To the writer of the letter from which the above extracts are taken there is a short admonition given, which is signed “Ed.” “We see no good reason why the dear aged friend who wrote the above good letter should not become a member of the church. They that gladly received the word were baptized on the day of Pentecost, we are told. In the New Testament we read of no delay in any case when one had come to believe in Jesus as the Saviour of their souls.” There are a few things in the foregoing extracts I want to notice. I do not wish to appear conspicuous; neither do I wish to be out of place. I trust I sincerely have in mind the fact of the advanced age of all the writers in the foregoing, and I have all due respect for them from that standpoint. But I have more respect for the teaching of God's word than I have for any man or set of men. Hence, the remarks I wish to make are, I trust, made with all due respect. The writer says it is plain to him that God has a purpose in everything, both good and bad, meaning, we suppose, that God wants everything to take place just as it does. If it is so plain to him, I wish he would tell us what God's purpose was in the assassination
of Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley. Was Citeau right when he argued that he could not help killing Garfield, that he was doing God's will; that God predestinated from all eternity that he should do this very thing, and that he could not have done otherwise? What is God's purpose in the many instances of murder, crime, theft and robbery, that are being committed all through our country from Maine to California? Where is the Scripture that says God has a purpose in everything, both good and bad? If there is no Scripture that plainly
says this, how can it be plain to the writer that it is true? If the Scriptures do not say it, and it is plain to him, did God make it known to him by a direct revelation? Where is the Scripture that says God makes all these things known by direct revelation? if the Scriptures do not say this, shall we believe such a revelation comes from God?
If God reveals this to some of His children and does not reveal it to others, I suppose He tells some things to some of His children that He will not tell to others. So, He is better to some of His children than He is to others. If it has pleased the Father to reveal as much to His children as He wants them to know, why does the Saviour say, {(John 5:39)}“Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me?” And why did Paul say, {(IITimothy 2:15)} “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth?” And why did the Saviour say, {(Matthew 28:19)} “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations?” Who can tell why these things were said? If God reveals as much to His children as He wants them to know, then no one can teach them any more, unless they are  taught more than God wants them to learn. What purpose does God have in a man being taught more than He wants him to know?
Again, in regard to God making His people willing in the day of His power. Amos I to understand by the argument made that as long as Moses was unwilling to lead the children of Israel it was not the day of God's power? Is not that the inevitable conclusion of the argument? if it was not the day of God's power, pray tell whose power? Is not every day the day of His power? If not, why not? Are not God's people given a righteous will in regeneration? If so, is not that a manifestation of the power of God? And is not that “the day of His power?”
The writer says the foregoing has been written because he could not help it, and that he has no apology to make for writing it. If he could not help it, we do not ask for any apology. There is no apology needed or required of anyone for doing that which they cannot help. According to this argument, or statement, rather, Giteau was correct in saying he could not help murdering Garfield. Now, I am going to take your own sword and say, according to your own statement, the whole foregoing is a conglomerated mess of contradictions and
inconsistencies, and I have written this “because I could not help it.” Will you take your own medicine? If not, for the sake of  consistency, if for nothing else, do not try to force others to take it.  The editor says he sees no good reason why the writer of that letter should not become a member of the church. Why, dear brother, that is plain enough. As young and as ignorant as I am, I can understand that. According to his own statement in regard to doctrine, and which he says has been the doctrine of the Signs, it is because God has predestinated that he should not join. The day of God's power has not yet come. God has a purpose in his staying out of the church. He could not join the church. He can't even try to become a member. When the day of God's power rolls round in the annals of time, if it
ever does, then he will do as the Pentecostians did, be baptized. When God no longer has a purpose in his staying out of the church, then he will become a member. Dear brother, don't you see why he doesn't become a member? It seems to me your and his doctrine settles the matter as to why everything takes place just as it does.
And your brother, Elder R. H. Boaz, swore that a man could not do or will to do a sinful act unless God predestinated that he should do it. Don't you think it would be more honoring to God to abandon such doctrine and such expressions, and be consistent in admonishing God's people to duty? Don't you think it would be better to tell them that God has no pleasure in wickedness, than to tell them that God has purposed it, and that it is His will? Do you not think it would be better to tell them that God was not well pleased with many of thechildren of Israel on account of their disobedience, and that He is not pleased with the disobedience of His children now, than to tell them that God has a purpose and is pleased with all these things? Don't you think it is better to advocate a doctrine that is consistent with itself and with the Scriptures, than to advocate the doctrine expressed in the extracts above?
I have written the foregoing-not because I could not help it-because I hope I love the truth, and because the inconsistencies were so glaring I felt a desire to notice them. I do wish God's people would wake up and study the Scriptures, and thus come to a knowledge of  the truth. May the Lord grant to bless us all with wisdom, and then may we improve what God has blessed us with, and get knowledge. C. H. C.