[This] work did not survive Elam and DL. It is Harris's attitude -- and worse -- that prevails in Nashville. i wonder whether these views had anything to do with Elam's removal from the presidency of NBS.

S. E. Harris, plainly a leading member of Elam's home congregation in Bellwood TN, writes to Elam about the "colored girl" who lives and worships with his family in Bellwood. Elam responds at length. Harris writes again, now with a more strident tone, both complaining and defending the position he has taken in opposition to worshiping with the "colored girl." i heard the same rhetoric in 1957, in 1967, 1977, and 1987. i am sure there are many places where i could hear it yet. It may sleep, but it is far from dead... and one may hear many echoes of it in the discussions of the ministry of women!

Brother Harris is quick to tell us that he is not speaking for himself--but of course he is. He fears that the presence of the "colored girl" will divide the church. He plainly finds no value in the girl's presence, but he will miss those who oppose her. Elam, on the other hand, could care less whether those who oppose leave or stay. In the realization that he cannot speak to this situation objectively, and needing reinforcements, he turns to what someone called "Brother Dave and his heavy artillery." From that point, it is a confrontation between Harris and DL.

All of the actors in this drama are historical persons in historical time. Each has something to answer for in the eyes of those of us who read their words 88 years later. Why is this young woman in Elam's household, and what is her true role there? There is a "class" argument going on here among the white folks, and both sides appeal to Rom 14 and 1 Cor 8-10; it will not be the last time.

Why does the argument of DL and Elam fail to survive them? Thirty-four years later, FEW will dare to turn DL's argument on its head! One answer is that culture prevailed over the Gospel--and not for the last time!.

In this installment (#3A) i reproduce the exchange published in GA 49 (4 July 1907): 424-425. Installment #3B will follow. i urge all concerned with these matter to attend carefully. This is a paradigmatic text.

Bellwood, Tenn., April 22, 1907.--Brother Elam: There is a great deal of complaint in the church at this place in regard to the colored girl that lives at your house. I simply and kindly take the lead and ask you as a Christian to please, if you think you have any right to, request her to attend the colored church, as it would quiet the disturbance at this place, and, I think, be a great help to the congregation at this place. There are a great many of the members sore over the state of affairs, and I write you to please let us know what course you are going to pursue in this matter. Please let me know at once. If we have no right to request this of you, please come and teach us our duty. S. E. Harris.

Nashville Bible School, Nashville, Tenn., April 27, 1907. --Mr. S. E. Harris, Bellwood, Tenn.--My Dear Brother: Your letter of the 23d inst. just received. In regard to the negro girl worshiping at Bellwood you say: "Come and teach us our duty." I do not know when I can reach Bellwood, but, if you will allow me, I can teach you, and you can teach the ones who need such teaching.

In the first place, I have no patience whatever with that corrupt and abominable heresy that negroes have no souls. I would by all odds rather have the negro girl's hope of salvation than that of those who teach such heresy. If Satan cannot get up one thing to disturb a church, he will get up another. This heresy is responsible for all this disturbance at Bellwood. Those who hold to it, and have disturbed the church over it, are the heretics, the sinners, and should have been dealt with by the church years ago.

(2) Those members who have taken up this matter and keep it agitated are doing a very great wrong in that they are dividing the church and sinning against the innocent and helpless. Instead of keeping this matter continually stirred up, all should endeavor to quiet it and to preserve the peace of the church. [p. 425]

(3) It is very wrong for otherwise good members to allow themselves to be disturbed over it. If the members would not allow themselves to be disturbed over it, would cease to agitate it, and would simply attend to their own worship, seeing that they themselves worship God in spirit and in truth, this matter would at once subside. "Let a man examine himself," etc. is God's law; and had this been observed, this matter never would have been agitated. Those who do not obey God are the sinners in this case. The only question for you to decide is: "Who are obeying God?" If the negro girl, my family and I are obeying God, then let us alone and reprove those who are not. What have I done, that you should come to me and ask me to let you know "at once" what course I intend to pursue? Why should those in the wrong presume to come to me, striving to do right, and demand to know of me "at once" what I intend to do? For your satisfaction, my good brother, I will say: I intend to continue to try to obey God, and until I see that the course I am already pursuing is in disobedience to God, I intend to continue in it. Let others do as they will; "as for me and my house, we will serve Jehovah." (Josh. 24:15.) What others intend to do does not disturb me, except in so far as I would like to see them with the spirit of Christ and doing God's will.

(4) As it has always been, so it is at Bellwood now, those who are striving the hardest to serve God and are making the greatest sacrifices to save others are the ones who are persecuted. My wife and children have gone to Bellwood in the cold and rain when there was not a man there, not one to conduct service, and had to send for some one to come and do so. My wife and I taught this girl the truth when no others were interested in her salvation, and should not have been so much as we. My wife, unless in bed, continues to attend church and strives to show this girl the right way to serve God, while those who are careless and frequently fail to attend at all are the ones who are raising the greatest complaint. By keeping this girl with her, my wife can the better teach her and protect her against the sins common to her race than by sending her alone to the negro church. Those who complain at this sin against my wife and the girl. It is prejudice, selfishness, and a very great injustice to demand of my wife that she put herself to the trouble of sending the girl to the negro church and waiting at Bellwood for her return, or of furnishing an extra conveyance for her to go. God's rule is to treat others as you would be treated.

(5) Aside from the above, Jesus says: "Whoso shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it is profitable for him that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea." Again: "See that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven." (Matt. 18:6-10.)

"These little ones" are the weakest, poorest, humblest of Christ's disciples--those the world calls "little" and "insignificant." This poor and ignorant, helpless and harmless, negro girl is one of Christ's little ones, and to hinder her in God's service is to despise her; and those who demand of me to let them know "at once" what course I intend to pursue are, in their own estimation at least, the wise and strong ones, and should learn to bear the infirmities of the weak and not to despise God's little ones. God is no respecter of persons, but he who objects to worshiping where this negro girl does is a respecter of persons. She is an innocent and honest Christian girl, and all the church at Bellwood know that she cannot be sent away from my family to the negro church without both inconvenience to my family and exposing her to the temptation of such weakness and sins as are common to her race. To force my wife to do this is most unkind and unchristian, and to force this girl out of the worship there is to sin against her and against Christ.

You may read this to all concerned, or to the entire church if necessary.

Fraternally,

E. A. Elam.

Lebanon, Tenn., R. F. D. No. 2.--Dear Brother Elam: Your letter to hand and contents noted. I was shocked to get such a letter from you, as I thought you would rather have peace at Bellwood than division, but it seems you had not. You say you have no patience with the theory that the negro has no soul, and that that theory is responsible for the disturbance. I myself have no patience with it, either. You are mistaken about that having anything to do with it. The ones that object to the negro just do not want their children associating with her in the capacity of worshiping God. You say the agitation of this question causes division. Would the girl, if she were taught to go to the colored church, if she is a Christian, refuse to go, knowing she was causing disturbance here? We cannot help from being disturbed when we are constantly reminded of it when we see her, knowing there is a convenient place for her to go. You say, "Let a man examine himself," etc. Does it not look a little like selfishness when your wife brings her up here just for convenience? Are you not indirectly causing division when you will not put yourself to a little extra trouble to send her to her own color? I am just like you. I try to serve God and it grieves me to see a division in the church; and for the future welfare of the church and community, we should not encourage the mixing of the races in the worship any more than anywhere else.

You brought in about your wife coming to church through the cold and snow. I have also gone and built fires for the congregation, and then they did not come. However, that has nothing to do with this question. Does it not look a little selfish to bring her here where a third, at least, of the members do not want her, just for convenience to your wife? She is black, and therefore subject to the temptation of her race, anyway.

You say you treat others as you would have them treat you. If I had a colored person in my home, I would want the brethren to request me to have her go to her own color if I did not do it anyway. We should not cause a weak brother to offend in anyway whatever, if it is in bringing a colored girl to church, or anything else, should we? God is no respecter of persons; but the girl is put off till the last to be waited on when they pass the emblems, and is not taken into the class at all. Is that not respecting one above another? It might be an inconvenience to others to have to go to other places of worship on account of not wanting to worship here with this girl, not because they despise her, but because they do not want her to come here, when there is a convenient place for her to go of her own race.

I tried to write this in the spirit of Christ, I know; for I hate to see strife in the church. We would like everything to be run nicely and in order.

Yours in the hope of eternal life,

S. E. Harris.

I know the facts only as they are given in this correspondence. This correspondence has been sent to me, with the request that I write on the subject. It is one of delicacy and difficulty from one standpoint. It is difficult and delicate, not because of the principles that should govern Christians, but because of the race and social questions involved. These are difficult to handle. There can be no doubt as to religious duties and rights. "There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female, for ye are all one man in Christ Jesus. And if ye are Christ's, then ye are Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise." (Gal. 3:28.) This means the Christians of every different nation, tribe, country, of every social or political position, have equal privileges and rights in the service of God. No one as a Christian or in the service of God has the right to say to another, "Thou shalt not," because he is of a different family, race, social, or political station. While these distinctions exist here, God favors or condemns none on account of them. Jesus Christ personates himself in the least and most despised of his disciples; and as we treat them, we treat him. "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (Matt 25:40.) To object to any child of God participating in the service on account of his race, social or civil state, his color or race, is to object to Jesus Christ and to cast him from our association. It is a fearful thing to do. I have never attended a church that negroes did not attend. While they were slaves, we in the country were glad for them to attend and become members of the churches. In the city, although there was a congregation made up of colored brethren, a number always attended the old Church Street services so long as I attended. I now seldom go to College Street Church without seeing at least one negro present. I am always glad to see them present as indicating kind and fraternal feelings and relations between the races. Whenever I could be with them at their service, it has given me pleasure to meet and engage in the worship with them. I have occasionally, for the sake of showing my fellowship for them, after partaking of the Supper with the white brethren, have done it the second time the same day with the blacks to show as Christians we are one. I am not sure of the propriety of partaking of the Supper twice the same day, but I am sure we ought to manifest our fellowship for the humblest and lowliest of the children of God. So I acted in this. I have never been satisfied of the righteousness of forming congregations in a community along race lines. In the days of Jesus and his apostles the race antagonism between Jew and Gentile was strong and bitter. Converts were made from both races. I find no evidence that they met in different places as separate congregations. Troubles arose over the race question, but these troubles were harmonized within the churches, and the wall of separation and division was weakened, not strengthened.

Difficulties would arise now in the effort to meet in one congregation, but the settling of them in the church would work good to both races if that is God's order. While God gives rules regulating the religious duties and relations of Christians, he gives none regulating the social, race, and political relations, but leaves the religious spirit and practice to gradually work out the social duties and relations.

As I understand the above case, a negro child was given Brother and Sister Elam to raise. They have carefully raised and trained her. They have taught her the Bible, carried her to church with them, and she has become a Christian. She is not forward, but deports herself modestly, and is willing to be served last and not participate in the class, which shows she does not thrust herself forward as the social equal of the whites. Brother and Sister Elam, I take it, have never permitted this in their family. She has grown up, because of this, with no charge of deporting herself improperly. Brethren object to her attendance at church. There is a colored congregation more distant, and they think she should go there. She cannot go there, except to go alone or seriously inconvenience Brother Elam's family. Brother and Sister Elam have tried to train her to modesty and virtue, and feel that to send her off by herself while she is young in years and as a Christian, she would be exposed to temptations and influences that would lead her astray--that no white girl should be subjected to. They wish to do by her as they would others should do to them. Are they not right? Can they be Christians and fail to do this? Can any man or woman insist on their doing otherwise and be a Christian? Answer this question in the light of the teaching of the Bible to your own hearts.

I have tried to study this whole question carefully and prayerfully. I was raised among negroes. My mother died so early I do not remember her. I was cared for, for some years, greatly by a negro woman. Negro children were my playmates. I have always had the kindliest feelings for them. Yet I have always felt the race instincts strong. So I have studied them closely from a Bible standpoint. As said above, the Scriptures do not define social and race relations further then as stated. Jesus Christ was a Jew. He did kindness and extended help to the Gentiles as they needed it. but we have no account of his breaking over the race and social questions as to excite Jewish prejudice against him. The apostles went among the Gentiles and broke over the race lines in preaching to them in Gentile countries. Masters and servants were both converted and became members of the same congregations. They still remained masters and servants, each treating the other after the laws and customs of the countries in which they lived, tempered by the principles of kindness and love of the Christian religion. The Christian religion did not break up social or political relations. It laid down the principles of religious duty, and left them to gradually conform the social and political relations to the principles of the Lord Jesus Christ. D. L.

Brother Lipscomb: I see in the Gospel Advocate of July 4 the correspondence between me and Brother Elam. I did not know it would be printed; but it is just what I wanted, for I wanted the people to understand the situation fully. You say it is a difficult and delicate subject. I agree with you on that; it is a subject that all the churches of all denominations are afraid of, it seems. You say there can be neither Jew nor Greek, etc. If there is no difference from a Christian standpoint, why this unjust discrimination in the worship when a colored person happens to get in a white congregation?

You say that no man has a right to say to another "Thou shalt not," because he is of a different color, etc. We do not say this girl shall not worship God; far from it. We want her to worship God, but we [p. 489] think she can worship him as well, if not better, with her own color than she can with the whites. If the negroes can constitute a church of Christ (which I doubt not), can she not worship there just as well as with the whites? It just puts her with a colored church of Christ instead of a white church of Christ. Both congregations are of the same belief, and only a quarter of a mile apart. It is a very short distance, therefore could not inconvenience Brother Elam's family very much to have her go over there, where she could not possibly cause any division.

You say it is a fearful thing to do to debar any one from worshiping God. I would be the last one to debar any one from worshiping God. But I think she can worship him with her own color and not cause any division. If there was not a colored congregation near by for the negroes, there would not be a kick raised against it. We would just go along the best we could, and as soon as there were enough negroes in the white church to start a colored church we would build them a house to worship in, like the old brethren did here fifteen or twenty years ago. It looks like ignoring what has been done for the race not to respect it enough to cause all that should worship with them to do so, does it not?

You say it gives you pleasure to meet with the negroes. While it may give you pleasure, it may not to other people. Yes, we should be very careful to not cause a weak brother to offend. While you understand your duty fully, some other brother does not, and he may be offended because of the negro worshiping with the same congregation at the same place. You know Paul said he could eat meat offered to idols, but he would not if it caused his weak brother to offend. (1 Cor. 8.) I have the kindest feelings toward the negro, but do not think it elevates the races any to mix them in any way whatever. If it was right to build a house for the negroes to worship in, then is it wrong to ask a negro to go to that house to worship after it has been prepared for them?

You say they do not want her to go with her color because of the temptations she would incur. Is she not to an extent subject to the temptations of both races when she is allowed to come to the white church? She cannot get around the temptations of her own race if she would. Is it right to keep her from her own race and exclude her from the society of her own race? You say the Scriptures do not teach very much on social lines. If not, does not that justify us in asking what we do ask of Brother Elam for the sake of peace? Can any one be a Christian and cause division, whether he thinks that thing is wrong or not? Jesus did not break over the race lines. Then why should we do it? Why this race instinct so strong, if there is no difference and all are one in Christ Jesus?

I have written this in hope it will do good and bring about peace. Please print it in the Advocate.

Lebanon, Tenn.

S.E.HARRIS.

I did not say there is difficulty in understanding our religious duties.

To "offend," in the scriptural sense, is to lead into sin by our example. Paul would not eat bread or drink wine offered to an idol, if by exercising that right others might be led into the worship of the idol. He sacrificed his own selfish right rather than lead others to sin. On another occasion, when Titus; a Gentile, of a despised race, went up to Jerusalem with him, the Jewish Christians demanded he should be circumcised. Paul, giving an account of it, says of this: "To whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour." His own right to eat meat he could readily surrender for the good of others; but when the right of a good brother of a despised race to worship God with him was denied, he yielded not for a moment. If the right of one of a despised race to worship God among any Christians is called in question, the right should be maintained. To yield on this point is to encourage those who object, to sin. When the right of the humblest child of God to worship with children of God is at stake, it is a sin to yield. It is a sin against the one rejected; it is a sin against those who reject the child of God; it is a sin against God.

In the year 1867 I was holding a meeting in the neighbourhood of Trenton, Ky. The disciples had no meetinghouse in the village. The Baptist negroes owned a new meetinghouse. They very kindly and deferentially offered their house if we would use it. Some few objected to the negro house. I asked Brother Day to let me make the announcement. I told them of our condition and the deferential offer. I said: "Now some of you may be a little fearful that attending meeting in the negro house will contaminate you or you may be mistaken for a negro. If there be such, they will be excused from attending; but all who are above suspicion can attend freely." None remained away because it was a meetinghouse of the negroes.

In White's Bend, in this country, I lived for a number of years. We had a meetinghouse that was seldom filled. I urged the negroes to attend; they should be treated kindly. An old, thoughtful one among them said, "Mr. Lipscomb, you [and a number of others he mentioned] would always treat us kindly; but a number of them, that will put their arms around us and carry us into the saloon to drink with us, or that would play cards with us, if we attend church and they or their families are there, will treat us roughly and make it unpleasant for us. So we prefer not to attend." He was right as to those who objected to their attending church.

I tell these things to suggest it is not always the intelligent and refined people that are most ready to object to the presence of the negroes in the worship, but a different class. The intelligent and self-respecting know that the presence of well- behaved negroes at church service will not injure them, but it will help the lowly to be treated with kindness and consideration.

I came across this statement in an article by old Brother Fall in 1861, in the Harbinger, concerning the church in Nashville: "The list of white members never contained more than two hundred and sixty-five names. By the end of the present year there will be, if things go on as they have done, quite as many as in the best days of the congregation. The colored members were organized into a separate church, and there are possibly more than two hundred of them together now; but some twenty prefer to remain with us." There was no thought of objecting to the negroes worshiping with them. Indeed, I am sure all would have been shocked at such a thought; and I regret very much that intelligent Christians now should manifest such a spirit toward an unfortunate and helpless race in our midst. They can be managed and kindly treated and helped to a better life and made friends of, or they can be driven off, degraded, and their enmity and bitterness aroused. There can be no doubt as to which is the spirit of Christ; and the Christ spirit helps both white and black.

I would much dread to meet the Master if I had objected to one of the least of his servants partaking of the memorials of his death and sufferings, his humiliation to lift us up. There is an incongruity between commemorating his sufferings to lift us up and at the same time discouraging the lowly from meeting with us in that service. I would dislike very much to belong to a church that would repel one of the least of his brethren from partaking of the memorials of his love to man. I would expect the Master to refuse to meet with or accept the service of such a church.

I was invited to go to Bellwood to preach a discourse on this subject, but owing to the crippled-up condition of my back and hips it was uncertain when I could get there. So the correspondence was sent me by Brother Elam with a request to write on the subject. We ought not to give much weight to what was done thirty-five or forty years ago. Better to go back to what was done for us all near two thousand years ago. The matter of convenience or inconvenience ought to have but little weight in such questions; but what did Christ do? If the negroes are in that community as in most others, they do not meet at the same hour as the whites, and the inconvenience is as great as if they were miles apart.

D.L.

Brother Elam: I inclose a clipping from the Methodist, Fulton, Ky. I think it is misleading as well as a misrepresentation. Pigue is good at that, however. He seems delighted when he thinks he has a possible shadow to cast a reflection upon those whom he calls "Campbellites."

We had a case similar to yours to come up at Glass a few years since. Brother Miller reared a negro girl, and she applied to the union church (Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptist) to baptize her. They refused, and then she came to us; and Brother T.E.Scott immersed her, and she worshiped with us till death. The sects and just a few members complained, but we paid no attention. Possibly it might have been better to have settled the matter privately and not published it in the Gospel Advocate, as there is much prejudice in the South against the negro.

I would be glad to see you, and hope that some time in the future you can come to West Tennessee and preach for us.

T.H.MILLS.

Pigue's article is another example that it is not always the godly and refined Christian that objects to the presence of the negro in the worship of God. He says we lack authoritative church assemblies to regulate the individual churches in such matters. They would be governed by public sentiment on the subject. This is an acknowledgment that the Scriptures furnish no grounds for churches along race lines. Brother Elam has sent us also a letter from Chattanooga of the same purport. We do not intend to publish simply appeals to race prejudice and misrepresentations to arouse this. If any one can present any scripture grounds why the position here given is not correct, we will be glad to have them. Otherwise we will leave the subject as it is.

D.L.

As to what you have to say in regard to the Baptist negro meetinghouse near Trenton, Ky., I do not see that it bears on the subject at all, as the house is just simply a place to meet. I do not suppose the negroes pressed themselves on the white brethren at all.

I think the old negro in White's Bend used good judgment in not attending the white congregation. As to white people putting their arms around the negroes' necks and taking them into saloons, I do not think there are any in this neighborhood that would do such a thing.

You say it is not always the intelligent and refined people that object to the negro in the worship. While the people here may not have an extra education, yet they have self-respect and are respected as well. Did Christ go to the refined and intelligent or to the poor people for his followers while here on earth? It seems the common people heard him gladly, while the others, as a rule, did not accept him.

It seems I have been misunderstood all the time in regard to this question. It is not whether the girl shall worship God or not, but is it not best for her and all concerned to worship with her own color? I would dread to meet the Master, too, if I had objected to any one's partaking of the memorials; but I have not objected, only so far as her meeting with the white brethren causes division.

As to the letters Brother Elam has received, I will say I have received some letters also, fully indorsing my actions. I have the letters and can produce them at any time. They are from Brother J.W.Dunn.

You say if any one can present any scripture grounds why your position is not correct, you would be glad to have them. I will try to get a man to do so in a short time, if you see fit to publish it.

It looks like we ought to work for the greatest good to the greatest number; and if there is more good in having one negro in the worship than several white people, then that is the thing to do.

Lebanon, Tenn.

S.E.HARRIS.

I was not aware I had evaded any question or point asked, nor do I now understand to what he refers. I stated as plainly and kindly as I know how that the whole idea of churches along race lines is contrary to the spirit and the precepts of the New Testament, and to refuse fellowship to a child of God because of its race or family is to refuse it to Jesus himself. For he said: "Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me." To show it is unscriptural is to show God condemns it. I thought all desired to know what God thinks, not what I think of it. My thinks are nothing. What God thinks is heaven or hell.

To offend, in the Bible use of the term, is to cause to stumble, to lead into sin. "It were well for him if a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, rather than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble [or to sin]." (Luke 17:2.) That does not mean to make them mad or to hurt their feelings. Sometimes it is right to hurt the feelings of people, even of our brethren. But it is always wrong to lead them into sin or to violate God's law. Now if it is according to God's law that this negro should have the privilege of attending the worship of God where it is most convenient for her and those in charge of her to attend, it is a sin against God to deny it to her; and she and those having charge of her alone are judges of where it is most convenient for her to attend. It is an impertinent and meddlesome interference with the affairs of a family for others to tell it what is or is not convenient for it.

The only point really involved in this difficulty is, whether we will be led by the Spirit of Christ and the teachings of the Bible or by our prejudices against the negro. The besetting sin of humanity from the beginning has been to follow its own feelings instead of the word of God. To follow our prejudices and feelings instead of the will of God is to rebel against and reject God as our Ruler. This is true whether it is a person, a family, a part of the church, or a whole church. If members of this or any church prefer following their prejudices against the negro to the word of God, and cease to worship with the church, those who follow the word of God do not "offend" or cause the others to stumble or go into sin. They, by example and influence, try to hold them back from sin. But if they yield to them and go with them, then they cause these to offend, to stumble, to sin, and become partakers in their sins.

I published what I did to show that the best sentiment of the people is not in harmony with the narrow and bitter prejudices of many against the negro, with the hope that the knowledge of this would soften their prejudices and feelings against him. The bitter feeling against the negro is not found among those who know him best. Those who know him best know his weaknesses and shortcomings. They learn to make allowances for and bear with these, and recognize and cultivate his good points. Then all should recognize that there is much of the brutal in all classes and races, and that the negro is much like the whites in this, and can be benefited and uplifted by kindness and attention.

So concludes DL in 1907. His descendants, for the most part, elected to be led "by our prejudices" rather than "by the Spirit of Christ and the teachings of the Bible." As we read together the documents, let us ponder the wisdom of DL, a man of his time, struggling to find the will of God in the Bible. We could do worse.

Certainly we have.

dhaymes, his mark +