Old Paths Advocate Volume 5 Number 6

Editorial

Danger of Innovations

For several years, a number of us have been warning the brethren against innovations, pointing out to them the fact that they lead away from God. Look at Israel. Look at Catholicism. Look at Protestantism. Look at our brethren who call themselves “Progressives.” The sad condition into which many of our brethren have drifted reveals only too plainly the apostate condition into which the practicing of innovations will finally lead their devotees. History is now repeating itself in the so-called “loyal churches of Christ.”

The College of the Bible, Lexington, Kentucky, was at one time noted for its sound teaching; but is now noted for its destructive criticism. Bro. R. H. Boll read a letter written by one of its professors, and remarked: “Professor _ _ _ _ _ is full of destructive criticism. He couldn’t keep it out of a short letter like that.” The College of the Bible well illustrates the fact that innovations lead away from God. When its greatest Professor, J. W. McGarvey, died they brought his body into the church he had left because of innovations, and played the organ over his dead body. They had him down so that he could not speak for himself!

On March 12, 1917, my friend, Ben F. Battenfield, who was then a student of The College of the Bible, sent a letter to several conservative brethren, asking them “to do all you can to take” The College of the Bible “out of the hands of destructive critics.” The following statements, taken from his letter, show that the College of the Bible was bordering on to infidelity. And it has been getting worse ever since.
 

Professor Snoddy said, “I am a hard evolutionist.” “The first chapter of Genesis is poetry.” “We can’t believe the story of Adam’s search for a helpmate.” “To explain how God answers prayer, I must explain what I mean by the term ‘God’.”
 
Professor Bower has called Jehovah “the tribal God of the Jews.” He said, “The urim and thummin, and Gideon’s fleece were means of augury.” “Civilization has been traced back as far as 10,000 years B. C.” “The Pithecanthropus Erectus is the missing link between man and the lower animals.”
 
Bro. Battenfield then shows the effect of this teaching by several statements from students.
 
John T. Pugh says, “I hear scarcely any but destructive critical teaching except in Dean Calhoun’s classes.”
 
J. G. Hurst says, “I came to the College of the Bible because of its reputation for sound teaching, but I have found more destructive criticism and Christian Science than anything else.”
 
K. B. Bowen says, “If I had to believe that the Bible is inspired from cover to cover, as Mark Collis said, I wouldn’t preach anymore.”
 
Dr. J. R. Barbee says, “I believe that President Wilson is inspired just as the apostles were.”
 
W. R. Hudspeth says, “I think we should have a new New Testament. I know any number of men I would as soon trust to write it as Paul.”
 
Speaking of a union revival meeting in which the Church for which he preached was to engage, J. L. Finnell said: “The man who is to hold the meeting is not a member of the Christian Church, and no doctrinal points will be touched. People are tired of ‘our plea’.”

The foregoing is bad, but no worse than can reasonably be expected from those who have become “wise above that which is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6) and “progressed” beyond it. Those who disregard 2 John 1:9 will, sooner or later, disregard anything else in the Bible that does not suit their fanciful imagination. Such statements as the ones given above do not come from those who refuse to go beyond “that which is written.

J. D. Phillips

---

Special Interest

---

"The Cup of The Lord"

This is the title of a booklet written by me on the cup question. It sets forth a great cloud of witnesses, from the various institutions of learning, setting forth the exact meaning of the New Testament language in regard to the matter. All this is strengthened by quotations from various historians. The following commendations have been selected from among the many that I have received:

“They are simply fine. I hope to use many of them to a great advantage.”

Homer A. Gay

“You have done an excellent work. I should like to see some of the scholars among the cups brethren attempt to review it.”

H. C. Harper

 “You have given enough authoritative evidence to convince any honest-minded person.”

Joseph Miller

“Your book, ‘The Cup of the Lord,’ is the very best thing I ever saw on the question.”

Dr. A. J. Trail

 “I am sure there is nothing in print, on this question, that compares with it.”

Homer L. King

“The best thing I have seen on the subject. It is exhaustive.”

Tom E. Smith

“It is fine. I like the way you handle all your subjects.”

W. R. Chapman, D.D., LLD.

“It is a pioneer in its field. It is the first attempt to set forth the world’s best scholarship on this vital question.”

James T. White

This book is free. Order as many as you can use. Be sure to send postage. If possible, send a donation to help bear the expenses of printing. The printing bill alone is $79.40. This bill must be paid soon. I insist that all who promised to donate to the work do so at once.

Since I am in the evangelistic field and all my mail must be forwarded, it is quite probable that some orders for the booklet have failed to reach me. So, all who have ordered books and failed to get them, should write to me about it. Address: J. D. Phillips, care Homer A. Gay, Eola, Texas.

J. D. Phillips

More About the Tidwell - Arceneaux Debate

As the propositions and date of this debate were given, by Bro. H. K. Tidwell in his report, listed in the May issue of this journal, I shall omit them.

En route to this debate, Bro. J. E. Tidwell and I went via the home of his father, E. J. Tidwell, at Haughton, Louisiana. Here we remained over Lord’s day, and “broke bread” with the faithful ones; leaving Monday in company with Bro. H. K. Tidwell for Gallatin, Texas, where the debate on the Sunday School question was held.

While Bro. Arceneaux was m the affirmative, he consumed most of his time denying the scripturalness of “The Apostolic Way” and the Little­field College. Bro. Tidwell showed that these things were not on a par with the Sunday School, and that he had nothing to do with the school, and besides, they were not debating these things.
The debate was conducted in a nice manner, and I believe it did much good. Generally, it seemed the people were able to see the unscripturalness of the Sunday School The brethren who stood with Bro. Tid­well seemed to be much strengthened and encouraged, while those who stood with Bro. Arceneaux for the Sunday School, seemed discouraged. It was very evident to all fair-minded people that there is not a man on earth, who can refute the charges made by Bro. Tidwell, against the Sunday School Here are some of them:

First: It is a human institution, imitating the church, and its head is Robert Raikes.

Second: Its authority is the doctrine and commandments of men (Gospel Advocate cata­logue, 1932, p. 21). He showed by this catalogue that the Sunday School is just as close by connection to the church as could possibly be (p. 18). He further showed that according to this catalogue that there are infants in the church, as the three-year old’s in the Sunday School are called the “Nursery Class of the Church” (p. 17). Hence, in as much as the church is called a woman in the Bible, the Sunday School must be a concubine, trying to assist the church to bear, children (?).

Third: He showed that according to Matthew 15:3-9, Arceneaux and his brethren had made void the commandments of God with their traditions, and were worshiping in vain; and according to Matthew 15:13, they were cultivating a plant which the Heavenly Father had not planted, hence would be rooted up. He further reasoned that it took all of Christ’s blood to purchase the church, hence none left for the Sunday School, and that the spirit was given to the church, therefore the Sunday School had not the spirit - void of life.

Fourth: The Sunday School assembly was either an assembly violating 1 Corinthians 14:34, or else it was not an assembly of saints.

J. A. Patterson

---

Articles

---

Our Young People - Number 3

Examples: Paul the aged, said to the young Timothy, “Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity” (1 Timothy 4:12). And to Titus, another youth, thus, “Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded, in all things, showing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, sound speech that cannot be condemned.” (Titus 2:6-8). Concerning the young women, he instructs, thus, “Teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands” (Titus 2:4-5). Peter has this to say, “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning, let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price” (1 Peter 3:1-4).

The above scriptures should be sufficient to convince all, both young and old, that we are not to follow after every whim of fashion or fad of the world, but that we are to “lead” (not follow) the world. We should try to get the world to follow the Christian example. There are in the church a few boys and girls who are real patterns, and for these we thank God. I wish that all of the young Christians could realize the beauty and the blessedness of leading a model life. There is nothing that speaks more for the Christian life, and the church than the example of a pure minded, truthful Christian boy, or a pure, modest, quiet, Christian girl; free from bad habits, youthful lusts and wickedness.

Do not misunderstand me. I do not want our young people to be the slouchy, “old fogy,” disgruntled type. You don’t need to be that way in order to be nice. In fact, you would not be a proper example if you were. We want you to be neat and dignified in your personal appearance.

The young people in the land, generally speaking, are growing up in sin, folly and disgrace. However, now and then, we find a noble Christian boy or girl, who, like the oasis in the desert or the towering mountain peak, are living examples of righteousness. We cannot well over estimate the value of such boys and girls to the cause of Christ and to the community in which they live.

The wise Monarch said, “Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not.” But, how easy to forget Him when we associate with the wrong crowd, and we begin to engage in sinful pleasures. Hence be careful that your associates are of the right kind. You had better spend your hours at home, reading the Bible, in prayer, singing, or listening to the instructions of a loving mother or father, rather than to be in questionable company. Heed the warning of God’s eternal truth. Hear it, “Cast not in thy lot with them; walk thou not in their way; refrain thy foot from their paths. They lay in wait for their own blood; they lurk privily for their own lives. But walk thou in the way of good men, and keep the paths of the righteous.” Be established in your convictions of the right, and learn to say “NO” to the Tempter.

​We need boys who read their Bibles, sing, pray, and attend regularly the Lord’s day meetings; but do not engage in such evils as playing cards, attending certain parties, dancing, swearing, and the use of tobacco in the various forms, and etc. We need girls who do not engage in these evil things, but who wear long hair, decent and modest clothing; are not ashamed of mother, obedient, read the Bible, and assist with the home duties of life. Bear in mind, “All that glitters is not gold.” Be thou an example in all things, showing thyself a pattern.

Yours in Christ,
Homer A. Gay

Christian’s Rights

There are so many teachers and aspirants to the Bishopric, who are governed by their teach­ing and Church ruling by the spirit of coercion, that to set out a few thoughts upon the rights of Christians will most assuredly be in order. But to conserve space I will stress only a few items of divine law in this connection.

First, Faith and practice as a whole, are matters of free personal conscientious choice. Not subject in any way to a superior undivine dictation. This makes each individual responsible alone to his Lord for his religious acts. Then to compel support of any form of Divine service, is to over-reach our bounds and impose upon the rights of our fellowman. Not only is this true, but to further proceed in such presumption, making rules with penalty attached for the Church runs counter to Divine precept; “it shall be required of him, he shall be destroyed from among the people.” (Deuteronomy 18:19-20.) He also commits treason against Christ, the only law-giver and sovereign of our souls. (Acts 3:23).

Then to concede to our fellowman such liberties is the true way, seeing we can’t innocently enforce support of our notions in any way. For instance:

(a) We may suggest a rule with penalty against one who may interrupt a speaker teaching the Church.

(b) Make a rule with penalty to bar one from God given rights in the worship without due cause. Or:

(c) A rule may be adopted for the Church to use two units of bread and two cups in serving the Lord’s supper, all of which seems very well. Yet it being undivinely approved contravenes divine law.

Now to use one bread and one cup in this feast, it being of Divine origin is in line with those rights and we may see by the following scripture the oneness to be held sacred in this feast. As to the bread He says: “For we being many are one bread, one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread.” Not the same kind of bread. ONE bread. As to the cup he says: “Is IT not the communion of the blood of Christ.” “But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of (ek) that cup.” (1 Corinthians 10:16-17, 1 Corinthians 11:28). Then, to separate the bread into two or more parts to suit our notion as to convenience, is to destroy its sacred oneness and render it unsuitable as an emblem. The same is true in separating the fruit of the vine into two or more cups. In such condition, no “Testament in my blood,” is represented. For this cup containing the fruit of the vine, said He, is the New Testament in my blood” (Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25).

Now while the cup with its contents stands for the New Testament, its contents stand for the blood of the New Testament. (Matthew 26:29) Then the cup and its contents exclusively, stand for nothing. But when together in order, the cup stands for the New Testament as truly as its contents stand for the blood and to change this divine order, is to frustrate God’s purpose.

In concluding I offer a suggestion that I think plausible: The divine order of worship being to use one bread and one cup and each assembly thus observing it constitutes a unit of the Church. Does not an assembly using two units of bread and cups in this feast, make of itself two units of the Church? Think it over.

We should not strive till we become daft about old customs - preconceived opinions, or be a “Diotrephes who loveth to have the preeminence.” (3 John 1:9). Let us consider well, “What hath the Lord answered? What hath He spoken?” (Jeremiah 23:35, Jeremiah 23:37). For whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23).

Yours for the whole truth,
B. M. Massengale

Christmas

Some, otherwise intelligent people truly believe that their standing with the Lord depends, to some extent, on the way they celebrate Christmas. They prepare special dinners, buy firecrackers, toys, etc. Their children look forward to their imaginary “Santa Claus,” expecting him to come in a sleigh loaded with presents and drawn by reindeer. They expect him to come down the chimney with the presents. Usually the rich and unappreciative children get many presents; while the poor children get but little, or nothing; consequently they are filled with sorrow because “Santa Claus” slighted them and favored others.

Where did “Christmas” originate? Does our Lord authorize its celebration? Nothing is said about it in the Bible. But when the Catholic Church divided into what is known as Eastern and Western Catholicism, we find the two factions celebrating two different days in honor of the birth of our Lord, the Eastern Church celebrating the 6th day of January and the Western Church the 25th of December. Each faction, of course, claimed to be celebrating the right day in honor of the Nativity.

The reason they celebrate the 25th of December as “Christmas” is that certain German and Celtic people who had formerly worshiped idols, but had been converted to Catholicism, celebrated on December 25th, which, they imagined, was the day of “the return of the fiery sun.” So, the Western Church adopted December 25th and let them keep this idolatrous feast, calling it “The Nativity of Christ!” This is the origin of what we call “Christmas.”

Some, even in the churches of Christ, seem to believe that December 25th is really the birthday of our Lord. But the fact is, no one knows the date of Christ’s birth. The Eastern Church adopted December 25th because they saw its popularity among those converted from heathenism, to Catholicism.

We have already seen that God did not authorize our so-called “Christmas.” Hence, the Apostles and Apostolic and post-Apostolic disciples did not observe it. God’s “divine power has given us all things pertaining to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3) and yet the gospel, which is His “divine power” (Romans 1:16), says nothing at all about this “Christmas” festival!   

There is a feast of which God is the Author. It is “The Communion of the Body and Blood” of our Lord (1 Corinthians 10:16) which is “the Lord’s Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:23) and it is to be observed “upon the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7). It is observed in commemoration of the death of our blessed Lord who suffered, bled, and died - stooped that He might conquer! - to save us from our sins. It is strange that many - yes, the majority - refuse this holy feast of which God is the Author, and observe one which has no higher authority than the Pope of Rome! The world refuses this holy feast of the Lord’s supper because it is not their own; they celebrate the one instituted by the Pope because it is their own! Yet, we must “touch not -taste not, and handle not” this “Christmas” festival lest we “perish with the using” (Colossians 2:21-22).

It is bad enough to celebrate this pagan feast with “Christmas trees,” firecrackers, etc., at home and at school; but when religious people make a mock of our Lord by having “Christmas trees,” “Christmas programs,” etc., in their houses of worship, it is even worse. (Beware of the Beast and his image! J. D. Phillips.).

Some who do believe in celebrating Christ’s own institutions - “the Lord’s Day” (Revelation 1:10) and “the Lord’s Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:23) - say it does not matter how we observe His Supper. “We may use one cup, two cups, or individual cups,” they say. But when it comes to “Christmas”' it must be observed as the Pope wants it observed!

Christmas belongs to the Lord and His spiritually-minded disciples observe it as His law demands. See Mark 14:22-23 and 1 Corinthians chapter 11. Those who do not observe it as “it is written,” but “go beyond that which is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6), do not manifest a love for the Lord and His word.

Superstition is the foundation of the Catholic doctrine, and to follow them in their observance of “Christmas” is to give encouragement to their superstition. Beware! The “Santa Claus” idea is a Pagan superstition.

I once heard of a young lady who asked her mother something about “Santa.” Her mother said, “Daughter, you are getting old enough to know that there is no Santa Claus.” She said, “Mother, have you been lying to me about Jesus, too?” The same mother who taught her to believe in Jesus also taught her to believe in Santa Claus. When her faith in “Santa” was shaken, her faith in Jesus was also shaken. Parents, be careful! No wonder Christianity is failing. Let us come back to “The Old Paths,” is my prayer.

I. G. Hays

Remarks

We are glad to get this timely article from Bro. Hays. If we are going to restore Primitive Chris­tianity, let us, actually and in fact, get back to the New Testament. Yes, let us “walk about Jerusalem.”

The observance of “Easter” as a religious institution is equally as Romish as the observance of Christmas. Both came from the God-defying Pope, whom Paul characterizes “that man of sin, the son of perdition” (2 Thessalonians 2:2-7) and iniquity.

I think the most brazed and Satanic plot that I have ever seen is the ridiculous inconsistency of rendering pascha (Passover) by the Romish word “Easter,” in Acts 12:4. The translators of the King James Version, being members of the Church of England, which is just one step ahead of the Romish harlot (Revelation 17:1-7), rendered pascha by “Easter” in order to bolster up the Rom­ish observance of Easter. Their diabolical work is shown by the fact that they rendered the word by the word “Passover” twenty-eight times out of the twenty-nine times in which it occurs in the Greek New Testament. By their correct rendition of this word in all of its occurrences but one clearly shows their work to be a diabolical plot, and not ignorance. Brethren, beware of the leaven of Babylon.

J. D. Phillips

Questions

I want to ask you a few questions on “the cup question.” I find some that believe the fruit of the vine is the cup of the Lord, and they say that a container has nothing to do with partaking of the supper. Does dividing the one volume for which thanks are offered cease to be one volume when divided into containers? I have never been able to see how to divide the one volume after thanks is offered for it could destroy the unity of the volume. Everyone would be partaking of the same volume for which thanks were offered. 

W.

Of course, if we follow what “they say,” we can accept sprinkling for baptism. The Bible says baptizo, and this does not mean to sprinkle. And if we follow the Bible, we must “drink the cup of the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 10:21 and 1 Corinthians 11:27. “How can one ‘drink this cup’? By drinking what it contains, and in no other way.” (N. L. Clark in Clark-Harper Debate) or as Thayer says: “pinoo to poterion i.e. what is in the cup. 1 Corinthians 20:21 and 1 Corinthians 11:27” p. 510.

Pinoo is drink. To is the. Poterion is cup, a drinking vessel, p. 533.

​Then one drinks a cup, a drinking vessel, by drinking what it contains, and in no other way, as Clark affirms, and Thayer backs up. You can no more dispense with the cup to drink from in this than you can the contents of the cup. In one cup there is one volume; in more than one there is more than one volume. If the one volume shows “unity,” more than one volume will destroy the unity” surely. When they partake of the different volumes in cups, they do not partake of the “one volume,” for it is no longer one. As well “call” it one volume when you put it into cup before thanks, and as well “call” springing baptism.

---

How is this scriptural? I attended at the church of Christ here at _ _ _ _ _ last Sunday. They used two loaves and individual cups. I never before saw any church use two loaves to represent the body of Christ. The argument they gave me was that the bread was all the same kind, no matter how many loaves were used.

B. Answer: It is not Scriptural. The Bible says, “All partake of the one loaf,” 1 Corinthians 10:17, gar pantes ek tou enos artou. And this does not denote simply one kind of bread, by a long way. It is one loaf.

1. Have we any Scripture to sustain tithing un­der the Christian dispensation?

M. Answer: No.

2. Please harmonize these Scriptures:

Favorable to debates: Acts 15:2, Acts 17:17, Acts 19:8, Acts 19:9.

Unfavorable to debates:Romans 1:29, Romans 14:1, Mark 9:33, 2 Timothy 2:14, Titus 3:9.

​M. Answer: Eris, unfavorable. The lexicons and the Revised use “strife,” not debate. Thayer gives the meaning of the Greek to include “strife” also. In Acts 17:17 and others we have dialegomai, to converse, discourse with, argue, discuss. We should distinguish things that are different, and not confuse them. There is much Scripture to sustain us in the practice of arguing and discussing things pertaining to our eternal welfare.

H. C. Harper

Why I Am a Christian

1. I am a Christian because “in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcism availeth anything, but a new creature (Galatians 6:15). And neither Campbellism, Mormomsm, Methodism, Baptistism, nor any other “ism” avails anything “in Christ”; but a “new creature,” a Christian.

2. I am a Christian because this name is broad enough to take in all the saved people - the people of God - and yet narrow enough to shut out all unsaved people - Pagans, Infidels, and sectarians. All sects had better leave off their “isms” and obey God. If they do this they will be Christians.

3. I am a Christian because Christ, my Lord, Is “the Author and Finisher” of my faith (Hebrews 12:2). Paul, who followed Christ, says, “Be ye followers of me even as I also follow Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1). Paul wanted all to be Christians (Acts 26:26-29).

4. I am a Christian because I have “put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27). I have been baptized “into Christ” (Romans 6:3) and “in the name of Christ” (Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 19:5). I was not baptized into any sectarian body. But I am saved through Christ, my Exemplar (Matthew 1:21).

5. I am a Christian because Christ’s name is the only name by which I can be saved (Acts 4:12).

6. I am a Christian because I must not deny the name of Him who gave Himself for me (Revelation 3:8). He did not give Himself for any sectarian Church. He died for His own Church, His body.

7. I am a Christian because Paul persuaded people to become Christians (Acts 26:28). He did not persuade them to become sectarians.

8. I am a Christian because Christ’s name is better than any name given even by angels (Hebrews 1:4), and is above every other name. At His name “every knee shall bow,” and “every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord” (Philippians 2:11). We are not to bow to any sectarian name.

9. I am a Christian because Christ is “the Alpha (A) and the Omega (Z) the beginning and the end, the first and the last” (Revelation 22:13). He is the Sun, light, life and power - the all and in all” - of the religion I profess.

10. I am a Christian because Christ was crucified for me (Colossians 1:13) and it is His Father’s will that He have His preeminence in all things (Colossians 1:18). Are you willing to give Him the preeminence?

11. I am a Christian because the most important questions of the Bible are, “What think ye of Christ?” (Matthew 22:42) and “Whose Son is He?” And “What shall I do with Jesus Who is called Christ?” (Matthew 27:22). He is the Lord Messiah “the Christ, the Son of God (Matthew 16:16-19). I take His name as the only authoritative name (Acts 4:12) and by wearing the name “I take His service to be my work, His joy and love to be my portion, His home to be my home.”

12. I am a Christian because it is better to be a Christian than to “gain the whole world and lose my own soul” (Matthew 16:26), for “What can we give in exchange for our souls?”

13. I am a Christian, rather than a Campbellite or a Lutheran, or a Baptist, or any kind of a sectarian, because Christ prayed that His people might be one (John 17:21). We can be one by all being Christians. But for one to be a Christian, another a Methodist, another a Campbellite, etc., we cannot be as He prayed for us to be. “There is one body” (church), says Paul (Ephesians 4:3). This one body is the church, or body of Christ. (See Colossians 1:18).

14. I call myself a Christian because every motive and incentive that the Word of God furnishes for being a Christian is equally a reason for calling oneself a Christian.

15. I call myself a Christian because it is the one purpose of my life to be a Christian, with all that the New Testament name implies, and a life of eternal blessedness depends on my being one. One must be a Christian to be saved; but he does not need to be a Campbellite, nor a Methodist, nor any kind of a sectarian to be saved.

​“Therefore, let no man glory in man” (1 Corinthians 3:11). That is, let no man glory in the doctrines, systems, names, and creeds of man. All things are yours and you are Christ’s (1 Corinthians 3:21, 1 Corinthians 3:23). “Speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11).

Submitted in love for truth and righteousness,
George Masser

Should We Baptize Our Babies?

Article 1

For those who have been baptized in infancy, for those who are contemplating having their little ones baptized and for all who may be in doubt on, the subject this treatise is written.

It must be admitted that this is not a question of morality but one of obedience to a law governing spiritual matters under Christ. A person may be a good moral character and be on either side of the question, and if he changes from one side to the other it will not affect his moral standing. Honesty and sincerity are on both sides of the issue. The question before us is, “Should we baptize our babies?”

Should implies duty. What a person should do is his duty to do. If we should have our infants baptized it is our duty to do so. If we should and fail we are not doing right. To this all will agree. This being true we are ready to ask: “Where is duty to be found?”

To this question the Pope will answer, “I am God’s representative on earth and can show you the way.” Conference says, “We have wisdom backed by experience, hear us.” And all our neighbors hold up their creeds as being the “nighest right” of any they have seen. But amidst all this clamoring and confusion the voice of God comes thundering through the ages, “This is My beloved Son, hear ye Him” Matthew 17:5. With this awful and sublime enunciation ringing in our ears we turn to Christ to see what He has to say about baptizing babies.

We ask then, “What has Christ said upon the subject?” and turn to the New Testament to see. In it we find much about baptism. We there see our Lord baptized, but not when a baby - He was about 30 years old Luke 3:23. Neither do we find where He ever baptized an infant nor where He ever commanded anyone else to do so. From this we might conclude that it is not a duty to baptize the little ones or Jesus who did not forget to bless them would have commanded it or at least set the example of it. But lest we appear too hasty in such a conclusion let us withhold our decision till we have discussed two questions:

(1) Are infants Gospel subjects?

(2)Can they qualify for baptism?

That baptism, as it is purported to be practiced by all churches of our day, viz. in the names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is Gospel baptism is too plain to be questioned, or to require proof. Both come to us in the Great commission, and wherever the Gospel is preached and accepted its adherents are baptized. It follows then, that if infants are Gospel subjects they should be baptized, but if they are not Gospel subjects that they should not be baptized. Else why should not amenable to the Gospel be put through its requirements? These things premised, we proceed with the question:

Are Infants Gospel Subjects?

Article 2

1. The Gospel is for those capable of believing Mark 16:15-16. Jesus said preach the Gospel contemplating that it would produce belief. But while a person is in infancy he cannot so hear as to believe. Therefore, he is not a Gospel subject and cannot be expected to obey its commands.

2. The Gospel presents facts to be believed, John 20:30-31, 1 Corinthians 15:1-3, Commands to be obeyed 1 Peter 4:17, and promises to be enjoyed Acts 2:38. Irresponsible babies cannot believe the facts, obey the commands, nor go on their ways rejoicing Acts 8:39. They are not gospel subjects, hence cannot receive its commands.

3. The gospel is to save the lost Luke 19:10, Matthew 16:15-16, Acts 26:18, Romans 1:16. Infants are not lost - have never done anything to be lost.

4. The gospel appeals to responsibility Acts 3:26. Babies are not responsible, and everybody knows it.

5. The gospel invites people to come Matthew 11:28. Infants cannot come, and not being able to do what it says do, are not amenable to it.

​These things being true it is evident that Christ did not expect babies to be able to carry out His instructions - to obey the Gospel. For they are not Gospel subjects. With this in our minds we proceed to the other question.

L. W. Hayhurst
(to be continued)