GEORGE AS FOUND (?) IT !

J. D. PHILLIPS

For many years we have called upon the cupsers for their authority for the use of cups on the Lord's table, but in vain. The sainted and lamented scholar and commentator, J. W. McGarvey, was among the number of brethren who asked them to give authority for their practice give it up. But no authority was given. Of all that vast throng-----Isaac Errett, A. Sutton, J. B. Briney, F. B. Srygley, G. C. Brewer, W. P. Keeler, and hundreds of others-----who advocated the use of cups, none were able to give authority for the practice. To use George Phillips' phrase, they "frustrated the grace of God" by going on in their own way without pointing out Scriptural authority for their practice. Of late years, a few brethren-----Alva Johnson, L. W. Hayhurst, Leland H. Knight, Paul S. Knight, Charles W. Watkins, et al have been doing all in their power to get the churches to put in the cups. While they claim (for sentimental reasons) to oppose the individual cups, yet they have all tolerated them. These brethren make loud pretentions to "loyalty," and they have been begged to show Scriptural authority for their cups or to give them up for the sake of unity. They would do neither. But George Phillips has appointed himself to help them out of their difficulty!! He has found (?) it ! Eureka!!! Listen with astonishment, while George tells you about it! Hold your breath, for fear you may miss a word!! He says: "Bro. Dr. Smith . . . called his attention to my Scriptural defense (of cups ‘containers,’ as he calls them), viz, the multitude at Pentecost the feeding of the 5,000, also Paul’s instruction to Corinth that all things be done decently and in order" (Church Messenger, for June).

Now, did you get it? There is nothing said about "the multitude at Pentecost" observing the Communion on that day. "The multitude at Pentecost" did receive baptism on that day (Acts 2:38-41), and this has been used by Episcopalian and others as a justification of sprinkling. And now George Phillips parades it as authority for cups in the Communion, even though he has to assume that they communed on that day. True, in deed, it is said of the Jerusalem church that "they continued steadfastly in . . . the breaking of bread" (an idiom used here Ac. 2:42) to designate the Communion), but Luke is careful to add that the "breaking bread" was "from house to house" (Ac. 2:46).

"There was more than one local congregation to Jerusalem" (George Phillips, in A. W., 1921). "They met, not in the synagogue, but in private houses" (Early European History, by Webster). "They met privately to observe the Lord's supper" (Mace & Tanner, Primary History). "The oldest meeting-places of Christian worship were rooms in ordinary dwellings" (Sehaff--Herzog)... "The places of Christian assembly were at first rooms in private houses" (Neander's History). "The congregation assembling in each place would come to be known as ‘the church’ in this or that man’s house. (Rom. 16:5-15; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:5; Phile. verse 2)"

(Jamison, Faussett, and Brown). "What is meant (in Ac. 2:46) is, that the especially Christian in stitution of the breaking of bread was not a part of the service of the Temple, but was observed in their own homes, the congregations now meeting at one house, now at another" (Cambridge Greek Testament, Acts, pp. 107, 108). "Surely the church at Jerusalem did not observe the Communion in the Jewish Temple. They would not have been allowed to have formal meetings there. They must have met in their own homes" (C. C. McCown, Dean of Pacific School of Religion).

The "breaking of bread" in Ac. 2 :46-----breaking bread from house to house"-----is the same form of expression as that found in Ac. 2:42 and 20:7, where it is universally conceded to have reference to the Communion. "The fact that the same phraseology is used in both places shows that they refer to the same thing" (B. W. Johnson). In fact, Ac. 2:42 tells us that they "continued steadfastly in . . . the breaking of bread" while verse 46 tells us where they broke the bread-----from house to house."

There is a contrast between the Public Worship of the Temple and the religious offices of Christian Assemblies at home.

"The sense is, while they resorted daily to the public service of the Temple, they celebrated (what they could not have in the Temple) the Holy Communion in their own oratory at home" (Christopher Wordsworth, Greek Testament With Notes, Acts, p. 51).

I have dealt at some length with his "multitude at Pentecost" because they can pervert the facts in such a way as to make it look to the ignorant as if there is some sense to their nonsense. But "fools rush in where angels fear to tread," and when the light is turned on to their foolishness their folly is apparent to all.

As to Paul's rule of "decently and in order" (1 Cor. 14), we must remember that anything that progresses beyond "that which is written" (1 Cor.4:6) is forbidden and cannot, therefore, be either "decent" or "in order," Scripturally speaking. Besides, looking at it from the human viewpoint, it is no more "decent" to use two cups than one. If he will go on to the individual cups (where he is headed), he can make a better showing; but he will certainly be no better off in the sight of God. The individual cupsers say, "It is indecent to use one or two cups; so we will use individual cups." "We must be decent, therefore we must use two or more cups" shout the cupers who have not yet adopted the individual cups. "It is so indecent to be immersed, chimes in Tucker in "The Form of Baptism" "so we will sprinkle."

As to Christ's feeding the 5,000, there is nothing in it to teach anything on the Communion. All innovators are alike. They all use the same line of reasoning (rather, lack of reasoning). Taylor, in his S. S. debate at Ballinger, Texas, many years ago, used Christ's separation of the multitude into groups of fifties and hundreds to feed them as a type of the Sunday School system of teaching, and so he claimed that this authorized his digressive Sunday School. I heard a Baptist preacher lecture at Melrose, N. Mex., in 1925, on the B. Y. P. U. He found some there who opposed this innovation. So he went to Christ’s feeding the 5,000, and said: "Here is the beginning of the B. Y. P. U." And now, George Phillips perverts this into a deceptive means of converting the unwary to his theory of cups in the Communion. All digression goes the same way, and the same scriptures are used by all digressives to up hold their digressions. They are dividing the church of God asunder over a non-essential. They must be "marked" and "avoided." Rom. 16:17.