Old Paths Advocate Volume 5 Number 9

Editorial

Music, Baptism, Cups

“The Greeks certainly understood their own language, and the Greek church could never find any authority in the word ‘psallo’ for adopting a musical instrument in worship - not any more than they could find authority in ‘baptidze’ for the adoption of sprinkling for baptism!” (Daniel Sommer, in Apostolic Review).

And “the Greeks certainly understand their own language” enough to know that when Jesus “took a cup (POTERION, a drinking-cup, wine-cup)”, He took a literal, material, cup, or drinking vessel, and hence Thayer and Robinson in their excellent Lexicons of the Greek New Testament, say POTERION is used properly, that is, literally, here (Matthew 26:27), and Thayer says it is “this cup containing wine” (Greek-English Lexicon, p. 15, on Luke 22:20). John Chrysostom, an “Ante-Nicene Father,” wrote in Greek for Greek-speaking Christians, and he says of the wine, “that which is in the cup is that which flowed from His side” (24th Homily in 1 Corinthians). Justin Martyr confirms Thayer and Chrysostom, for he says, “A cup of wine and water are then brought to the president” (Apol. I pp. 82, 83). Ambrose backs them, too, for he says, “wine is put into the cup.”

In Alexander Campbell’s celebrated work, ‘“Campbell on Baptism,” there is a chapter devoted to a consideration of the Greek preposition EK, which governs the genitive case. Bro. Campbell showed that EK means “out of,” and hence it is said of Jesus that when He was baptized of John in Jordan, He “came up OUT OF (EK) the water,” thus showing that baptism is an immersion, or burial, in water, and an emerging from it. So also when Paul says, “Let him drink of (EK, out of) the cup (POTERION, a cup, a drinking vessel)” (1 Corinthians 11:28), he says, EK TOU POTERIOU, “out of the cup.” EK (out of) is a preposition governing the genitive case, and Thayer says; “EK with a genitive of the vessel out of which one drinks, EK TOU POTERIOU,” out of the cup, or drinking vessel.

Hence, the Greek Church, the church of Christ, or any other church, cannot find authority in the Greek Scriptures for the use of more than one cup in each assembly. The Greek Christians of the post-apostolic and the Ante-Nicene age knew this, for we read: “For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to (show forth) the unity of His blood” (Ignatius, A. D. 30-107). “We receive of one loaf and of one cup” (Ambrose, died A. D. 307). We hope that Bro. Sommer will finally see this, too, for we certainly need him in our fight for the primitive faith.

J. D. Phillips

---

Special Interest

---

​Explanation - ​No August Issue

We were very sorry that we could see no other alternative but to miss the August number of the Old Paths Advocate, and there was just one reason - a lack of funds. We do hope the readers and friends of the paper will not allow this to happen again, but unless you go after subscriptions and donations in earnest immediately it will be inevitable.

Brethren, we are more than glad to have your articles and reports for publication, but we sometimes wonder if you appreciate the Old Paths Advocate enough to solicit subscriptions and donations while out in the field. Times are hard, it is true, but subscriptions can still be obtained if we go at it in the right way.

H. L. K.

Keeping the Record Straight

To our surprise, Bro. L. W. Hayhurst was put up again by the cups brethren to meet Bro. J. D. Phillips in discussion, at Eola, Texas, from August 1-5.

In addition to the cups question, they discussed the manner of breaking the loaf. Due to the Baptists having a meeting in progress, we were compelled to have all the discussion in the daytime, but the attendance was very good in spite of this.

Preachers in attendance were G. B. Sliger, Earl Evans, Alva Johnson, J. N. Cowan, G. B. Shelbourne, A. B. Watkins, Moore Eubank, W. E. Han­ley, J. M. Malone, J. P. Hutton, J. I. Grantham, I. G. Hayes, I. E. Lackey, C. R. Graves, W. E. Boyett, Jas. T. White, W. H. Gill, and the writer. The moderators were Sliger for Hayhurst and Gran­tham for Phillips.

I consider Bro. Hayhurst the best the cups ad­vocates have when it comes to dodging and cover­ing up the issue. However, Bro. Phillips proved himself master of the situation and equal to the occasion at all times. So much so that it seemed somewhat one sided, I think, to all fair-minded people. Bro. Hayhurst advocates two or more cups, but objects to the individual cups; thus, mak­ing of himself a lawmaker for the Lord.

The results were gratifying. Three preachers on Bro. Hayhurst’s side told me and others that Hayhurst could not do a thing with such an inconsistent position, but if he would go over to the individual cups, he might make a showing. Bro. J. P. Hutton stated publicly that he had been converted from the cups and Hayhurst’s idea of breaking the loaf. Several others told me the same. We endorse Bro. Phillips to meet any man, with whom he cares to debate. I have never heard a man who could cover more ground in thirty minutes than Doug Phillips.

​I followed each speaker closely with notes, and propose to give the arguments pro and con in a series of articles soon. Let us get all whom we can to read the Old Paths Advocate; it will be interesting.

Homer A. Gay

“My soul, be on thy guard,
Ten thousand foes arise;
The hosts of sin are pressing hard
To draw thee from the skies.”

(Selected)

Tidwell - Hutchenson Debate

This investigation was conducted at Maud, Texas, early in July, by Brethren J. E. Tidwell, of El Dorado, Arkansas and D. L. Hutchenson. The following propositions were discussed:

1. “The scriptures teach that the class system of teaching the word God, as maintained by me and my brethren, is the most effective system.”
2. “The scriptures teach that one cup (drinking vessel) only is authorized in the communion for each congregation of the Church of Christ.”
3. “The scriptures teach that two or more cups (drinking vessels) are authorized in the communion for each congregation of the Church of Christ.”

Bro. Hutchenson affirmed propositions 1 and 3, while Bro. Tidwell affirmed proposition 2.

Space will not permit me to give all the arguments submitted pro and con, but I shall give a few. In his efforts to sustain the class system of teaching, Bro. Hutchenson introduced Hebrews 5:12-14, trying to apply this to the children and the grown-ups, thus making it necessary to divide the assembly into classes. Bro. Tidwell clearly showed that the “babes” mentioned here did not refer to infants, but to the young converts. Bro. Hutchen­son insisted that the class system was the best system and the most effective. Bro. Tidwell countered by saying that if this be true, why not use the class system all the time?

Bro. Hutchenson then took the position that the Bible gives no specific method or system of teaching. Bro. Tidwell showed that it did by referring to Deuteronomy 31:11-12, Joshua 8:35, 1 Corinthians chapter 14, which was one speaking at a time to the undivided assembly, that being a male. Being refuted here he took the position that the classes arranged in separate rooms were private, hence could be taught by women. Bro. Tidwell demanded that he show just one such church, or practice in the Bible, and, of course, he failed here. It was clearly shown by Bro. Tidwell that such arrangement originated with Robert Raikes, instead of with the Bible.

His next resort was to try to find some consolation in Acts chapter 2, as authority for more than one speaking at a time, or the class system. Just why he went here, no one could understand, for as Bro. Tidwell pointed out, verse 14 clearly showed that Peter addressed the whole assembly.

Bro. Hutchenson labored hard to avoid the responsibility of dividing the church over the class system, but Bro. Tidwell fastened this on him and his brethren, by showing that we were in perfect accord with Christ, the apostles, Moses, Joshua, and all the examples recorded in the Bible, and that it was all due to the unscriptural practice of the Sunday School brethren.

In discussing the cups question, Bro. Tidwell emphasized the oneness portrayed in the Bible; viz., one God, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one body, one Spirit, one hope, one New Testament, one blood, hence, one cup. He showed that if we are to have two or more cups, we should have two or more bodies, bloods, New Testaments, etc.

In an effort to discredit the idea of any importance being given to the drinking vessel, Bro. Hut­chenson took a glass of water to illustrate the argument. He picks up the glass of water, contemplates the giving of thanks, and then dashes the water out and says, “Now drink the cup. Can you do it? Do you get the blessing?” In reply, Bro. Tidwell showed that we do not contend that the empty vessel is the “cup of the Lord,” but that the vessel with its contents (the fruit of the vine) is understood. Hence, in drinking the cup, we simply drink out of the vessel, or what it contains. But to refute the illustration, Bro. Tidwell takes the glass with some water in it; dashing out the water, he asks, “Can you now drink your cup? Did you receive the blessing? Can you handle this element without the vessel? Yet, you claim there is no importance to the drinking vessel. Can you take the one volume of the one cup and put it into cups, and still be the one blessing, or volume?” Bro. Hutchenson replied, “You cannot.”

Seeing that he had lost on this, Bro. Hutchen­son tried to show that “cup” was used in a figurative sense with reference to the communion, giving Psalm 23:5 and Psalm 51:22, also Matthew 26:39, as the proof. Bro. Tidwell agreed that it was so used in these passages, but not so in Matthew 26:27, where fit is clearly seen that the Savior actually took a drinking vessel, containing the fruit of the vine, and too, there was only one cup, or drinking vessel used.

​It was clearly seen that Bro. Hutchenson failed to make a point that was not successfully met by Bro. Tidwell. Many other arguments were made, but the above is a fair sample of how the debate was conducted and the results.

R. R. Jones

Welch - Brooks Debate

The above was conducted at Vera, Texas, July 4-10, by H. C. Welch, of the Church of Christ, and N. W. Brooks, representing the Holiness. Subjects discussed were working of miracles now, instrumental music in the worship, and women preaching. There were to be two nights for each subject, but as Mr. Brooks soon saw that he was unable to defend his doctrine, he gave it up after two nights.

---

Articles

---

Some Thoughts On - Number 2

2 Corinthians 5:17

Having seen that “a man” must be in Christ to be “a new creature” it is important to know how to get into Christ. Should we propound this question to the denominations there would be as many different responses as there are churches. Some say, “Go to the mourners’ bench and pray through.” Others teach, “Repent, believe, and pray through.” Others tell us, “An alien cannot do anything, but must wait for God to operate on him directly,” (that is save him). But “to the law and to the testimony.” Isaiah 8:20. Let us step back into the shadow for a little while (behind the cross) this will help us to get to the substance.

The temple in some respects is a type of the church. The temple had “six steps” leading up to the throne. 1 Kings 10:19. To reach the throne of the temple those “six steps” had to be taken (not a part of them). On this side of the cross (in the new covenant) Christ is “The throne of grace” for mankind as may be seen from Hebrews 4:15-16, Hebrews 9:15, Hebrews 13:12-13, 1 John 2:1-2. Hence, there are “six steps” or commands leading to the “throne of grace” (Christ) which the alien must take or obey to reach “the throne of grace” (Christ). The sinner cannot come to “the throne of grace” (Christ) without taking all of these “steps” or obeying these six commands. All must be taken or obeyed, if the throne (Christ) is reached. To stumble in one point is to be guilty of all. James 2:10.

The first “step” the sinner is to take, or command he should obey, is he must “hear.” Mark 12:28-29, Matthew 11:15, Matthew 13:9, Matthew 13:43, Matthew 17:5. Second, he is to be taught. Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:15, Acts 8:30-34, Colossians 1:28. Please read all of the above scriptures as I will not ask space for the reading. After the alien has “heard and learned of the Father,” John 6:45, Romans 10:14, of Jesus being “the only begotten of God,” that “Christ suffered and died upon the cross,” “Shed His blood for many, unto the remission of sins,” “Was buried, arose from the dead the first day of the week,” “Ascended up into heaven, crowned Lord of Lords and King of Kings,” “The mediator of the New Testament,” “Savior of the children of men,” “There is salvation in none other name under heaven,” “The way, the truth, and the life,” “He has all authority in heaven and on the earth,” “That he tasted death for every man and gave himself a ransom for all.” The sinner, now having “heard and learned (been taught) of the Father,” has sufficient knowledge and wisdom (see Matthew 13:23) to enable him to take the next or third “step” or obey the command, which, “the Lord willing” I shall give later.

​Let all remember:

“God calls, persuades, directs aright,
Blesses men with wisdom, love, and light,
In nameless ways, He is good and kind,
But never, no never, forces the human mind.”

Joseph Miller
(More to follow)

Water Baptism

For some time, we have been impressed to write about water baptism. Who it is for, what it is for, when it should be applied, how it should be applied, and by whom it should be applied.

First: We will notice that it is a commandment. Matthew 28:19: “Go ye therefore (Dic. For this or that.) and teach all nations, (or making disciples - Margan) baptizing them, (those who are made disciples) in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Mark 16:15: “And He said unto them, “Go ye.” (signifying a commandment). Now these two texts are sufficient proof that water baptism was and is a commandment, if there was no more; there are a number of others in the following references. Acts 10:48, Acts 22:16.

​Second: Jesus set the example of baptism, showing who it is for in Matthew 3:13-17. We see again in 1 Peter 2:21-22, “For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for US leaving US an EXAMPLE, that ye should follow His steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth.” Now if it was necessary for Him to be baptized, and it was or He would not have been. It is necessary for us to be baptized also at a certain time and for a certain purpose, and that purpose should be for the same that Jesus was baptized. The Word says to fulfill all righteousness. Now there are different creeds which teach that water baptism is for the remission of sins. Well, if it is, Jesus was baptized in Jordan for the remission of sins. Dear reader, can you see the inconsistency in claiming that it is for the remission of sins; for Peter said, “Jesus did no sin.” 1 Peter 2:22. How absurd to teach that water baptism remits sin. The blood of Jesus Christ is the only thing that can remove sins. Yes, it is the precious blood of Christ that cleans away the guilt of sins. According to 1 John 1:7; it cleanses us from all sin, thank God.

C. M. Hicks
(In "Faith and Victory")

Reply

Let us see. Whom is it for? Jesus said, “baptizing them,” etc. Whom? Hicks says, “those who are made disciples.” Is this so? Let us see. The margin reads, “make disciples.” But how? The answer of Jesus is, “baptizing them,” that is, “make disciples, baptizing them,” etc. (Matthew 28:19). This makes baptism with its prerequisites “faith” (Mark 16:16), “repentance” (Acts 2:38), “confession” (Acts 8:37, Romans 10:9-10), the final item in initiating one into disciple-hood. “The present participle (baptizing, in this case) denotes an action which takes place at the same time as that of the finite verb” (make disciples, in this case).

Baptism comes before “saved.” “Preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Mark 16:15-16. Baptism comes before“remission of sins.” “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,” etc. Acts 2:38. Baptism comes before “forgiven.” “Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.” Colossians 2:12-13. Baptism comes before “made free from sin.” “Therefore we were buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” “Ye were the servants of sin; but God be thanked that you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered unto you; being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” Romans 6:4, Romans 6:17-18. Baptism comes before Christ is “put on.” “For as many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.” Galatians 3:27. Baptism comes before a good conscience toward God. 1 Peter 3:21. Hence, it is said, “eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us.” Just one question we now ask, which is this: Did Peter in Acts 2:39 command saints, saved people, Christians, to “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”? Did he? We say no: they were sinners; and it was when they obeyed as directed (obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine - Romans 6:17-18), that they were made free from sin. And when they confessed Christ (acts 8:37, Romans 10:9-10) was the “certain time” when they were baptized; and “for the remission of sins” was the “certain purpose” (Acts 2:38) for which they were commanded to “repent and be baptized,” which clearly shows that they were not yet saved.

Hicks says, “How absurd to teach that water baptism remits sin.” Yes, we say, or any other kind of baptism. God remits sins (Colossians 2:13) through the atoning “blood of Jesus” (Hebrews 10:19), when one obeys “from the heart” that “form of doctrine” (Romans 6:18).

The Bible is the “creed,” the divine, not human, creed, which teaches that sinners are commanded to “Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (eis) for the remission of sins.” And the force of eis here, as Thayer points out in his Lexicon of "the New Testament Greek, shows that both the repentance and baptism are for the same purpose on the part of the sinner, namely, “to obtain the forgiveness of sins.” (Page 94)

Yes, “Jesus did no sin.” And in this respect no other person was, or has been baptized as he was - “to fulfill all righteousness.” But under the gospel preaching, as directed by the Holy Spirit, sinners were commanded to “Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for (eis, “to obtain,” as Thayer, says), remission of sins.” And this is truly “for a certain purpose,” as given in the Bible “creed.”

H. C. Harper

“Do Not’s”

1. Do Not Enter a Collusion - (Proverbs 16:28, 2 Corinthians 12:20).
2. Do Not Lord Over - (1 Peter 5:3).
3. Do Not Put It Over - (Romans 14:15).
4. Do Not Be Partial - (James 2:1-5).
5. Do Not Get Even - (Romans 12:17).
6. Do Not Ridicule - (Jeremiah 10:8, Jeremiah 10:21).
7. Do Not Browbeat - (Jeremiah 10:8, Jeremiah 10:21).
8. Do Not Set at Naught - (Romans 14:10-14).
9. Do Not Be a Diotrephes - (3 John 1:9).

“Must Be’s”

(Ephesians 5:3)

1. Must Be Seemly and Suited - (Philippians 1:27).
2. Must Be Candid and Sincere - (Matthew 7:29).
3. Must Be Normal and Regular - (Hebrews 10:25).
4. Must Be Courteous and Kind - (1 Peter 3:8).
5. Must Be Sober-Minded - (1 Peter 1:13).
6. Must Be Self-Possessed - (Luke 21:19).
7. Must Be Commendatory - (Titus 3:2).
8. Must Be Preferable of Others - (Philemon 2:3).
9. Must Be Willing to Contribute - (2 Corinthians 8:12).

STRIVE: Strive then; “To keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace.” (Ephesians 4:3).

JUDGE: “Let us not therefore, judge one another anymore; but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.” (Romans 14:13).

B. M. Massengale

Meditations on Divorce

In the March 1,1932, issue of the Old Paths Advocate, there appeared an article from the pen of that gifted writer, Bro. Paul Hays, of Fresno, California, on the Divorce Question. This is a much mooted question, and since there are so many cases of divorce and remarriage on the part of members of the body of Christ, it seems to be high time this question is investigated in the light of gospel facts. It seems to me that preachers should be either for or against this practice. A divorcee can either remarry or he cannot.

Bro. Hays takes the position that our Lord has, in “the new and better covenant,” has given “one cause” for which a Christian may divorce his companion and marry another person. But it seems to me that he failed to prove his position. This “new and better covenant” did not come into force until after Jesus gave the teaching in “The Sermon on the Mount.” Paul says: “A testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no force at all while the testator lives” (Hebrews 9:17). So, then, the provisions of this covenant were not in force while Jesus, the Testator, lived. Jesus, the Testator, gave the “keys of the kingdom” to Peter, telling him that what he bound on earth would be bound in heaven also (Matthew 16:16-19). Divorce and remarriage were not permitted by Peter, so far as the divine record shows. Nor has the Holy Spirit, in any of His revelations made known by the writers of the New Testament, ever given any Christian a right to get a divorce and remarry as long as the former companion is living.

Paul says the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives and that the woman is bound by the law to her husband for as long a time as he lives. Romans 7:1-5. If she marries again while her husband is living, she is an adulteress. The Holy Spirit has never given any grounds for divorcement and remarriage.

Now, the Law (to which Jesus referred in Matthew 19:9) is found in Deuteronomy 24:1. Here provision is made for the man to put away his wife and give her a bill of divorcement if he found in her a “matter of nakedness” (Hebrew text). When Jesus uttered the language in Matthew 19:9 He was teaching under this same Mosaic Law, to Israel only.

​Romans 7:1-5 is for us, the church, and will stand as long as time endures. Brethren, let us abide by it, not by the Law of Moses.

Chancer I. Hill

False Doctrines Exposed - Number 3

“Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up.” - Matthew 15:13.

“Through thy precepts I get understanding; therefore, I hate every false way.” - Psalm 119:104.

“He that entereth not in by the door of the sheepfold but climbeth up some other way the same is a thief and a robber.” - John 10:1.

Christ told the Apostles while he was here on earth that the Holy Spirit should guide them into all truth. (John 16:13) Then, any doctrine not found in God’s revelation to man is false and from the devil. It is my whole heart’s desire and prayer to God that we might show every believer of any false doctrine the true and living way which is so plainly taught in the Word of God.

There are certain people terribly wrapped up in a theory that is very false. I believe that I can make it plain to my readers that this doctrine of hereditary depravity is false when shown up in the light of God’s word. If it is true that infants are born in sin and become sinners as soon as they are born the Bible surely teaches it; and we will accept it, if it does not we will reject it.

In the very beginning of this investigation, I will give a few of their favorite texts and show to my readers that they do not teach that infants are born sinners:

“The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.” - Psalm 58:3. Why any Baptist should quote this passage of scripture to prove that doctrine true I cannot see; because the persons spoken of here are not infants, but adults. It says that they go astray. If they are born in sin, how do they go astray? One may answer, “It says that they speak lies.” Can infants speak lies? Children often go astray but they are not born in that sinful condition.

“Behold, I was shaped in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” - Psalm 51:5. This is very often quoted to prove this theory. They try to make it teach that David was born a sinner. David was born in sin and not with sin in him. Can you not see the difference in a man’s being born in sin and being born with sin in him? As one of my contemporaries has expressed it, “A man might be born in a potato patch and not be a potato.” David was born into a sinful world and was led to commit sin. - (See 2 Samuel chapter 11).

Again, in Job 14:4 we find: “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.” Advocates of the doctrine of hereditary depravity would have this mean that the mother has sin in her, and that this makes the child unclean. However, this scripture has no reference to the birth of a child. In the first verse, he speaks of man’s being born of woman. In the second of his coming forth as a flower, of being cut down, “fleeth also as a shadow” etc. Hence, he speaks both of the birth and death of man. In the third verse, Job speaks of bringing him into judgment. Therefore, has gone from the birth of man to the grave, and from the grave (or death) to the Judgment. Then, in the fourth verse, he speaks of bringing a clean thing out of an unclean, referring surely to the judgment. If you are cut down in sin and uncleanliness and enter the grave in that condition the judgment will find you unchanged, unclean. Who can bring you out clean? Not one. (Revelation 22:11).

Now for few additional proofs that infants are not and cannot be sinners:

“Sin is the transgression of the law.” - John 3:4. Infants are not under any law. (Matthew 28:19-20) Therefore, the infant is not a sinner.

“We are the offspring of God.” - Acts 17:29. Do we come from God totally depraved?

“God is the father of spirits.” - Hebrews 12:9. Is God the father of a totally depraved spirit?

God gives the spirit. - Ecclesiastes 12:7. Do our spirits come from God totally depraved?

“Except you become as little children…” - Matthew 18:3. Must one become totally depraved? He must if children are in that condition.

The doctrine that teaches that children are born sinners teaches “infant damnation.” If they are born sinners they cannot enter heaven for sin cannot enter there. (John 8:21-24).

​Again, I say weigh what I have written in the light of God’s word. “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32.

Yours in search of the Truth,
B. Perkins

Innovators

Any true disciple of Jesus Christ who has ever had any real experience with innovators, will tell you that they are all pretty much alike in their attitude toward those who take the Word of God for their rule of faith and practice. Innovations, though they may differ in character, are exactly the same in effect when introduced into the worship and work of the churches. They make void the Word of God, and render the worship vain. (Matthew 15:9). Many brethren have been taught to believe that some innovations are wrong because they produce strife, discord, and division; while those which do not cause strife, and discord, are allowable.

If “agreement and harmony,” among brethren in the practice of one innovation makes it allowable; “agreement and harmony” in the practice of all innovations, will make all innovations allowable.

In some cases, strife and contention are not immediately produced when some unscriptural practices is introduced into the worship of God.

But does it follow that God will sanction the introduction of any unscriptural practices into the worship so long as they do not cause strife, and division? No, never! Hence, the absence of strife and contention in a congregation is not always positive proof that they are Scriptural in teaching and practice. On the other hand, neither are strife and contention always a true indication that a congregation is unscriptural in teaching and practice.

Strife, discord, and possibly separation may result from introducing into the worship an un­scriptural practice. The same result might also be produced by opposing an unscriptural practice which had been introduced years before. But if strife and division results from opposition to any unscriptural practice, the Lord certainly will not put the blame for such division on those who stand by His Word and His appointments.

But if those at a given place mutually agree to go on in the practice of error, the Lord certainly will come and remove their candlestick out of its place and all will be lost. There are preachers who say they would not say anything to disturb the brethren at a certain place, even if they do have some things in the worship not authorized by the Scriptures. Any preacher that takes such a stand is certainly not a faithful servant of Jesus Christ. Sinful innovations are sometimes spoken of by certain preachers, as “harmless practices of the brethren.” They pose before the churches as super-loyal, and accuse us of being schismatics and causing division because we oppose all (not just a few) innovations, doctrines, and commandments of men.

In order that the readers of The Old Paths Advocate can see for themselves that we are not talking about imaginary opponents, we give below a quotation from the editorial page of a well-known publication that pretends to be guided in their religious practice by the Famous maxim of Thomas Campbell. Here it is:

“The churches that he (meaning Bro. Phillips) swung over to his ‘women silence’, no-class, one cup (vessel) in the communion, have so far as I can learn ceased to meet - don’t have even one class nor one vessel.”

It would tax the ingenuity of a mud-slinging, muck-raking politician, to compose a statement of equal length that contained as much falsehood, misrepresentation, and pervasion, as there is in the one above. It not only “smacks” of back-biting, but it shows the prejudiced attitude of innovators. They know very well that their “individual cup” doctrine and practice, their “women teachers in the churches,” doctrine and practice, and “organizing classes” doctrine and practice, is not the same, as the doctrine and practice of the First Christians.

Neither can they teach and practice these things in the name (or by the authority) of Christ.

Truly, their practice is incompatible with their claim, to, “Speak where the Bible speaks, and to be silent where the Bible is silent.”

Bro. I. B. Grubbs once made the following statement:

'The spirit that rules those who introduce into the work and worship of God the inventions of men is: (1) intolerant (2) division (3) presumptuous, (4) lying, (5) lying."

Experience with innovators has proved to us that the above indictment is true.

The Church of Christ

The Church of Christ is a New Testament institution, which we find in existence from Acts chapter 2 onward. It is divine in its origin, and has for its Head, Jesus Christ. The terms of membership have not been left for man to decide, but they have been laid down by the Head and are revealed in the New Testament. Men may admit their fellows to a human society on their own terms, but we come into the divine church on the terms laid down by the Lord. A study of the book of Acts will show that men came into the church through faith in God’s Son, through repentance, through baptism on confession of faith in the Lord Jesus. So, in the epistles we read: “For by one Spirit, are we all baptized into the one body.” (1 Corinthians 12:12). “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Galatians 3:26-27). It appears that the conditions of salvation and the terms of Church membership are identical. In complying with the one we comply with the other. The fact that there are many who love the Lord who have not complied with all the terms does not in any way alter or modify the teaching of the Word, but it does urge upon those who see the beauty of New Testament teaching on this matter to be earnest and urgent in teaching these things. We must earnestly but lovingly contend for New Testament faith and practice.

W. M. Kempster

From Indiana

Old Paths Advocate, Lebanon, Missouri.

Dear Brethren: - I thank you for sending me the paper. I am a strong believer in the one cup, as advocated by the paper and the Bible, but there are only five in Washington County who are strong enough to meet and worship God that way. Four others and myself meet in a private house to worship, using one cup.

I have, the little book, put out by Bro. J. D. Phillips, on the cups question, and I think it is fine, but some of the preachers say he is wrong. The congregations that use one cup should avoid using preachers, who advocate two or more cups.

I would like very much to be out in the field, proclaiming the pure word, but I have been in a bad condition, and have not been out much of late. The churches in this county do not want a man who believes in the use of one cup—they want cups preachers.

​I am sending in an article, “Is It Right for Christians to Vote?”, and you may use it if you think it is worth the space. I believe the fight on voting should be kept up, as well as the fight against the cups. The brethren have engaged in these things so long that it is difficult for them to give them up. The fight is on, and will be as long as I live, and possibly, longer. Bro. H. C. Harper knows me, as we have labored some together.

W. H. Purlee

Remarks

Here is our hand, Bro. Purlee, and may God bless you in your firm stand for the Bible way of worshiping God. We pray that you may regain your health and be spared many years yet to combat sin and to preach the pure word of God. I was glad to get your letter and the timely article, and shall be glad to use it at some future time.

H. L. K.