"Suppose Jesus meant to tell the Apostles all to drink out of the same vessel, it would not follow that every group of disciples should do so."

"Even if they did all drink out of the same vessel, it no more makes that binding upon us than the fact that they reclined at the table makes it necessary for us."

G. C. Brewer, in G. A.

"Blackberry juice or_watermelon juice will do -as well as anything else; it is the attitude of the mind that counts."

Martin, in A. W.

"It does not follow that we must use but ‘one loaf’."

D. Lipscomb, in G. A.

"And if they used unleavened bread, that does not make it binding on us."

"Suppose we admit that Jesus was immersed. That does not prove no other mode is valid.". Presbyterian tract

It makes one think of the devil in Eden. God said so-and-so. Yes, but you don’t have to do what God said. God pity the dupes led by the devil. If these leaders who are not satisfied to follow the word of God, would plainly, tell the people so, it would not be so bad; but when they say they take the word of God for their "faith and practice," and then play the devil, they are neither honorable nor self-respecting.

"Our plea is to do all things according to the Scriptures."

Hayhurst, in "Infant Baptism."

Well, I can find baby baptism in the same chapter and verse of the Bible where H. finds his "two or more cups" in the communion. "Chapter and verse," now, as you demand of the Pedo-baptist I say of your "two or more," as you say to the individual cups" man: "Is there any example for it? Did any of the early churches use them ?" and put you into the boat with the Pedo-baptist and theindividual-cups man. Now what do you say?

"They discovered that the record says our Lord took ‘a cup’ (singular), and they insist that we should use only one."

Yes, and on what else could we insist, and yet "Speak where the Bible speaks"? And if those who contend for the use of cups would be frank and tell the people there is no Scriptural authority for them, and that they are an innovation on the New Testament faith and practice being a digression from "the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints"—I say if they would tell the people this instead of trying to make it appear that they can "Speak where the Bible speaks" for their cups practice, as they have been doing in their oral debates, and as has recently been done in the Church Messenger and in the Firm Foundation, saying, for example, "Each of them drank from his own vessel, as they did during the passover meal"

(F. F., Aug. 6, 1935)

I say if they would let the people know that they cannot "Speak where the Bible speaks" for using cups in the communion, their "cake would be dough" in a jiffy—and they know it. Yes, and the devil knows it!

Think of the volumes written and the debates had to show that infant baptism is a N. T. practice. And why? For the same reason that the cups advocates try to find the cups practice in the Bible. And what volumes and debates have been put forth to show that sprinkling or pouring is a New Testament practice for baptism. Yes, and see the literature and the debates we find to show that mechanical music in the worship is a N. T. practice. I say, Why all this? It is the devil’s "sugar stick" to get the people to take humanism, but think they have the Bible.

The subterfuges and pretended arguments put forth to defend_these unscriptural practices are all hatched out as "after-thoughts." They put in these innovations because—and only because they—want them. There is no such thought as God requires them. Then, after they are in, and those who want the word of God for their faith and practice, begin to demand the Scriptural authority for them—then, I say, it is that the devil’s agents get busy with "nations," and "households," and "pour out my Spirit," and "desert," and "psallo," and "3,000," and "each of them drank from his own vessel," and—the devil knows what else!

And the church of Christ, that fifty years ago fought against all digressions that were the making of the "Christian Church, another denomination," and contended for a "Thus saith the Lord for our faith and practice," and "Where the Bible speaks, we speak; and where the Bible is silent, we are silent," is now one of the "biggest duck in the puddle" with its practices that are not in the Bible,—bound for hell as the others are; and the only thing that can save the bunch is Universalism: it will not be in contending for and practicing "the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints." —Jude 3. But we read of a big bunch—"many"—that came up pleading for recognition, and telling of their "many mighty works," but were turned away as "workers of iniquity." —Mt. 7:23. So don’t depend on Universalism. And you better listen to Paul’s "that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written."—I Cor. 4:6. So if you have gone "beyond the things which are written," you better change your going, for—Hell is a hot place to be headed for! Now, don’t stick up your nose: but act like a person with brains.

"Be not like dumb, driven cattle; Be a hero in the strife."

And "Contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints."—Jude 3. Otherwise you will hear: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels."—Mt. 25:41.

"Any teaching that leads people to pervert the Bible by reading into it what it does not say or by reading out of it what it does say, is wrong. It is so erroneous that it should be avoided."

L. W. H. in Church Messenger, Jan., ‘36.

True! And when they read individual cups into it, the teaching is so erroneous that L. W. H. says it is to be avoided. And when he reads into it the two-or-more-cups heresy, we reject it. And when either "reads out of it" what it does say; namely, "And he took a cup" (Mt. 26:27); yes, one cup, we reject it. I doubt not that the whole C. M. following will soon all be for the individual cups, for a ‘man who has been eating crow can soon eat buzzard.

"Over-emphasis on water baptism led to infant sprinkling."

Not so. It was the false doctrine of "original sin coupled with the Bible teaching, which had not yet been set aside, of baptism for the remission of sins, that led to infant baptism. "All of us are by nature children of wrath, being stained by sin: baptism is the layer wherein sin is washed away: it must, then, be applied to the infant."

Again: "If infants. are guilty of original sin, then they are proper subjects of baptism." Again: Wesley’s Treatise on Baptism. "The error became more firmly established that without external baptism no one could be delivered from that inherent guilt."

Neander.

"Sprinkling" came in, as have the cups in communion, on the grounds of—more convenient and sanitary. In fact, the whole Eastern Church immerse infants today.

And immersion prevailed in England until the beginning of the seventeenth century, Edward VI and Elizabeth being immersed. And when "sprinkling" became general in the West, "infant sprinkling" was practiced as a matter of being more convenient and sanitary. The hurt came from teaching a falsehood, and not from "over-emphasis" of the truth. And whether immersion or sprinkling, the practice came in on the falsehood of "original sin." But "sprinkling" came in on the ground of convenience and sanitation, as your cups have— and solely so.