] 1940 is: to be more devoted and more loyal, first, to my heavenly Father, then to my family, brethren, sisters and friends.
Then, almost instantly, the question arose. How can one be devoted and loyal to God? Is not some of the ways “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together;” and “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me?”
If we are not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together, would we not receive blessings from Him when we assemble in the house of God, to honor and praise His great and holy name? I feel now, and have felt all along, that the dear Lord will meet with us at our church here on January 4, 1940, and that each one present will receive His blessings.
THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, dated January 4, 1940, will be mailed a week late. We wanted to give an account of our meeting in that issue of the paper. In order to do this, the paper will be late. We feel to know that the paper carries a message of cheer, comfort and instruction to many of the Lord’s children; yea, to many who are shut-ins on account of afflictions, as well as to those who are well, physically. Then, this being true, is not the paper a help to the Lord’s people?
Please continue to beg the dear Lord to be “merciful unto us, and bless us; and cause His face to shine upon us.” And “O let the nations be glad and sing for joy.” “Let the people praise thee, 0 God; let all the people praise thee. Then shall the earth yield her increase; and God, even our own God, shall bless us.” In hope, Mrs. C. H. Cayce.
[pg 564]
WILL YOU?
December 21, 1939
Recently a friend, a wellwisher, of the Primitive Baptists and of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST paper, while passing through our town, stopped at our office for a few minutes. His conversation, in short, was: “Congratulations, Elder Cayce. The Lord willing, I aim to be at your January meeting. Here is a dollar and a half for the paper to be sent to * * *, a new subscriber. Tell your members that I am not a member of any church, but I want to head the list for each present subscriber to send one new subscription in, and thereby, in a small way, show our appreciation for the long, useful life you have spent and devoted to the cause of the Master.” We appreciate our friend’s visit, and appreciate his interest in the paper. Do you approve of his suggestion? Will you do as he did—each present subscriber send one new subscription? Will you? Mrs C. H. Cayce
CLOSE OF VOLUME LIV.
December 21, 1939
We are nearing the end of another year. The closing record of another year’s work is now being made. Another volume of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST is being completed with this issue. As the obligation to write an article for the close of this volume is presented to us, the feeling comes over us that perhaps our writing along this line has become stale to our readers. While wondering in mind as to what we shall write for the [pg 565] close of volume fifty-four, and that perhaps we have written along the same line each year, for several years past, and that perhaps our expressions have become stale, we thought of the language of the poet (Good Old Songs, No. 365):
Since man by sin has gone from God,
He seeks creation through,
And vainly hopes for solid bliss,
In trying something new.
Suppose we should find “something new” to write about, would it be worth anything to the readers, or to us? “For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.”—Acts xvii. 21. These people were worshipers of idols—were idolatrous worshipers. They were always seeking after some new thing. But the poet continues:
The new possessed, like fading flowers.
Soon loses its gay hue.
The bubble now no longer stays.
The soul wants something new.
So, if we should find something new to tell our readers, the new thing would soon disappear like a bubble. The same old principles of truth are as good now as they ever were. May we not, then, well apply the. fifth stanza to the present situation:
The joy the dear Redeemer gives.
Will bear a strict review;
Nor need we ever change again,
For Christ is always new.
History repeats itself. Every year brings its joys and sorrows. There are days and nights in every year, [pg 566] and they average up about the same length. Sometimes the nights are longer than the days; and then the days are longer than the nights; but they follow each other in succession. Some nights are darker than others. Some days are brighter than others. We do not see the sun every day. Sometimes the clouds hide the sun from our view. But the sun is shining behind the clouds, even if we cannot see it at the time. There are some cloudy days, as well as sunshiny days. Without the clouds we would have no rain; and without the rain, the earth would not be watered; the vegetation would wither and perish. After a few cloudy and dismal days we can appreciate the sunshine, and enjoy the sun’s pleasant rays. When the sun sets clear we look forward in anticipation of another bright and pleasant day. While we have had some dark days during the past year, we feel that the sun is setting clear in the close of this, another day, and we are hoping that it will rise bright and clear and beautiful in the morning of the year 1940.
We bid you a kind farewell, hoping to greet you again in the New Year, the next issue to be dated January 4, 1940. Please bear in mind, however, that the next paper will be sent out a few days late, for the reason given by our dear companion. Pray for us. C. H. C.
END OF VOLUME SIX
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.
Absher, Cora, Asks for Views, 121
Absolute Doctrine, More, 108
Absoluter, An, 219
Acts iv. 5-28, 416
Acts xvii. 26, 179
Acts xxvi. 22, 428
Acts xx. 23, 24, 146
Adam—Could He Have Kept the Law? 448
Adam Was the First Man, 207
A Delightful Trip, 234
Administration of Baptism, 129
A Drunken Feast, 532
Advice and Advise, 326
Advocate and Messenger, Article from, 312
A False Accusation, 179
After the Flesh, 281
Age-old Practice, 474
A Good Meeting, 524
Alabama, Tour in, 209
Alabama, Trip in, 208
All Were Together Then, 286
Altman, B. T., Asks Views on Romans viii. 13, 459
An Address to Young Preachers, 362
Andalusia Peace Meeting, 203
An Error Corrected—Secret Orders, 385
Another Correction, 399
Another Corresponding Editor, 116
Another Helper—Elder A. D. West, 24
Another New Bible, 230
Anti-Board Faction in Formative Period, 360
Antioch Association, Trip in, 209
Apt to Teach, 70
Are Agreed, 107
A Reminder, 485
A Remnant Yet, 53
Arkansas and Oklahoma, In, 395
Arkansas Farmer, Article from, 264
Article from Banner-Herald, 17
Articles, Good, Left Out, 16
Articles of Faith, 240
Articles of Faith of Old Mississippi Baptists, 347
A Short Trip in Mississippi, Kentucky, and Tennessee, 556
Association, Our, at Elizabeth, 122
Association, Our, at Kirby, 406
A Stunner, 351
A Young Dog, 360
Back With Us, 336
Banner-Herald, Clipping from, 325
Baptism, Administration of, 129
Baptist and Commoner in a Dilemma, 65
Baptist Examiner, 154
Baptists, First, in Mississippi, 163
Baptized in Name of Christ, 103
Barn Burned, 243
Barrett, R. L., Asks Views on Proverbs xiii. 22, 488
Bars the Lord Put up, 295
Baughan, W. S., Funeral of, 310
Become Stale, 564
Bed Too Short, 58
Behave Ourselves, 344
Belshazzar, From, to Roosevelt, 158
Berry, An Absoluter, Says God Walks us, 365
Best Code of Moral Laws, 230
Bible, Another New, 230
Bible Classes, 450
Bibler, James, Ordained, 402
Big Head a Bad Disease, 82
Bishop, Fairchild, Hardy, and Todd, No. 1, 53
Bishop, Fairchild, Hardy, and Todd, No. 2, 74
Bishop Memorial Church to be Host, 74
Blackwell, W. M., Asks for Views, 483 Blameless, Must be, 60
Board Baptists Use Nine Per Cent, and Bogard Folks Use Fifty Per Cent for Expenses, 341
Bogard Handles the Cash, 343
Bogard Quit the Baptist and Commoner, 340
Bogard Says They are the Same, 347
Bogard’s Tracts, 24
Booze, 134
Both Cannot be First, 251
Bowden, Elder J. B., Car Stolen, 108
Bowlin, Lena, Asks for Views, 478
Bradford, Clinton, Asks for Views, 118
Branham, William, 365
Brawler, Not a, 78
Brennen, John L., Asks Questions, 530
Broken Cisterns, 142
Brotherly Advice, from Banner- Herald, 17
Buckingham, S., Asks About Baptism, 129
Building the Home Christian— Review of a Book, 134
Burnam, Pence & Co., 213
Burning Bush, 498
Busybodies and Meddlers, 344
Caddell, B. A., Asks Who Crucified Christ, 126
Caldwell, D. K., Hamburg, Ark., 108
Callaway, J. L., Asks for Views, 119
Call for Peace Meeting at Nashville, Tenn., 306, 311
Canaan Belonged to the Jews, 264
Can a Person Make Atonement? 257
Can Sinners be Saved Without Preachers? 356
Cash, Elder Walter, on the Organ Question, 260
Cause Defended, 94
Cayce, Mrs. C. H., Expresses Desire, 562
Challenged, 351
Changed Over, 340
Changed the Articles of Faith, 347
Chastain, Elder W. A., 385
Chastisement, 276
Chastisement and Atonement, 257
Cheap Salvation, 343
Cheap Salvation in Tracts, 24
Child Never Cries Before Being Born, 88
Choctawhatchee Association, Trip in, 209 Christ Did Not Stand as a Lamb Slain, 448 Christ Gave Himself for the Church, 195
Christianity to Export, 36
Christmas and Easter, 130
Church a Widow, 501
Church does not Need Sunday School, 41
Church Harbors Crime, 27
Church has Prospered, 264
Church Here to Stay, 143
Church Letters of Dismission, 278
Church Papers, Our, 312
Church Rights, 22, 213, 255
Church Sending a Committee, 334
Church Should be Careful, 60
Church Should Care for Certain Widows, 92
Church Should Correct Her Mistake, 153
Church Sovereignty, 94, 213
Claggetts Moved to Thornton, 562
Clark, Wm. Lloyd, Book by, 158
Claudis, Jr., Baptized, 524
Closed Doors, 454
Close of Volume Fifty, 143
Close of Volume Fifty-four, 564
Close of Volume Fifty-one, 237
Close of Volume Fifty-three, 438
Close of Volume Fifty-two, 330
Colossians iv. 1, 434
Colossians iii. 15, 441
Colossians iii. 5, 78
Command and Advice, 326
Committee Asking Church to Grant Letters, 334
Communion at Bethel, Near Shreveport, 515
Communion Meeting at Thornton, 502
Communion Service, 477
Compulsory Military Training, 45
Condemnation and Salvation, 496
Confession (Presbyterian) Changed, 384
Copeland, S. E., Did Good Work, 52 Correction, Another, 399
Corresponding Editor, 323
Corresponding Editor, Another, 116
Cost of One Issue, 189
Could He Have Kept From it? 448
Could not Boss—Bogard, 340
Councils Not Higher Courts, 278
Count Our Blessings, 438
Covenants—Some Conditional and Some Unconditional, 245
Covenants, The Two, 124
Covenant With Death and Hell, 53
Covetous, Not, 78
Crime Increasing, 9
Cross Roads, Meeting at, 310
Crouse, Elder Wm. H., in Banner- Herald, 17
Crouse, Mrs. John A., Asks for Views, 484
Damnation by Works and Salvation by Grace, 496
Dangerous Doctrine, 454
Dawson, Elder S. A., Asks Views on Ephesians v. 25-27, 195
Dead Dogs, 408
Dearing, J. L., Asks Questions, 113
Dearing, S. W., Satisfied, 67
Dearman, W. H., Asks Views on Ecclesiastes ix. 14-16, 487
Death Only a Dream, 558
Debate with Chism, 509
Dedication, 3
Delightful Trip, A, 234
Desire Expressed, by Mrs. C. H. Cayce. 562
Destruction of Sodom, 121
Deuteronomy xiv. and Leviticus XXV., 478
Did God Foreordain it? 140
Did Jesus Wash Judas’ Feet? 121
Displeasure Incurred, 146
Disturbing Folks, 474
Do, as Well as Talk, 441
Doctrine Came from Hell, 179
Doctrines of Devils, 224
Does the Spirit Come Back? 522
Dog, A Young, 360
Don’t Want to Miss Any, 49
Door, in John x., 486
Doors Closed, 454
Duncan, Elder, Married, 300
Earthly Ties Done Away, 39
Easter and Christmas, 130
Easy to Go to Extremes, 295
Ecclesiastes ix. 14-16, 487
Ecclesiastes iii. 15, 330
Editor Blamed, 441
Editorial Staff, Elder A. D. West Added to, 24
Educational System Wrong, 9
Elder Cash Passed Away, 286
Elder Duncan Married, 300
Elder Fairchild Again, 372
Elder Fisher Passed Away, 177
Elder J. C. Ross Bereaved, 379 ,
Elder Monk Passed Away, 378
Elder Morgan Replies, 474
Elder Newman Gone, 141
Elder Stegall Heard from, 172
El Dorado, Union Meeting at, 308
Elect Means Chosen, 179
Elizabeth Church, Association Held With, 122
Encouraging Letter, 428
Ephesians v. 6 and Galatians vi. 7, 217
Ephesians v. 3-11, 295
Ephesians v. 25-27, 195
Ephesians iv. 11, 129
Ephesians i. 5, 179
Ephesians i. 5, John iii. 16-18, and Romans viii. 29, 30, 245
Ephesians i. 3, 179
Ephesians i. 3-6, 416
Ephesians ii. 8, 9, 227
Esau, Goats, Universalism, Rutherfordism, 554
Esau Hated, 39
Everlasting Punishment, 88
Evil in Isaiah xlv. 7, 365
Evolution Taught, 9
Exchange of Pulpits, 379
Excluded Folks, 22
Excluded Persons, Restoring of, 132
Excuses, 322
Excuses Rendered, 33
Exodus Hi. 1-6, 498
Exodus XX. 9, 434
Expenses Nine Per Cent and Fifty Per Cent, 341
Explanation Wanted, 245
Ezekiel iii. 4, 11, 49
Fairchild and Ahab, 408
Fairchild, Elder, Again, 372
Fairchild Excluded from Providence Church, 53
Fairchild, Hardy, Todd, and Bishop, No. 1, 53
Fairchild, Hardy, Todd, and Bishop, No. 2, 74
Fairchild, J. W., Article from, 408
Fairchild not Restored, 372
Fairchild on Predestination, 416
Faith and Belief, 93
Faith of First Mississippi Baptists, 163
False Accusation, A, 179
False Teachers, 530
Fannin, J. T., Asks for Views, 115
Feast, A Drunken, 532
Feetwashing not a Test of Fellowship, 278
Fence Breakers, 295
Fenced Vineyard, 290
Fido and Bob, by J. A. Scarboro, 360
Filthy Lucre, Not Greedy of, 70
First Baptists in Mississippi, 163
First Church near Natchez, Miss., 163
First Corinthians xi. 19, 169
First Corinthians xi. 33, 119
First Corinthians xi. 21, 532
First Corinthians xv. 51, 52, 507
First Corinthians xv. 57, 509
First Corinthians xv. 22, 205
First Corinthians i. 9, 33
First Corinthians vii. 16, 139
First Corinthians vi. 1 and Matthew v. 40, 152
First Corinthians vi. 1-7, 495
First Corinthians ii. 16, 281
First Corinthians ii. 2, 273
First John v. 11, 454
First John v. 19, 245
First John v. 7, 444
First John iv. 7, 8, 454
First John ii. 2, 15-17, 483
First Kings xviii. 17, 18, 408
First Man, The, 207
First Peter iv. 18, 219
First Peter iv. 15, 344
First Peter ii. 9 and Matthew i. 1, 546
First Thessalonians iv. 16, 17, 507
First Thessalonians i. 4, 179
First Timothy v. 9, 92
First Timothy iv. 1, 2, 163
First Timothy iv. 1-3, 224
First Timothy vi. 10, 11, 379
First Timothy iii. 1-7, 60
Fisher, Elder, Passed Away, 177
Five Smooth Stones, 168
Fixed it up With Jesus, 488
Floundered in Marshy Bogs, 94
Ford, R. A., Asks About 2 Kings xx. 1-7 and Job xiv. 5, 170
Foreign Missions, 36
Forged Letter, 474
Forgetting the Things Behind, 441
Fornicator Becomes Dead, 60
Freedom of Press and Speech, 264
Friends Appreciated, 151
From a Missionary in China, 228
From Belshazzar to Roosevelt, 158
Fruits Worthy of Repentance, 94
Fuller and Carey, 94
Fuller, Carey & Co., 213
Funny, It Is, 26
Future Identity, 39, 225
Gadsby’s (William) Experience, 33
Galatians iv. 27, 131
Galatians iv. 22-31, 124
Galatians i. 9, 10, 94
Galatians vi. 7 and Ephesians v. 6, 217
Galatians vi. 10, 251
Garland, S. H., Asks for Views, 120
General Address, at Fulton, Ky., 534
General Atonement not Held by First Mississippi Baptists, 163
Genesis i. 26, 444
Genesis vi. 2, 339
Genesis iii. 16, 82
Genesis ii. 15-17, 140
Genesis ii. 19, 434
Genesis ii. 21, 22, 82
Germany, Italy, Russia, and Spain, 264
Gifts in the Ministry, 129
Gillentine, E. C, in Baptist and Commoner, 163
Gillentine, E. C, Stung, 337
Gill, on Jeremiah xxiv. 1-3, 275
Gill, on the Holy Kiss, 453
Given to Hospitality, 70
Goats, Universalism, Rutherfordism, Esau, 554
God Does not Love all the Race, 245
God is Able to Save, 159
God is the Same, 438
God Made Them Thieves, 108
God’s Sovereign Grace, 30
God’s Way—the Right Way, 549
God the First Cause of all Causes, 416
Going to Law, 495
Going to Law Forbidden, 152
Golston, Elder, Commends some Deacons, 549
Good Articles Left Out, 16
Good Behaviour, Must be of, 60
Good Meeting, A, 524
Good Old Songs Hymn Book, 26
Good Report, Must Have a, 82
Good Tree Bears Good Fruit, 88
Good Works Evidences of New Birth, 94 Gossip, 344
“Go to Thunder,” 26
Grace Brings Salvation, 88
Great Body not Gone, 557
Green, Elder Abner, Bogard’s Witness, Dead, 430
Griffin’s History of Mississippi Baptists, 163 Griffin, W. D., 304
Griffin, W. D., an Absoluter, 123
Gross Disorder, 334
Hamrick, J. H., Asks about Johnl xiii. 14, 15, 17, 162
Hardshell Bragging Again, 430
Hardshellism Refuted, 356
Hardy, Fairchild, Todd, and Bishop, No. 1, 53
Hardy Hooked up With Fairchild, 372
Hardy, Todd, Fairchild, and Bishop, No. 2, 74
Harris, Virgile, Asks about Genesis ii. 15-17, 140
Hartman, Herman, Ordained, 402
Have Mercy on Your Editor, 314
Hebrews iv. 12, 13, 444
Hebrews ix. 2, 257
Hebrews vii. 22, 509
Hebrews x. 10, 195
Hebrews x. 28-30, 219
Hebrews xii. 6-8, 12, 276
Hebrews ii. 1-3, 283
Helping the Devil, 108
Hens Furnish Church, 325
Herbison, Thomas, Asks Question, 477
History of Scioto Association, 461
History of Walker County, Ala., 271
History Repeats Itself, 564
History, Some Additional, 132
Hodges, Mrs. A. D., Asks for Views, 113
Holiday Greetings, 561
Holiday Remembrances, 151, 243
Holy Calling, The, 221
Holy Kiss, 453
Holy Manna, 527
Home Life, 9
Hospitality, Given to, 70 573
Houk, Elder H. P., Back with us, 336
How Does Hearing Come? 154
How do You Stand now? 112
How Was the Business Started? 356
Human Efforts, 124
Hundred Dollars not put up, 430
Husband of one Wife, 60
Hymn Book, 26
If Signifies a Condition, 459
Immortality Here? 522
Imposed Upon, 148
In Arkansas and Oklahoma, 395
In a Sad Plight, 65
Infant Damnation in Stegall’s Doctrine, 356
Infants Lost, According to Stegall’s Doctrine, 154
Insane Person Cannot be Saved, Says a Preacher, 159
Instrumental Music, 112
Internal Work, 88
Introduction to Volume Fifty, 7
Introduction to Volume Fifty- four, 441
Introduction to Volume Fifty- one, 146
Introduction to Volume Fifty- three, 333
Introduction to Volume Fifty- two, 240
Isaac the Promised Child, 124
Is a Church a Sovereign? 22
Isaiah liv. 4, 501
Isaiah v. 1-10, 290
Isaiah xl. 6, 330
Isaiah xlv. 7, 365
Isaiah xxx. 8-10, 49
Isaiah xxviii. 18-20, 53
Ishmael, 124
Is Sin the Cause of Death? 522
It is Funny, 26
Jacob Loved, 39
Jenkins, W. M., Aslis What condemns, 496
Jeremiah liv. 9, 10, 245
Jeremiah x. 23, 365
Jeremiah xxiv. 1-3, 275
Jeremiah ii. 13, 142
Jesus is Lawgiver, 326
Jesus Saved Insane Persons, 159
Job xiv. 5 and 2 Kings xx. 1-7, 170
Job xiv. 1, 2, 330
John viii. 47, 154
John viii. 1-11, 320
John V. 40-42, 179
John V. 39, 103
John V. 37-42, 454
John V. 28, 29, 492
John V. 24, 117
John V. 21, 25, 454
John i. 1 and 2 Timothy iv. 2, 273
John vi. 39, 88
John x., 486
John x. 11, 15, 88
John xiii. 14, 15, 17, 162
John iii. 19, 94
John iii. 16-18,
Romans viii. 29, 30, and Ephesians i. 5, 245
Jones, M. B., Asks About Women Preaching, 509
Jude 3 and Philippians ii. 12, 283
Jude 12, 13, 114
Judged Out of the Books, 117
Judgment, The Last, 105
Justice, Elders, Suggest Meeting, 278
Justified by Faith, 481
Keaton, Elder J. H., on Our Staff, 323
Keith, Lewis, Letter from, 428
Kentucky and Tennessee, Tour in, 382
Kind of Death Adam Died, 207
Kingdom Prepared, 88
King, R. B., Asks About the Resurrection, 492
Known by Their Fruits, 36
Kuykendall, M. R., Asks About Five Smooth Stones, 168
Land a Trust and Must be Preserved, 264
Last Judgment, The, 105
Law, Mrs. A. M., Asks About Malachi iv. 5, 6, 452
Layman’s Movement, 36
Legalized Gambling, 27
Lester, Mrs. Annie, Asks Questions, 103
Letter from Elder Fairchild, 372
Letter from Fairchild to Elder McMillon, 53
Leviticus xxv. and Deuteronomy xiv., 478
Lewis, Elder G. W., Letter from, 408
Life not Imparted Through a Medium, 356
Likes The Good Old Songs, 548
Linkous, W. W., in Bel Air Times, 179
Little Flock Church, Killeen, Texas, 132
Little Foxes, 290
Loftis, Thurmon, Asked for Views, 484
Lord, The, Is Faithful, 33
Lottery, 526
Loyd, D. R., Asks What kind of Death Adam Died, 207
Lucas, Sister M. O., Asks for Views, 114
Luke ix. 62, 441
Luke vii. 28, 105
Luke xvi. 31, 365
Luke XX. 29-38, 492
Luke ii. 1, 245
Make the Paper a Weekly, 189
Making Money not Our Purpose 148
Malachi iv. 5, 6, 452
Man of Sorrows, The, 30
Man with One Talent, 134
Marked, Should be, 301
Mark xvi. 16, 118
Mark x. 33, 34, 127
Mark xii. 20-27, 492
Marshy Bogs, 94
Martindale, Mrs. B., Asks Abou Matthew iv. 16, 17, 138
Matthew xviii. 8, 9, 15-17, 226
Matthew viii. 28, 159
Matthew v. 40 and 1 Corinthians vi. 1, 152
Matthew v. 17, 18, 320
Matthew iv. 16, 17, 138
Matthew ix. 16, 17, 113
Matthew xix. 18, 179
Matthew xix. 27, 28, 115
Matthew i. 1 and 1 Peter ii. 9, 546
Matthew xxv. 31-46, 88
Matthew xxii. 25-27, 492
McDow, Callie, Makes a Suggestion, 189
McMillon, Elder W. C, Letter from, 53
Meaning of the Word Soul, 202
Meddlers and Busybodies, 344
Meelear, Sister P. E., Asks Views on 1 Peter iv. 18, 219
Meeting at Cross Roads, 310
Meetings Resumed, 451
Meeting Suggested, 278
Meeting to Commemorate Fiftieth Year in Ministry, 552
Memphis, Tenn., A Unit in, 67
Mercy, Please Have, 482
Military Training for Women, 45
Millennium and 2 Peter ii. 10-12, 530
Miller, S. L., Asks for Views on Hebrews xii. 6-8, 12, 276
Miller, W. P., Asks Some Questions, 245
Ministerial Qualifications, Article No. 1, 60
Ministerial Qualifications, No. 2, 70
Ministerial Qualifications, No. 3, 78
Ministerial Qualifications, No. 4, 82
Minister May Advise, 326
Minister Won’t Reveal Name, 27
Missionaries Have Changed, 347
Missionaries not Like First Mississippi Baptists, 163
Missionaries, What Will Become of the? 228
Missions, 228
Mississippi Baptist History, 347
Money Disappears, 341
Money Used for Expenses First, 341
Monfort, J. T., Asks About 1 Corinthians xi. 19, 169
Monk, Elder, Passed Away, 378
More Absolute Doctrine, 108
Morgan, Elder, Replies, 474
Morrisett, W. T., Asks About 1 Corinthians vii. 15, 139
Mount Zion, Tour in, 221
Moved to Thornton—The Claggetts, 562
Movies, A Curse, 9
Murrie, Bettie, Asks About Trinity, 444
Must be Blameless, 60
Must be of Good Behaviour, 60
Must be Sober, 60
Must be Vigilant, 60
Must Have a Good Report, 82
Mutual Rights, 255
Nashville Meeting, Object of, 379
Nashville Meeting, The, 316
Neglect of the Missionaries, 228
New Cloth and Old Garment, 113
Newman, Elder J. S., Passed Away, 141
New Things Opposed, 240
Newton, John, a Calvlnist, 48
New Wine and Old Bottles, 113
Nichols, J. R., Asks for Views on 1 Timothy iv. 1-3, 224
No Escape, 283
Nonattendance, 127
No Place to Quit, 17
North and East, Tour in, 402
North Carolina and Virginia, 272
No Striker, 70
Not a Brawler, 78
Not a Novice, 82
Not Covetous, 78
Not Given to Wine, 70
Not Gone, Great Body, 557
Not Greedy of Filthy Lucre, 70
Nothing for Young People to do, 94
Not Recognized by Orderly Baptists, 372
Not True to Facts, 94
No Weekly Paper, 494
No Wonder Crime is Increasing, 27
Oath Taken in Joining a Union, 251
Obituaries, 212
Object of First Sunday School, 41
Object of Nashville Meeting, 379
Offend, A Scandal, 226
Oklahoma and Arkansas, In, 395
Old Doctrine, The, 179
One Talent Man, 134
One That Ruleth Well His Own House, 82
Ordained, but Can’t Preach, 153
Order, Questions on, 334
Organ Question, The, 260
Our Association at Elizabeth, 122
Our Association at Kirby, 406
Our Church Papers, 312
Our Desire, 146
Our Dumb Animals, Statement from, 36
Our Heart Bleeds for the Younger Generation, 264
Our Special Offer, 148
Our Trip in Texas, 198
Our Union Meeting at El Dorado, 308
Papal Rome Led the Way, 228
Paper, No Weekly, 494
Paradise Not an Offer, 30
Parker, W. T., Asks About Trinity, 444
Parnell, T. L., Asks for Views, 121
Partners in Soul-saving Accused, 341
Pate, Alma, Asks Views on Texts, 217
Patient, Minister to be, 78
Peace Can be Restored, 286
Peace Meeting at Andalusia, 203
Peace Meeting, Call for, at Nashville, Tenn., 306
Pearce, E. P., Moderator of Little River Association, 219
Pentecost, Rev. Cayce, Baptized, 304
Perry, W. J., Knows Nothing About it, 430
Persecutions Will Come, 330
Peyton, Rupert, In Shreveport Times, 515
Philippians ii. 12 and Jude 3, 283
Pie Supper Planned, 397
Pleads Ignorance, 474
Please Have Mercy, 482
Pool Halls, 161
Preachers Objected, 9
Preachers Should not Lie, 371
Preachers Start Troubles, 301
Preachers They are Working With, 74
Preaching and Singing, Article No. 1, 488
Preaching and Singing, No. 2, 499
Preaching and Singing, No. 3, 503
Preaching and Singing, No. 4, 509
Preaching and Singing, No. 5, 527
Preaching and Singing, No. 6, 550
Preaching and Singing, No. 7, 558
Preach the Word, 273
Predestination not Causative, 416
Predestination of all Things or Nothing, 416
Predestination, Studies in, 416
Preface, 5
Presbyterian Confession Changed, 384
Principles Never Change, 438
Principles the Same, 143
Progressives and Nashville Meeting, 379
Progressives’ Claim, 213
Proposed Peace Meeting, 286
Proverbs xiii. 22, 488
Proverbs xx. 19, 344
Psalm xc. 10, 170
Psalm cxxxix. 16, 646
Psalm xxxvii. 25, 128
Psalm ii. 7, 8, 88
Purloining, 434
Putting up Fences, 295
Quarantine Law, 295
Questions on Order, 334
Questions on Scripture, 257
Quit Your Departures, 49
Radio Sermon, 159
Raikes, Robert, Pounder of Sunday Schools, 41
Ratcliff, Elder, Ordained, 402
Reaps What he Sows, 217
Receiving Excluded Persons, 334
Regenerated Without the Gospel, 172
Regeneration and Resurrection, 356
Religion, What is? 503
Religious Persecution Followed, 264
Remarks to A. H. Roden, 304
Remarks to Reinert Varhang, 339
Remembrances (1939), 443
Reminder, A, 485
Reporter’s Account of Communion, 515
Requests for Views, 87
Resolutions Suggested on Women Bearing Arms, 45
Responsible for Fuss, 49
Responsible for Trouble, 240
Restoring Excluded Persons, 132
Resurrection, Order of, 507
Resurrection, The, 492
Returned Home, 379
Revelation xviii. 2-4, 163
Revelation xvii. 8, 448
Revelation iii. 5, 484
Revelation xiii. 8, 448
Revelation xii. 7, 8, 120
Revelation xx. 4, 202
Revelation xx. 12, 117
Revelation xxii. 12, 479
Reverend Cayce Pentecost Baptized, 304
Revival Season, 94
Rhodes, R. W., Letter from, 351
Rich Man and Lazarus, 113
Rich Man in Hell, 228
Right to DiscipHne Her Members, 22
Right to Labor for Union, 17
Rinehart, J. D., Asks About Jeremiah ii. 13, 142
Roden, A. H., Remarks to, 304
Romans viii. 5, 281
Romans viii. 9, 454
Romans viii. 1, 191
Romans viii. 13, 459
Romans viii. 33, 179
Romans viii. 28-30, 416
Romans viii. 29, 30, Ephesians i. 5, and John iii. 16-18, 245
Romans xi. 2-5, 533
Romans v. 8, 195
Romans ix. 13, 39, 245
Romans xvi. 17, 18, 301, 408
Romans xvi. 16, 453
Romans x. 13-18, 154
Romans iii. 9, 19, 23, 179
Romans ii. 21, 22, 371
Ross, Elder J. C, Bereaved, 379
Rutherfordism, Universalism, Goats, Esau, 554
Sabbath Question, 106
Sadducees Denied the Resurrection, 492
Sad Plight, In a, 65
Salvation by Grace, and Damnation by Works, 496
Salvation Costs $1.25 for Each Soul, 343
Sapp, Lloyd, 385
Sapp, Lloyd, Again, 399
Saved by Grace, 227
Scarcely Saved, 219
Scioto Association, History of, 461
Scriptures a Sufficient Rule, 240
Search the Scriptures, 454
Second Corinthians viii. 10, 326
Second Corinthians iv. 5, 273
Second Corinthians vi. 14-18, 290
Second Kings xx. 1-7 and Job xiv. 5, 170
Second Peter ii. 10-12 and Millennium, 530
Second Thessalonians iii. 10, 434
Second Timothy iv. 2 and John i. 1, 273
Second Timothy i. 9, 179
Second Timothy iii. 1-8, 408
Second Timothy iii. 6, 301
Second Timothy ii. 15, 488
Secret Orders—An Error Corrected, 385
Seducing Spirits, 224
Selling Chances, 526
Serve Their Own Belly, 301
Seven Thousand Reserved, 533
Several Questions, 103
Sewell, Nannie, Asks for Views on Psalm xxxvii. 25, 128
Sheep and Goats, 88
Sheep, When Are We? 447
Sheffield, Elder 0. K., Asks About Easter and Christmas, 130
Short Trip, A, in Mississippi, Kentucky, and Tennessee, 556
Should be Marked, 301
Should Have Peace, 272
Should Stay on Their own Side of the Fence, 295
Should Study, 70, 326
Sinners Saved one Way, 245
Sin-weary World, 94
Sisterly Relationship, 213
Slandered his Father, 179
Sober, Must be, 60
Softshell Stung, 337
Solomon’s Song ii. 15, 290
Some Additional History, 132
Some Questions Asked, 522
Some Questions by J. M. Thornbury, 481
Something Wrong, 290
Souls Lost on Account of Our Lack, 65
Souls Saved by Tracts, 24
Sovereign Grace and Pilgrim, 108
Sowing and Reaping, 217
Sparks, Elder J. E., Sent Notation, 485
Special Meeting, by Mrs. C. H. Cayce, 552
Special Oflfer, Our, 148
Speculation, 225
Stallings, Elder Z., 107
Startling Fact Revealed, 27
Stegall Contradicts Himself, 172
Stegall, Elder, Heard from, 172
Stegall, W. T., 154, 356
Stewart, Elder J. T., Excluded, 74
Stockton, Sister F. I., Asks for Views, 103
Strife and Division Continued, 531
Strike in General Motors, 251
Striker, No. 70
Studies in Predestination, 416
Stunner, A, 351
Sunday Schools a Failure, 41
Supreme Court, 326
Supreme Court on Military Training, 45
Sweetland, G. A., Requests Views, 479
Talebearer, 344
Talent, The Man With One, 134
Tampering With the Word of God, 230
Tate, J. E., Question by, 93
Tate, John D., Asks About 2 Timothy i. 9, 221
Taylor, S. P., Asks for Views, 124
Teach, Apt to, 70
Tennessee and Kentucky, Tour in, 382
Tennessee, Proposed Peace Meeting in, 286
Tennessee, Trip Cut Short in, 354
Texas, Our Trip in, 198
Thanks, Brother, 49
That Which is Baptistic is Scriptural, 295
The First Man, 207
The Holy Calling, 221
The Last Judgment, 105
The Lord is Faithful, 33
The Nashville Meeting, 316
The Organ Question. 260
The Resurrection, 492
The Two Covenants, 124
Thief on the Cross, 30
Things Appreciated, 338
Thompson, Elder G. M., to Young Preachers, 362
Thompson, Elder J. M., Comments on G. M. Thompson, 362
Thornbury, J. M., Asks Questions, 481 Thornton, Claggetts Moved to, 562
Throgmorton-Potter Debate, 295
Time to Speak Out, 45
Titus iii. 5, 195
Titus ii. 4, 5, 9
Titus ii. 9, 10, 434
Todd, Elder H. A., Excluded from Rushville, Ind., 53
Todd, Fairchild, Hardy, andi Bishop, Article No. 1, 53
Todd, Fairchild, Hardy, and; Bishop, No. 2, 74
Todd’s New Paper, 94
Too Cheap to be Genuine, 343
To Our Exchanges, 123
Tour in Alabama, 209
Tour in Mount Zion, 221
Tour in Tennessee and Kentucky, 382
Tour in the North and East, 402
Tract Salvation, 24
Trespass, 119
Trespass not a Scandal, 226
Trip Cut Short, 354
Trip in Alabama, 208
Trip in Tennessee, Ohio, and West Virginia, 234
Triune God, 444
Troubleth Israel, 408
True to Facts, Not, 94
Trumpet Folks Have Bible Classes, 450
Truth Needs to be Preached, 9
Trying to Get a Nucleus, 53
Two Factions Came Together in 1880, 132
Under Law to Christ, 7
Unionism, 251
Union Meeting, Our, 308
United States Senate Committee on Crime, 9
Universalism, Rutherfordism, Goats, Esau, 554 Unknown Tongues, 103
Untoward Generation, 103
Varhang, Reinert, Remarks to, 339
Views Requested by G. A. Sweetland, 479
Vigilant, Must be, 60
Vineyard, Fenced, 290
Voice of the Son of God, 154
Volume Fifty, Close of, 143
Volume Fifty-four, Close of, 564
Volume Fifty-four, Introduction to, 441
Volume Fifty, Introduction to, 7
Volume Fifty-one, Close of, 237
Volume Fifty-one, Introduction to, 146
Volume Fifty-three, Close of, 438
Volume Fifty-three, Introduction to, 333
Volume Fifty-two, Close of, 330
Volume Fifty-two, Introduction to, 240
Waid, G. A., Asks Views on 1 Corinthians vi. 4, 495
Walk by Faith, 7
Walker County, Ala., History of, 271
Wallace, Elder Oscar, Likes The Good Old Songs, 548
Warning Required, 49
Webb, Elder C. E., on Editorial Staff, 116
Webb, Elder C. E., Withdraws, 131
Were Their Sins Ever Against Them? 481
West, Elder A. D., Added to Staff, 24
Were They Jews? 502
We Think Proper Corrections Should be Made, 399
What Constitutes Man? 522
What is Election and Predestination? 179
What Should be Done? 153
What will Become of the Missionaries? 228
When are We Sheep? 447
When Does God Forgive? 481
Where are Our Rights? 264
Where Did the Money go? 341
Where is Hell first Mentioned? 522
Where was Judas? 121
Which is Worse? 488
Whiskey Drinking, 237
Whitfield, Elder John R., Asks Views on Romans viii. 1, 191
Who Crucified Christ? 127
Who Died in Adam? 205
Who should Wait on the Table? 477
Why Necessary for Christ to Die? 257
Widows to be Cared for, 92
Willis, J. E., Asks Views, 105
Will it be Corrected? 385
Will You? 564
Will You, Please? 314
Wine, Not Given to, 70
Win Eternal Life, 558
Woman Taken in Adultery, 320
Women Keep Silent, 103
Women Prophesy, 509
Wonderful Order, 244
Woodard, J. R., Asks Views on Exodus iii. 1-6, 498
Words of Approval, 67
Work Appreciated, 52
Would be Glad to go, 325
Would Drive Them Out, 30
Wrongs on Both Sides, 272
Young People Nothing to do, 94
Young Preachers, An Address to, 362
Zion’s Witness on Singing, 550
THE END