Old Paths Advocate Volume 5 Number 3

Editorial

Another Reformation Needed

The Apostolic Church - the church of Christ - originated in Jerusalem, Palestine, in the year, A. D. 33. All who became members of this church confessed Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah. They regarded Him their only Priest, their only Law Giver, their only King. Submission to His will, obedience to His laws, and reverence for His word seemed to be uppermost in the minds of all His faithful subjects. They had no feast and fast days; no Thanksgiving Days; no Christmas Celebration. They knew nothing of such things. They had no Sunday Schools; no Missionary Societies; no Christian Endeavor Societies; no Bible Colleges. As the great reformer, Alexander Campbell, said, “In their church capacity alone they moved.” No “Reverends,” “Rt. Reverends,” “D. D.’s,” etc., existed among them. No Pope, no ecclesiastical council, no human creed was recognized by them. They all believed that: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16); “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God” (John 3:5). They believed that the great question: “What must I do to be saved?” should be answered this way: “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for (Greek eis, in order to) the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). They believed that all who did these things should “Continue steadfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine (teaching) and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). They believed that the disciples should “come together to break bread” “upon the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7). They believed that the teaching should be done by one male member speaking at a time (1 Corinthians 14:31 and 1 Corinthians 1:33-35). They believed in “Laying by in store as the Lord had prospered them” and that this, like the “breaking of bread” should be done “upon the first day of the week, when ye come together” (Acts 20:7; Acts 2:42; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2). They believed that this contribution, or “fellowship” (Acts 2:42) should be for the support of Gospel preachers and for the poor saints.

​But, this was not the condition of the Church for a long period of time. Paul warned the Ephesians against false teachers (Acts 20:28-30). He warned Timothy of the same (1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 4:1-4). He told the Thessalonians that: “That day (Christ’s second advent) shall not come, except the falling away come first and that Man of Sin be revealed, the Son of Perdition” (2 Thessalonians 2:3). He even saw the great Anti-Christ in his own day, “He that opposeth and exalted himself against all that is called God of that is worshiped (“an object of worship.” - Marginal reading); so that he (the Man of Sin) sitteth in the Temple (Church, 1 Corinthians 3:16-17) of God, setting himself forth as God.” That Man of Sin can be none other than the Pope of Rome, who declares himself to be “the very and Eternal God”; “His Holiness, Lord God, the Pope”; “Another God upon Earth”; and “the King of kings and Lord of Lords.” Such blasphemy and arrogance can’t be found outside of the ranks of Roman Catholicism. Paul declared that this Man of Sin - the Papal Hierarchy was invading the Church in his day. “For the mystery of iniquity (lawlessness) doth already work: only there is one that restraineth now, until he shall be taken out of the way.” Pagan Rome was restraining the development of Roman Catholicism. But that Empire fell in the year 476 A. D. Then Roman Catholicism was fully revealed. “Then shall be revealed the lawless one” (See 2 Thessalonians chapter 2). Now, Paul declares that as long as Pagan Rome existed, Papal Rome could not be developed. Compare with this fact what is said of the Little Horn (Roman Catholicism) coming up among the ten horns of the Roman Beast (Daniel chapter 7).

J. D. Phillips

---

Special Interest

---

Cowan - Musgrave Discussion

This debate was held at Midway Church, near Topsey, Texas, January 12-15, 1932, by Brethren J. N. Cowan and Bob Musgrave.

Bro. Cowan affirmed for two nights thus: “The scriptures teach that in observing the communion that two or more containers may be used in the distribution of the cup, and is Apostolic.” Bro. Cowan freely admitted that the scriptures say nothing about two or more containers, but tried to raise 'the issue over “What is the cup?” “the Jerusalem church,” “Jacob’s well,” etc., etc. Bro. Musgrave begged him all through the discussion to come to the issue and prove his two or more containers as stated in the proposition, but he did neither.

Bro. Musgrave affirmed for two nights thus: The scriptures teach that in observing the communion one, cup only (container) is Apostolic.” He stuck to his proposition and would not allow anything to throw him off. He argued that “Jesus took the cup and gave thanks for it and gave it to them, and they all drank of it.”

Bro. Cowan quoted 43 passages of scripture, while Bro. Musgrave quoted 94 passages. I shall not attempt to give the many arguments that were offered pro and con, as that would require too much space. I pray that all will read the Bible and be satisfied with it.

Large crowds attended the debate throughout, and a good spirit prevailed - everybody seemed in a good humor. There were visitors from all the near-by places and from Abilene, Wichita Falls, Eola, Lometa and Austin.

Preaching brethren present were: J. W. Kelly J. H. Stewart, Jas. T. White, J. R. Stewart, G. B. Harrell, J. I. Grantham (who lives there), and the writer.

Several told me that they had been “on the fence” on this question, but were now satisfied that the one cup is the scriptural way in the communion. Among the number fully settled on the matter were two good gospel preachers.

Bro. J. R. Stewart, of Abilene, Texas, was called home on the account of sickness, and got to hear only two nights of the debate, but he authorized me to state this, “I am strictly a one cup man, and Bro. Cowan has utterly failed to uphold his proposition.”

Bro. J. W. Kelly moderated for Bro. Cowan, and I for Bro. Musgrave.

Other statements, will follow below.

Yours in Christ Jesus,
Homer A. Gay

Have just returned from the Cowan-Musgrave Debate, which I enjoyed very much. In the main the speakers were nice to each other, deporting themselves in a nice manner. This was the first public discussion on this subject that I ever had the pleasure of attending, and I consider the work ably done by both speakers. I can freely speak for Bro. Musgrave that the brethren needing someone to defend the use of one cup in distributing the fruit of the vine, I do not think you could do better than send for Bro. Bob Musgrave. Since hearing the discussion, I cannot recommend the use of more than one cup in observing the communion.

J. H. Stewart

I attended the debate between our beloved Bro. Bob Musgrave and Bro. J. N. Cowan, at Midway Church, and am free to admit that Bro. Cowan entirely failed to establish anything in favor of his cause. On the other hand, Bro. Musgrave proved his proposition, I think, to the satisfaction of all good Bible readers.

G. B. Harrel

Will say that the debate of January 12-15, at Midway Church north of Kempner, Texas, is now a matter of history. Bro. Cowan and Bro. Musgrave conducted themselves nicely. I will endorse Bro. Musgrave to meet Cowan anywhere on the Cup’s Question. We are well pleased and rejoice to know that there are still men among us, who will not depart from the plain simple truth to be with the big crowd in the broad road.

J. I. Grantham

Lily - Musgrave Discussion

While visiting friends and relatives at Weather­ford, Texas recently, I was challenged to meet Bro. J. F. Lilly in a four days’ debate on the cups question. I unhesitatingly accepted the challenge, but a great many of the members of the church there objected to having the debate, saying that the church was too young for the discussion. But the strange thing about it, they have been anxious for a debate with the Sunday School advocates. They had Bro. Johnson to assist in their meeting so they could defend their practice with the S. S. folk, if necessary. Old enough for a discussion with the instrumental music advocates or S. S. advocates, but too young for a discussion on the cups. Eh? Can you figure that out? More than that, they refused to let us have it in their house, so we secured a school building, but some refused to come to hear it then.

The brethren seemed well pleased with my defense of the use of one cup, and of the results of the discussion. Some were convinced of their error, and came back to the Bible way of serving God.

Brotherly,
J. L. Musgrave

Remarks

This is the young Bro. Musgrave (twenty-one years.of age), who was converted from the Sunday School and cups theories, during my meeting at Wichita Falls, Texas, last fall. We are thankful that Bro. Lewis is active in the work of the Lord and “Earnestly contending for the faith delivered to the saints.”

Publisher

---

Articles

---

“Asking for the Old Paths”

Jeremiah 6:16

I wish to offer some thoughts in the way of edification under the above heading and scripture. God has purposed his children should give divine authority for all they teach and practice. Hence, a “Thus saith Jehovah.” The only way this can be done is to teach and practice that which God has bound on mankind. Therefore, a “Thus saith Jehovah” simply means to give book, chapter and verse, for the teaching and practice we are doing and offering the people. “Thus saith Jehovah” is tantamount to “Being ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you (or us) a reason concerning the hope that is in you (or us) yet with meekness and fear,” 1 Peter 3:15, by sanctifying in your (our) hearts Christ as Lord,” (law giver.) Consequently, the followers of Jesus will then be able to give a “Thus saith Jehovah” (or God) for all they are teaching and doing. Or as Peter further purports, “If any man speaketh, speaking as it were oracles of God,” etc., 1 Peter 4:11. As long as we continue to teach and do what the God of Heaven requires we will be speaking as the oracles of God” and can give a thus saith Jehovah” for the position to which we hold. Thus it is said, “In all things showing thyself (or ourselves) an example of good works in thy doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity, sound speech that cannot be condemned, that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of us.” Titus 2:7-8, With this much before us we are able to see what “thus saith Jehovah” means. “God having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in His Son,” etc. Hebrews 1:1-2. God having spoken to Jeremiah who was one of His prophets, Jeremiah 1:5. Jeremiah wanted the people to know it was not what he was saying but “thus saith Jehovah,” (or what God has said.) We, too, should let the church and the world know it is not what man, or men, think and say, but what our heavenly Father has taught and commanded, through His Son and word, by His prophets and apostles. Hebrews 1:1-2. 1 Peter 1:10-12. 2 Peter 1:21. Matthew 16:18. Matthew 18:18. John 20:23.

So, Dear Brethren and Sisters, let us ever remember, “Seeing that His divine power (the Gospel, Romans 1:16) hath granted unto us all things (not just a part) that pertain unto life and godliness through the knowledge of Him that called us by His own glory and virtue.” 2 Peter 1:3. 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Therefore, we should not cease “asking for the old paths.” The most of the people under “the first covenant” “had forsaken God, perverted His words,’’ etc. Jeremiah 2:11-16. Jeremiah 23:36. Having turned to their own ways, it was necessary for the true prophets of Jehovah to “stand in the ways and ask for the old paths,” (that is the Lord s way). It seems that about all the people in this day have “forsaken God” and are going in and after their own ways, hence, it is imperative that the true gospel preachers “ask for the old paths” and persuade men and women to “walk therein.” Thus it is written “Stand ye in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths.” The prophets, “standing in the ways,” this would give them opportunity to see and talk to the children of men “asking for the old paths,” that they may “walk therein.”

The same principle set forth in Jeremiah 6:16 is just as applicable now as it was then, hence, we are to ask for the old paths” by “preaching the word,” “contending earnestly for the faith” “declaring the whole counsel of God” “bringing the teaching or doctrine of Christ.” 2 Timothy 4:1-2. Jude 1:3. Acts 20:27. 2 John 1:10. “The good way” is in “the old paths.” In order to “walk in the good way” “the old paths” must be asked for, which means nothing more nor less than to “fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” Ecclesiastes 12:13. “See Revelation 22:14. Those who are “keeping" God’s commandments are “walking in the good way” which to us, is “the strait and narrow way, door, or gate.” Matthew 7:13:14. Luke 13:24. “Asking for the old paths” indicates new “paths” or ways. Many under the law substituted their own ways and doings. Read Isaiah 1:6. Isaiah 59. Jeremiah 23:36. Jeremiah 2:11-13. Thus they had new paths or ways. It is said “there is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death,” moreover, “all the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes, but Jehovah weigheth the spirits.” Proverbs 16:2 and Proverbs 16:25. These scriptures teach there were those back there who made for themselves new paths and ways and would not “walk in the good way,” (God’s way). Many people in this day have made new paths or ways by instituting doctrines, churches, societies, Sunday schools, lodges, and many other auxiliaries; but the Lord’s children should keep “asking for the old paths; wherein- is the good way,” and “walk therein.” Those who walk in the good or narrow way have the promise of rest for their souls here and hereafter. The ones that have been “born anew of water and the spirit,” John 3:3-5, have rest from all their past sins. Romans 3:3-5. Hebrews 8:12. Then “by patience in well-doing.” Romans 2:7. The faithful will finally “enter into that rest” which await the righteous. Hebrews 4:11. Matthew 11:28-30. Revelation 14:13. But some said, “We will not walk therein.” -How sad, regrettable, and deplorable to find many in this age who are saying, as they did in those days, “We will not walk therein.” If they are not saying it in words they are in actions.

​I exhort all the royal brethren and sisters that we go straight forward, onward, and upward, turning “neither to the right-hand, nor to the left- hand,” but ever “asking for the old paths,” “fighting the good fight of the faith, and lay hold on the life eternal,” etc. 1 Timothy 6:12. Then in the end we may truly say:

“We followed the way of life to the river,
We can see the grand (or bright) portals above,
We are ready to go and live with our Savior,
In that beautiful home above."

Yours for “The Old Paths,
​wherein is the Good Way.”
Joseph Miller

Shaking Them In

The trouble with that doctrine is like all made doctrines it does not harmonize with the Bible.

Now you take Acts 2 beginning at the 41st verse and reading down to the end of the chapter (Acts 2:41-47). They would have to read like this -

41. “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized and went into the Christian Church and about 5 years later they heard, a gospel preacher and then went into the true church about three thousand souls.

42. “And they did not continue in the apostles’ doctrine but went off after the doctrines and commandments of men and did just as they pleased for a few years then after hearing a gospel preacher about a week, finally decided they would go and let the preacher shake them into the true church.

44. “And part that believed were together in the church of Christ that had a Sunday School and part went into, the Christian Church, until they heard a loyal gospel preacher who shook their hand and added them to the true church…

46. “And they continued not daily with one accord but the several factions did just as they pleased for a number of years, when a loyal preacher got them to lay down their differences and come together by shaking the hands of the ones who had been stiff knuckled.

47. “Praising God and having favor with part of the people. And the Lord added them to the true church after they had lived in some kind of a digressive church for about ten years, that is, when a loyal preacher came along and took them by the hand.

And then Matthew 28:19 would read like this: Go ye therefore and baptize all nations teaching them. Also it would make nonsense of 1 John 1:7 and the rest of the New Testament.

Acts 2:47 says, “The Lord added, to the church daily such as should be saved.” Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” But Jesus said “teach.” I do not believe that if a man or woman had been taught enough to “obey from the heart that form of doctrine, that the Lord would refuse to add him or her to the right church, but as “God is not the author of confusion,” I believe when anyone has been baptized and goes into the wrong church it is evident the Lord had not had anything to do with it, for he does not do things in any such way. I do not believe that a man who knows enough to preach the gospel, God’s power to save, would be so ignorant of God’s word that he would not know what church was right and if he did and told the new convert the truth and the new convert was too stubborn to go into the right church that the Lord would add him to His church later, and that kind of baptism just because some preacher shook his hand.

​I have written the above in the interest of what I believe to be right and if I am wrong, someone please show me where and why I am wrong.

W. B. Jameson

Reply

1. There is only one way to get into the church of Christ, and that way is by obeying the gospel. When one obeys the gospel, the Lord remits the sins of that one, thus making that person one of “the called out ones,” the ekklesia, the church of Christ. And since this is the only way of entering the church, there is, in fact, no such thing as “shaking” any one into the church of Christ.

2. The law of pardon to the alien sinner is Faith, Repentance, Confession, and Baptism. And any person who complies with these requirements of the gospel is a Christian; has come into the church of Christ.

​3. The law of pardon to the Christian that has sinned is Repentance, Confession, and Prayer. (Acts 8:22; 1 John 2:1-2; 1 John 5:16; Revelation 2-3).

Remarks

Yes, the trouble with that doctrine is that it is not taught in the Scriptures. The Scriptures teach that the only way to get into the church of Christ is by obeying the gospel. Then it is that the Lord remits his sins, thus making him one of the church (ekklesia), the called out ones. A church of Christ may fellowship a person who has not obeyed the gospel, but that does not make the person a member of the church of Christ. No one is a member of the church of Christ who has not been baptized for the remission of sins, when the Lord adds him to the church, that is, the Lord makes a “saint” out of a “sinner;” and he is now a Christian. If he now sins (and no matter what the sin may be), the law of pardon to him is Repentance, Confession to God, and Prayer. (Acts 8:22; 1 John 2:1-2; 1 John 5:16; Revelation 2-3).

41. Then they that gladly received His word were baptized. Yes, and the Lord remitted their sins then, thus adding them to the saved, the church, which is the called out ones; and no matter what sin or sins they may now commit, they as the church of Christ have access to God through the second law of pardon and may, as disobedient children, come into favor with God by complying with that law. The Lord adds one to His church but once, and that is upon that one’s obeying the gospel, and no matter how many institutions that one may afterwards “join,” no preacher can shake him into “the true church” for the simple reason that the Lord has added him, and no man can obey the gospel twice.

44. Answered under 41.

46. Some people may be ignorant enough of the Bible to believe that a preacher can “shake” a person into the church of Christ, and some preachers may be stupid enough to believe that they can do such a thing; but such persons need Bible teaching, and need it badly.

Matthew 28:19: Yes, the “shake them in” (We never have used this expression only to show the impossibility of such a thing) doctrine makes nonsense of the whole Bible. Jesus said “teach,” disciple,” if you please; and the law of pardon to the non-Christian is Faith, Repentance, Confession, and Baptism. And when one becomes a Christian, he is to be “taught” the duties of such. But should he go wrong in “joining” a hundred churches or in any other way, it is not in going through a man-made arrangement of trying to comply with the first law of pardon, that to the alien sinner, but in complying with the God-ordained second law of pardon, that to the erring Christian, one of the church, the called out ones that he comes again into favor with God.

Acts 2:47: Yes, the Lord adds to His church the one who obeys the gospel from the heart. And you have no more evidence to sustain your belief that the Lord had nothing to do with it if one should go into digression after he obeyed the Gospel than you have for believing that the Lord had nothing to do with it in Simon’s (Acts 8:22) case yes, and all the other New Testament cases. The Lord never adds any one to His church “later.” He does it when the person obeys the gospel.

​If you know a sin that one can commit after obeying the gospel for which he cannot obtain the forgiveness of God by complying with the law of pardon to the erring Christian, name it. Can one be “born of water and the Spirit” more than once? Will the fact of your believing that one never obeyed the gospel, make it so? Does the Lord ever add a person to His church more than once?

H. C. Harper

Marriage and Divorce

The home is the oldest institution in the world. It is of God’s making and of God’s appointment. The hearts of God’s people are made sad, and fearful, as they see the home life disintegrating before the awful inroads of the divorce evil.

God made one man, and one woman to be his help-mate. As a rule, “it is not good that man should be alone.” He needs companionship, and love, and “help”; and an incentive to labor, and patience, and purity, and chivalry. He needs a special object for love and sympathy and unselfishness.

In greater or less degree, the woman needs the same. While woman is “the weaker vessel” in some respects, she has the greater heart, and perhaps the keener intuition, and thus furnishes the real motive power for man’s greater accomplishment.

The man is commanded to “honor” and love his wife, and “nourish and cherish her,” even as the Lord the church. The woman is to be a help meet (suitable help) to her husband, and to love and “reverence” him.

When God commands anything, it is not for us to make excuse. If God commands us to love, (even our enemies) he means to be obeyed. When he commands brethren to love one another, there are no “if’s” and “and’s.”

The home life is not a thing to be lightly cast aside, or heedlessly neglected. And woe to the man who stubbornly, or rebelliously breaks his marriage vows, to “love, cherish, and keep his wife—in sickness and in health, in poverty or in prosperity, in good or evil report, till death shall part them.”

And the wife is to be “a keeper at home,” while her husband provides for her protection and support. She is to serve with a meek and quiet spirit, while he rules without “bitterness.”

But the question naturally arises as to whether the husband, and the wife, are to be true to the marriage vow if the companion is “untrue.” The Savior has shown us, in that “New and better covenant,” there is but one ground for divorce.

Otherwise, our duty is clear. “Two wrongs do not make one right.” Either party should be true to all the duties of the marriage relation, regardless of what the other may do.

A citizen should be faithful, regardless of what his ruler may be. A Christian should be loving and forgiving, and faithful, regardless of what his brethren may do. One’s full duty should be performed in all the relationships of life, without regard to how it will be received, or rewarded.

Of course this does not mean that one should do anything, in any relationship of life, that is contrary to good morals, and right principle. We should refuse to “obey” man, when it conflicts with the commands of God.

But the fact that Jesus delayed to devote his life to his (heavenly) Father’s business,” till he was about 30 years of age, in order to serve in the Home, will make the careful Christian realize where, his “first duty” lies, among the “whatsoever things are pure, and honest, and of good report.”

Paul puts it strong when he says that a husband and wife are not to (even temporarily) separate, except by mutual consent, “for fasting and prayer.” (That would not take most of us very long). The duties of the home are paramount. It does not even give the husband (or the wife) encouragement to spend days, weeks, months, or years, away from home in “religious work.” Paul indicates that the apostles took their wives with them, while evangelizing. Many a preacher (and many a woman “worker”) has brought reproach on the name of Christ, while thinking to “forsake all for Him.”

We are indeed commanded to forsake all for Him, but we are serving Him best when doing what He tells us to do, rather than what we may think is our “Fathers business.” And then, again, while we are doing our duty in the home, we sometimes (unwittingly, or unblamably) cause the unbelieving companion to depart. We are not under bondage in such cases.

But wherever a separation takes place (except for “one cause”) the remaining companion must “remain unmarried, or be reconciled” to the other party.

Now these are Divine requirements, and the “laws of the land” cannot abrogate the Law of God. We must obey God rather than man. We are not obliged to marry, but when we choose to marry we have voluntarily chosen a sacred relationship, which man may not “put asunder.”

It is a mooted question, as to whether a divorced person may marry again, even with a scriptural cause for divorce. It is best to be on the safe side, (But we may not judge, one another, where the scriptures are not clear). Many Christians, including preachers and elders, have brought reproach on themselves and on the “cause,” by taking a doubtful course. We should value our influence for good, and for the salvation of souls, more than our own peace and comfort, or even our own salvation. Some have vainly supposed that their “purity” depended on being married. But even if it did, “two wrongs do not make one right.” The cause of Christ, and the Law of God must be maintained even at our peril.

It is clear that divorce, (and remarriage), except for the cause of fornication, is a sin, and scandal, against the divine law, and the welfare and purity of the church. If the sin of Achan brought disgrace (and defeat before God) upon the whole assembly of Israel, how shall the Church of God hold up her head, and conquer for Jesus, in her sin.

We are commanded to “put away” the “wicked person,” with the warning that a “little leaven leavens the whole lump.” Perhaps the Lord considers us “leavened,” whether we (outwardly) become guilty or not. The fact that we do not put away the leaven, makes us leavened, (even before it “rots”). It takes fire (of a hot oven) to stop the (destructive) power of the leaven in the Loaf. So “fiery trials,” and “destruction of the flesh,” are the only Providence for the church, “that we be not condemned with the world.”

Of course we should not cease to “reprove, rebuke, and exhort,” both the individual and the church. Evangelists and Elders should do this publicly, and all should do it privately.

But it might be well to consider that we should be “wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” We must not breed a spirit of “anarchy,” or hastily entail Division. After Paul had written to Corinth, demanding that they put away a brother who was guilty of the worst form of fornication, he “regretted” having sent the letter, until he heard that they had “repented.” (It was their sin).

How may we harmonize this with the fact of Divine inspiration, moving Paul to write this letter? Perhaps Paul’s inspiration moved him to write, but he felt that he might have been hasty in forwarding the message, before he had “felt their pulse.” Just so, today, we have the Command, but we may choose the proper time to act (in dealing with others).

We must act in the spirit of love, and for the good of all. And we ought to consider whether we “have power to enjoin,” so as to produce the required results. Only as a last resort may we “scatter firebrands, and death,” and escape for our lives.

We need more Love, as well as more Loyalty. And “mercy rejoices against judgment.”

Now, as to what constitutes proper Repentance, on the part of the “fornicators and Adulterers” in the church, it undoubtedly involves the forsaking of the sin, and of all sinful relationships, in connection with proper confession and restitution.

We should confess to whoever we have wronged, and as far as possible make wrongs right, either by reconciliation, or paying for loss of time, property, or reputation. It is a wrong to God, and to the church, and to all connected with the improper relations. If a man has forsaken his wife and married another, he owes a duty to both, and to their children (maybe to their parents).

A man is not obligated to return to his first wife (without her consent), but he may not live with the other. It is adultery. John the Baptist was preparing the way for the Gospel of Christ, and “making ready a people prepared for the Lord,” when he said to Herod (the adulterer) “You ought not to have her.”

The looseness under the Law of Moses, was because of “the hardness of their hearts.” But from the beginning, it was not so. With God, it was always an abomination. Bringing the Jews out of “abominable idolatry,” and fornication in Egypt, God purged them in the wilderness, and in His own land, until, under the prophets, He was already revealing His perfect principles. Malachi has some plain things to say. And Ezra required the people to put away their (unlawful) wives, (and the children born to them), even though it caused great “weeping” and lamentation.

​If the sin was committed before the conversion of the guilty parties it was nevertheless a sin to be repented of, and forsaken. Paul says that God shall judge the world “by my Gospel.” The New converts at Ephesus “came confessing their sin,” and burned the books, (even), connected with their crime, “Except a man forsake all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.”

Paul Hays

Bobbed Hair

I will start with what Paul says in the 11th chapter of 1st Corinthians (1 Corinthians chapter 11): ‘God created man and woman, placed them here, intended that the distinction between them should be sharp, clear and clean cut. Each man has a right to possess masculine personality and each woman has a right to a feminine personality.

Neither man nor woman can change their sex. Paul has been giving the revelation by the spirit of God on that matter. Does not even nature itself teach you that if man has long hair it is a shame unto him, but if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her for her hair was given to her for a covering. God has said that a woman shall not wear that which pertaineth to a man. She becomes masculine in so doing. If. she cuts off her hair she cuts off her glory, it is a shame to her and she dishonoreth her head. Long hair was given the woman and short hair the man said the God of Heaven, as a mark, of distinction to distinguish between the sex.

Today many women are cutting their hair like men. The custom of bobbing the hair came from the women of the world and this alone should cause Christian women to refrain from it, and be not conformed to this world but be ye transformed by the renewing of your minds that you may prove what is that good and acceptable will of God. Romans 12:2.

In the sixteenth verse Paul says: ‘If any man seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. If there is any among you that wish to contend for women wearing short hair, let him know that the church has no such custom.’ I freely admit that the hair worn by most girls and women now, is generally longer than men’s hair in some places at least. But the shorter the hair the less the glory.

Instead of Christians coming to the standard of the world, we should hold up the standard which Christ gave and. asked the world to come to it. If we don’t have something to offer the world better than it has how can we expect them to want to take part with us. Our Savior brands us as being a peculiar people, zealous of good works. If we are conformed to the world in what sense are we a peculiar people?

The present condition is a serious one and I fear that Christian men and women are neglecting their duty along this line. Let us think very seriously arid strive to save ourselves and others.

M. Sellers