CHAPTER SEVEN

THE ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH AT CANE CREEK

Edward S. Johnson

(Last revised Sep. '02)

 

[NOTE: This is part of a manuscript that I am writing on the history of our church and its community. I suspect that there are some errors in what follows. Certainly, there are gaps in our knowledge. I invite readers to respond with questions and with help filling in the gaps.]

 

            The first settlers arrived at Cane Creek in the 1750's. Within 30 years virtually all land was in private hands and being cultivated by the families who resided on it.  A road had been opened up from Hillsborough to Woody's Ferry on the Haw River. Another road would soon reach westward into Haw Fields and eastward toward what was to become Chapel Hill. The best land had been in cultivation for 30 years and families such as the Kirks, Brewers, O'Daniels, Moores, Lloyds, and Cates had long since settled down. It is chancy to hazard a guess as to the size of the local population. If we assume that each land grant was occupied by a family of five then by 1780 there were about 500 individuals within a five-mile radius of the present church, not counting slaves. This seems a sizable enough population to support a church. Therefore a question that we shall consider is why it took so long to establish a church at Cane Creek. Another question that we shall labor over is why Cane Creek, established in 1789 and led by a preacher who was baptized and ordained as a Baptist, took until 1806 to become a Baptist church.

 

            As far as we have been able to discover, the history of our Church begins in 1789 when a small group of Cane Creek settlers came together to act as trustees in order to buy an acre of land for twenty shillings for "Cain Creek Meeting House." At this point the church at Cane Creek was not Baptist. This was not to come for another nineteen years.

 

            To be truthful the record, however, I must cite A. G. Crawford's history written in 1930, which refers to a "local tradition" that the origin of the church is really 1785. We are not told the source for this tradition and so must let it pass for now as only an interesting hypothesis. But we don't have to leave the matter exactly there.

 

            I have located a couple of cryptic references to a "Meadow Meeting House" as early as 1785 in Orange County Court records of The Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions; (cite reference). The references come in connection with the upkeep of roads in the community. In those days the court would appoint an "overseer" whose duty it was to recruit his neighbors and maintain a designated stretch of the public road. In this case, there are two stretches of interest, one from Woodys Ferry (on Haw River in Alamance County) to the Meadow Meeting House and another one from The Meadow Meeting House to ---.

 

            The clue that the Meadow Meeting House was in the community lies in the names of the overseers and his crew. They bear names such as --- and --- who lived in the vicinity of Toms Creek. A more precise pinpointing of the location of the Meadow Meeting house will have to await the completion of the Land Grant map for the area so that I can determine where people lived. In the meantime we might speculate that settlers involved in this meeting house later were involved in beginning our church.

 

            But there is a second clue as to the actual time of origin. In 1830(?) the minutes of the Sandy Creek Association (housed in the Southern Baptist Library at Wake Forest University) indicate the appoint­ment of an historical committee to determine, among other things, the date of origin of the member churches. (Was T. D. Oldham a member then????) This was done on the spot. That is, the resolution was passed early in the meeting and a report was made before the final adjournment. Thus it is probably the case that a poll was taken that drew on nothing more that the memory of the older delegates. The date indicated for Cane Creek was 1790, very close to the date on our original deed. Therefore, until solid evidence comes along to prove otherwise, we should stick with 1789 as the date of our founding. 

 

            One reason why it took so long to establish a church may have been the terrible wrangling over land rights arising out of the Strudwick affair. The "intruders" that Strudwick attempted to throw off his land were properly indignant. Many of them held land grants from Lord Granville and many others felt that although they hand no official claim to the land, that neverthe­less they had done all they could to secure a proper title: they had applied for a grant and were waiting for the legal wheels to grind following the death of Granville and the closing of his land offices.

 

            Another reason why the church at Cane Creek was so long in coming may have arisen out of the Regulator movement. The hotbed of Regulator sentiment, as far as I have been able to determine, was to the south and west of Cane Creek along that other Cane Creek where many Quakers settled. So far, I have no information as to the involvement of local families in this movement.

 

            Our first pastor was Thomas Cate. His name is given on the 1789 deed. Asplund, a resident of the eastern part of the state who published several lists of early Baptist churches, lists a Thomas Cate as an assistant preacher at the Haw River Church, a member of the Sandy Creek Baptist Association, at about this time. Since Haw River is only about 20 miles south of the Cane Creek community, and since Cate was a prominent local name here but not there, we may conclude that Asplund's Thomas Cate was a local resident who had to travel a day on horseback to find a church to his liking. Probably he was baptized by Elnathen Davis who in turn was baptized by Shubal Stearns himself (as is so graphically depicted by Morgan Edwards:

 

     "Elnathan Davis had heard that one John Steward was to be baptized by Mr. Stearns. Now this Mr. Steward being a very big man, and Stearns of small stature, he concluded there could be some diversion if not a drowning; therefore, he gathered about eight or ten of his companions in wickedness and went to the spot. Shubal Stearns came and began to preach. Elnathan went to hear him, while his companions stood at a distance. He was no sooner among the crowd but he perceived some of the people tremble, as if in a fit of the ague; he felt and examined them, in order to find out if it were not a dissimulation; meanwhile one man leaned on his shoulder, weeping bitterly; Elnathan, perceiving he had wet his new white coat, pushed him off and ran to his companions, who were sitting on a log at a distance. When he came, one said, "Well, Elnathan, what do you think now of these damned people?" He replied, "There is a trembling and crying spirit among them; but whether it be the spirit of God or the devil, I don't know; if it be of the devil, the devil go with them, for I will never more venture myself among them." He stood for a while in this resolution; but the enchantment of Stearn's voice drew him to the crowd once more. He had not been long there before the trembling seized him also; he attempted to withdraw; but, his strength failing and his understanding being confounded, he, with many others, sank to the ground. When he came to himself, he found nothing in him but dread and anxiety, bordering on horror. He continued in this situation some days, and then found relief by faith in Christ. Immediately, he began to preach conversion work, raw as he was, and scanty as his knowledge must have been. He was later pastor at Haw River."

 

            Who were these individuals who banded together in 1789 for the purpose of "building a meeting house to hold public meetings and thanksgivings for the means and blessings of almighty God"?  Nine names appear on the deed, our first preacher, Thomas Cate, and eight others (and two witnesses, Thomas Basket and Mark Cooper).

 

            I am indebted to Banks Cates of Charlotte for much of what follows. Dr. Cates has generously shared with me his findings on the Cates family tree. As we will see, most of the trustees were bound together by family ties --being related to one another either by blood ties or by marriage bonds.

 

            It is striking that six of the nine trustees bear the same family name of Cate. Banks Cates has traced the family back to a Robert Cate who would have been born around 1670. His name first appears in historical records in 1689 in Henrico County, Virginia when he was indentured for a four year period in order to learn the shoemaker's trade. It is apparent from other records that Robert Cate was a Quaker.

 

            Robert Cate, who died in 1728 or 29, had six sons, four of whom came to reside in Orange County. Captain Robert Cate, Jr. lived first on New Hope Creek, then Cane Creek. Thomas Cate also moved to Cane Creek.  Benjamin Cate settled on the Eno and John Cate settled on the Flat River. All four appear on the first Orange County tax list in 1752(?).

 

            The two brothers who settled on Cane Creek originated two lines of Cates. Robert's line produced five of our trustees (sons Richard, Thomas, and Joseph, son-in-law John Strother, and grandson Robert, a son of Thomas. Thomas' line produced three trustees, sons Thomas (the preacher) and Bernard, and son-in-law John Workman. To complete the family connections, the grantor of the land, Thomas Durham, was married to Robert's granddaughter, Susannah (a daughter of Thomas).

 

            Below is what we know about the trustees. (This information will have to be updated with what I have learned from Banks Cate.)

 

Thomas Cate. Unfortunately for the historian, there were many Cates around in the early days of Orange County and all too many of them were named Thomas. The ones who weren't seem always to have had a son or a father by this name. So keeping all the Thomas Cates straight is quite difficult. This Thomas was the son of Robert, one of the original settlers, and a cousin to the preacher. He had extensive land holdings and therefore must have been a prominent member of the community.

 

John Strother. He seems to have been a temporary resident of Cane Creek. Because his name also appears as "Struther" and "Stroder" on old deeds it is possible that he was of Pennsylvania Dutch origin like many others who settled farther to the west. In 1776 he bought a tract of 200 acres from his father-in-law, Robert Cate, located on both sides of Cane Creek just south of where the original meeting house was to be built. He sold this tract to Sackfield Brewer in 1790. His wife was Mary Ann. He obtained a State land grant in 1798 a bit to the east of Cane Creek. Thus John Struther was a brother-in-law of the Thomas Cate above.

 

Richard Cate. [Note: check wills; one died in 1794 (B/259) and another in 1821 (D/821). This one appears to be the one who died in 1794] Apparently Richard Cate was the builder and owner of a mill on Cane Creek for which no trace remains. It is possible that the mill was never built. If it did exist it was located about half way between the old dam at Cecil Crawford's house and the old dam at Teer. He seems to have married his cousin Emelia Cate. In the 1781 tax evaluation, Richard had the highest valuation of any of the Cates.

 

John Workman. [Note: check wills] His name does not appear on any deeds until 1799 when he bought 130 acres from a brother-in-law, Bernard Cate, along Cane Creek about two miles north of the Church. But from other sources, we know that he was around earlier and did, in fact own land. The absence of his name from the official records is probably due to the loss of the land records in Hillsborough during the Revolution. We know that he staked a land claim in 1778 and is listed on the tax list of 1782. He was listed as "over 45" in the 1800 census. By 1801 his land holdings were over 500 acres. He may have therefore been a young man in 1789. He married a sister of the preacher, Thomas Cate, but her name is not known. Workman represented Cane Creek at the Sandy Creek Association meetings of 1807 and 1815.

 

Bernard Cate. He was a brother to our first preacher, husband to Jane ("Jennie") Sykes, and one of the three large land owners during the early days of Cane Creek (along with Sackfield Brewer and Lewis Kirk), owning well over a thousand acres. The bulk of his holdings were north of the Church and east of Buckhorn Road and extended into the Seven Mile Creek watershed.

 

Joseph Cate. I suspect that Joseph (and his brother Stephen) were the sons of the elusive John Cate who obtained a Granville land grant in 17-- for which all trace has been lost. [How do I know this?] It was located east of Buckhorn road and south of Bradshaw Quarry Road and included about 500 acres. [Note: check will at C/28]. He was a son of Robert and Elizabeth Cate. He died in 1793. [NOTE: this is contradictory and dubious; it is all marked out in the last "wordstar" draft.]

 

Robert Cate.  This is the eighth trustee. Find out something. He was a son of Thomas (of Robert and Elizabeth).

 

Mary Christmas. How amazing to have a person by this poetic name among our founders and how amazing to find any woman at all. This is also the only trustee to have no known connection to the Cate family. The Christmas clan was an interesting group. The patriarch seems to have been John Christmas, a surveyor by trade and the man who laid out the original town of Raleigh. He obtained a tract of land on Toms Creek, which already had an interesting history. Lord Granville to a Mary Day in 1757 originally deeded it. This is peculiar because it almost never occurred that a grant was made to a woman, who by law had quite limited rights to own property. Possibly this came about when she became a widow during the process of obtaining the title to the land. In any event she soon sold the tract to a speculator. A few years later we find that the tract, which was located within Strudwick's boundaries, was sold by Strudwick to Christmas. John Christmas died in 178? leaving a widow, presumably Mary, and several sons each of whom obtained large chunks of Strudwick land, some from Strudwick and some (illegally according to Strudwick's claim) from the State. Two of his sons, Charles and Nathaniel, also became surveyors and their names appear on some of the early State land grants as the official surveyors. Ironically, throughout their tenure in their vast holdings along Toms Creek, they persisted in referring to it as Cane Creek. By the early 1800's all the Christmases had migrated to the west and south.

 

Thomas Cate, Preacher. We actually know very little about this man. We assume that he is the same Thomas Cate who was associated with the Haw River Church. From piecing together the old Cane Creek land grants it seems that he was a land owner and had a homeplace some two miles south of the Church in the northern reaches of Collins Creek watershed below present Teer Road.

 

Cane Creek's Organizing Principles

            It is very likely that our original members, likely led by the people listed above, inscribed their basic Christian beliefs on the first page of the official church book. Unfortunately, our early history is lost. There was a church book and minutes were kept but they were destroyed in 1829 when Enoch Crutchfield, the Clerk, lost his house to a fire. The roll was immediately reconstructed and a new book of minutes was begun, but the loss was permanent. No record remains of our original organizing principles.

 

            We can find some information about the Church's first forty years in the minutes of the Sandy Creek Association (but only as mentioned in Purefoy's book, A History of the Sandy Creek Baptist Association, written in 1859 to celebrate the Association's centennial. (Purefoy was Cane Creek's preacher from 1839 to 1852.) . Most of the Association minutes prior to 1830 are also lost, also due to fire.

 

            We shall obtain additional clues about the origin of Cane Creek Church and its original principles by looking into the minutes of Antioch Baptist Church located several miles to the southeast on White Cross Road.

 

            Antioch Church was established as an arm of Cane Creek Church on the 20th and 21st of August, 1806. It was located a few miles south of its present location and was then known as Haw River Mountain Church. The founders were Thomas Cate, our first preacher, and two men who were prominent in Sandy Creek Association affairs, George Pope and Jesse Buckner. These latter two helped establish several other Baptist churches in the region and were not local residents. We know that Jesse Buckner (check it!) was a licensed minister associated with Haw River, as was Thomas Cate. I do not know anything of George Pope other than that he latter became pastor at Abbott's Creek in Davidson County

.

            It is interesting to note (and indeed we shall have reason to inquire about this later) that neither church, Cane Creek or Haw River Mountain, were officially Baptist Churches at this time. Some of the early family names at Haw River Mountain include Copeland, Michum, Caruthers, Durham, Pickard, Snipes, Lloyd, O'Daniel, Edwards, and Ivy.

 

            On the first page of the Church Book we find the sort of statement that may have been inscribed on the book at Cane Creek. It reads as follows:

 

 "The faith with which this Church was constituted respecting principles are these:

         

     - Election according to the foreknowledge of God;

     - The effectual calling;

     - Justification by Grace; 

     - Baptism by immersion;

     - Washing of feet;

     - Final perseverance in Christ;

     -a rule of government for which we endeavor to take the Scriptures for our    guide. The Lord directs us to walk therein."

 

 

            Of course, we must hasten to add that these principles may have been the work of Pope and Buckner more than Cate. Our Church was organized at least 18 years before this and may have had organizing principles somewhat at variance with the above. It is also possible that our original principles were modified in 1807 to conform to what the Sandy Creek Association expected from its member churches.

 

            The principles cited above for Antioch may be compared to other early Sandy Creek churches. Paschal (p409) states that Sandy Creek churches had some beliefs and practices peculiar to themselves in the early years. Included in these are the following nine rites;

 

     - Baptism

     - The Lord's Supper

     - Love feasts

     - Laying on of hands

     - Washing feet

     - Anointing the sick

     - The right hand of fellowship

     - The kiss of charity

     - The devotion of children.

 

In addition, the early Sandy Creek churches had ruling elders and elderesses, deacons and deaconesses, and weekly communion. Benedict, writing in 18??, says that "the greatest part of the nine [rites] together with the offices of elderesses and deaconesses have fallen into disuse." But Paschal (footnote, p411) comments that the Haw River Church observed all nine rites and had elderesses and deaconesses. So we might suppose that Thomas Cate was exposed to these ideas while serving at Haw River and might have incorporated them into the covenant at Cane Creek. This might also explain the presence of a woman on the list of trustees. Perhaps Mary Christmas was Cane Creek's first deaconess!

 

             Other models for the Cane Creek covenant might be those at Grassy Creek or at Abbott's Creek. At Grassy Creek in Granville County the covenant is said to have been written by Shubal Stearns himself. It lays out most of the nine rites mentioned above and goes on for several pages with the most profound and poetic language, alas, too long to quote here, but including as main points of doctrinal belief:

 

     - Laying on of hands

     - Effectual calling by the Holy Ghost

     - Free justification through the imputed righteousness of Christ

     - Progressive sanctification through God's grace and truth

     - Final perseverance or continuance of the saints in grace

     - Resurrection of these bodies after death

     - Life everlasting

 

            At Abbott's Creek, the Covenant is much more succinct: "Believing the Old and New Testament to be the perfect rule for life and practice; and secondly Repentance from dead works; and thirdly, Faith toward God; and fourthly, the doctrine of baptism; and fifthly, laying on of hands; and sixthly, the perseverance of the saints; and seventhly, the resurrection of the dead, and eighthly, eternal judgment."

 

[Insert a commentary on these key phrases. They were shorthand ways of conveying to believers the precise beliefs of the congregation. I begin it below but it needs fleshing out.]

 

Effectual calling is a Calvinistic notion. The elect can be effectively called to Christ. Those who are not among the elect may feel themselves called by the word of God but this calling has no effect. These are the damned.

 

Final perseverance refers to the idea that the elect cannot totally fall from a state of grace. They shall finally persevere and be eternally saved. (2001 note: more recently this has been re-interpreted to mean that true believers persevere in their Christian walk and do not backslide.)

 

Progressive sanctification: The spiritually reborn gradually attain moral and spiritual perfection

 

Free justification: God's gracious acquittal of all sinners who believe in Christ.

 

Thus it seems clear that many churches within the Sandy Creek Association expressed rather Calvinistic views.

 

             It must be mentioned at this point that when Cane Creek and Haw River Mountain sought admission to the Sandy Creek Association in 1806, our Church had no difficulties with the Association on matters of doctrine. This was not the case with Haw River Mountain. There arose almost from the beginning a point of doctrinal difference, which kept the Haw River Mountain Church and the Sandy Creek Association at odds for many years.

 

            The initial break came dramatically according to Purefoy. Upon application to the Association, Haw River Mountain was selected as the site for the 1806 Association Meeting. But the delegates, upon arriving there and inspecting the Church Book, found something to their disliking and refused to hold fellowship with Haw River Mountain. Inspection of Haw River Mountain's organizing principles given above suggests that the offending words may have been "election according to the foreknowledge of God." This is the most blatantly Calvinistic principle of all, one that might more commonly be associated with the Particular Baptists farther to the east. It is curious, to say the least, that a church organized by Thomas Cate and two Sandy Creek stalwarts could possibly have included such an extreme Calvinistic principle in the basic principles of a Church seeking entry into a Separate Baptist Association. I think that we may assume that Cane Creek had no such organizing principle.

 

             I have just made a guess at the nature of the doctrinal difference between Antioch and Sandy Creek. Purefoy makes extensive references to "difficulties" without indicating their nature. Unfortunately, a final resolution of the matter may be impossible. The Minutes of Antioch Church do not enlighten us on the matter. The next most likely source of information would be the Minutes of the Sandy Creek Association annual meetings. Unfortunately, none survive for this period. Following the fire which destroyed the handwritten minutes in 1805, Sandy Creek wisely decided to publish the minutes each year so that many copies would be available. The early records indicate that 100 copies were printed annually. By 1830 several hundred copies were being printed. Routinely each church was given 10 copies. Only the minutes for 1805 survive. After that there is a 25 year gap until 1830 for which nothing survives. We have, therefore, only Purefoy's centennial history written in 1859 to go on. Sadly, Purefoy is silent on the nature of the theological dispute.

 

             Only one clue about the nature of the dispute remains to be discussed and it is a very tenuous clue indeed. It involves two individuals. One was the first preacher at Haw River Mountain, Mark Andrews, and the other was a person who very likely was a preacher at Cane Creek, Randolph Mabry. We know that he was a delegate from Cane Creek to the Association Meeting of 1816 and according to Purefoy's use of italics, we are led to believe that he was an ordained minister, hence the pastor at Cane Creek. (He had earlier been the preacher at Bear Creek in Chatham County.) The first part of the clue is that there appears to be a link between Andrews and Mabry, a link that has to do with a shared belief on some issue of theological importance to the Sandy Creek Association. It was important enough that, in 1825, the Association saw fit to excommunicate both men and to have a public notice inserted into several newspapers stating:

 

                   BAPTISTS  BEWARE  OF  IMPOSTORS!!

 

The Sandy Creek Baptist Association in session at Friendship Meeting House, Moore County, the 24th day of October, 1825, having learned that Mark Andrews, Randolph Mabry, Leonard Prather, and Elisha Revel are pretending to preach the gospel in the regular Baptist churches in this state, deem it their duty to publish in these churches and to their brethren in general that said Andrews, Mabry, Prather, and Revel are excommunicants from churches within their body. By order:

                                                                                    Nat. G. Smith, Clerk

                                                            [Raleigh Star, November 16, 1825]

               

             It is the nature of the dispute that we are grappling for. Only one shred of evidence can be paired with the supposed connection between Mabry, Andrews, and a theological dispute. From the Cane Creek minutes of March 1833:

 

          "Randolph Mabry is restored."

 

From this entry we know that Mabry was firstly, a member of Cane Creek Church, and secondly, he was excluded for some offense. The nature of the offense becomes apparent in June 1835 (if we can assume that Mabry, like the leopard, does not change his spots):

 

     "A charge is brought against Randolph Mabry for drinking and for opposing the benevolent institutions of the day and refusing to give up his church letter when demanded by the church." (The next month Mabry was found guilty and excluded.)

 

The matter was thought serious enough to be published in the minutes for Sandy Creek Association: "Randolph Mabry is excluded from Cane Creek for disorderly conduct." Exclusions for such reasons as intemperate drinking were routine in these early Baptist churches and were hardly deemed worthy of spreading across the minutes of the annual Association meeting. We may safely conclude therefore, that Mabry's exclusion was for some theological reason having to do with "benevolent institutions."

 

            The term 'benevolent institutions" is a code word for a set of issues that began to concern Baptists in the early 1800's. It was the latest and greatest conflict between two opposing camps within the Baptist belief system: The Calvinistic idea that God already had determined the spiritual fate of all humans, and the idea that Christ's sacrifice on the cross atoned for the sins of all mankind for all generations. Benevolent institutions were those practices, including missions, that sought to spread the faith to the irreligious. Calvinists thought that benevolent institutions were, at the very least, a waste of time, and at the worst, an affront to a God who needed no such help.

 

            This idea reinforces the supposition that we have already considered. That is, the issue which kept Haw River Mountain at odds with Sandy Creek for so long was that church's opposition to the so-called benevolent institutions and that this opposition was apparent to the Sandy Creek delegates upon inspection of the Church Book where they read "election according to the foreknowledge of God."

 

            Could it be that the record of this dispute and its resolution has disappeared from Antioch's record? It is possible because Antioch's original minutes no longer survive. What remains at Antioch is a handwritten copy of the original made in 1859. By this time, the divisive issues surrounding benevolent institutions had been thrashed out and such institutions as missions, Sunday Schools, associational literature, and theological schools were flourishing.

 

     Our supposition is that Randolph Mabry, an acquaintance of Andrews and a member, later a pastor at Cane Creek, attempted to spread the anti-mission sentiment to this community. He apparently failed and probably failed early on. After 1815 Mabry is no longer mentioned by Purefoy as a Cane Creek delegate to the Association. Had he continued to serve Cane Creek he surely would have been a delegate. The final irony in the case is that Mabry presented himself for restoration at Cane Creek at precisely the wrong time. In 1833, Stephen Pleasant was the pastor and Pleasant's opinion about mission work was plain and straightforward. He was for missions and he was willing to go to extremes for his belief. In the next chapter, we turn to the story of Stephen Pleasant and the divisive issue of missions and other "benevolent institutions."

 

            But before we do this, let us pause and contemplate once again the central mysteries of this chapter: Why did a church founded in 1789 with the help of a licensed Baptist preacher wait 17 years to affiliate itself with a Baptist Association? Several possibilities come to mind:

 

     -  A doctrinal difference between the Sandy Creekers and the Cane Creekers;

     -  A sentiment in the community that the Church should either remain independent or affiliate with another denomination;

     -  A difference of opinion within the community that kept affiliation with Sandy Creek         from happening.

 

             And even before this question is answered, we must face the earlier problem. Given that a community was building up around Cane Creek, that prosperous settlers were establishing plantations (Lewis Kirk, Bernard Cate, Sackfield Brewer, for example) as early as the 1760's, why was it that no church was established until 1789. Again, several possibilities spring to mind.

 

      - The Strudwick affair which dragged on into the 1780's may have drawn attention and energy away from more spiritual concerns;

 

      - The Regulator unrest followed by the Revolution may likewise have created too many diversions;

 

     - Perhaps there was not a large enough population to support a church.

 

     - Perhaps there WAS an informal church in operation that met at the Meadow Meeting House or at someone's home.

 

We will probably never know. But the historian is ever hopeful. Perhaps in the next tattered book or in the next folder of loose 18th century papers at the State Archives the answer to these questions will be found.