DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS W. CURTIS PORTER Author of DIVINE HEALING ASK YOUR PREACHER Co-author of PORTER-DUGGAR DEBATE PORTER-TINGLEY DEBATE PORTER-WATERS DEBATE PORTER-BOGARD DEBATE Price: $.50 per copy; $5.00 per dozen Order From PORTER'S BOOK SHOP Mrs. W. Curtis Porter, Mgr. P. O. Box 195 -- Monette, Arkansas DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 3 The doctor prescribes aspirins. The prescription does not call for either "Bayer's" or St. Joseph's" aspirins but for Dr. Garner's aspirins. "Doctor Albert Garner,"as he calls himself, is a young Baptist preacher of Jackson- ville, Texas. Recently he published a booklet which he entitled: "A Few Aspirins For Campbellism." Aspirins are pain-relieving tablets. They are often taken for head- aches and other aches and pains. The aspirins prescribed by "Doctor Garner" are not for the relief of those whom he calls "Campbellites." He would in no way want to relieve them of anything they might suffer. But "Camp- bellism," accordingù to the "Doctor's" diagnosis, has caused many headaches among the Baptists. The "Doctor" wants to give them some relief and, accordingly, prescribes "A Few Aspirins" for his own brethren. "Doctor Garner's Aspirins" are highly recommended--by Doctor Garner. According to his advertisement of the booklet, if Baptists will devour and assimilate these aspirins, they will have no further dread of "Campbellism." There will be no danger of their joining the ranks of the "Camp-bellites," so many Baptists have done, because of becoming doctrinally upset as a result of an epidemic of "Campbellism." From the way the "Doctor" advertises his aspirins, it: appears that they will not only relieve "Baptist head- aches" brought on by "Campbellism" but mill actually make them immune to any further attacks. "Doctor Garner's aspirins" are very potent pills. But sometimes Aspirins are easily dissolved. They do not have to be dissolved in the system of the patient, but they may be dissolved before they are taken. If you dissolve a "Bayer's" or a "St. Joseph's" aspirin before the patient swallows it, the aspirin will in no way lose its effectiveness in relieving the headache. But this is not true of "Doctor Garner's aspirins." If they are dissolved before the patient swallows them, they lose their power to give relief. Furthermore, they will likely become so bitter that the patient may refuse to swallow them at all. I wish therefore to spend some time, in a series of articles, in 4 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS "dissolving a few Baptist aspirins." Aspirins usually come in containers that have not less than a dozen tablets. However, "Doctor Garner's aspirins" come in a package of only eight tablets. According to the page of "Contents" of his booklet there are eight chapters. These chapters, though, are divided into a number of sub-headings, and without the use of the "contents" page it is difficult to tell just where one chapter ends and another begins. There is no chapter division in the booklet itself. It appears, therefore, that each of these eight aspirins is broken into a number of pieces. This, I suppose, as long as they are not actually dissolved, will make it easier to swallow them. Yet with so many pieces of aspirins jumbled together it may be difficult for the patient to tell just when he has swallowed one complete aspirin. But this should not matter, as long as he actually gets relief for his headache--unless he should happen to take an overdose. With the tablets already broken into pieces the matter of dissolving them becomes an easier undertaking. In this review of Garner's booklet I shall let him speak for himself. I shall not publish the booklet in its entirety. This would be totally unnecessary, as there is much repetition in it. Often the same point is repeated a number of times. Certainly it is not necessary to give in full all these repetitions. But I shall let him present each point in his own words. Quotations lengthy enough to give his complete arguments will be made from his booklet. In that Ray we shall have the "Doctor's" prescription in harmony with his own diagnosis. Let us begin the easy task of "dissolving a few Baptist aspirins." The "Faith Only" Aspirin The first aspirin prescribed by the "Doctor" is for the relief of that form of headache that is produced by the charge made by the "Campbellites" that Baptists teach that one can be saved by "faith only." Judging by the way the "Doctor" raves about this, I would say that the "Doctor" himself seems to have quite a headache over this matter. Perhaps it would be well for him to swallow one of his own pills. But let us hear his own words about this. "Among the falsehoods usually circulated by Campbellites to dune their victims and keep them from attending other churches is the falsehood DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 5 that Baptists and others teach that one is saved by 'faith only. When you hear the charge that there are those who teach that one is saved by 'faith only,' you should take special notice. They make such claims either through ignorance or dis- honesty. This you will find to be true: the fellow who makes such claim will cite no representative man of any faith as having ever made such a claim. So far as I have been able to find there has never been any recognized minister of ANY RELIGIOUS FAITH OR GROUP who has ever taught that one is saved by 'faith only'." Page 1. Evidently the "Doctor" has a nervous headache from an upset nervous system caused by "the falsehoods usually circulated by Campbellites." Of course, when you come down to facts there is no such thing as "Campbellism." It exists only in the distorted imagination of sectarian preachers like Mr. Albert Garner. A "Campbellite Church" is unknown anywhere in the world. But the thing that he calls "Campbellism" does exist. In fact, it existed for about 1600 years before anyone ever heard of a Baptist Church. This nickname is given to the New Testament Church and to the gospel system revealed in the New Testament. People who refuse to accept anything else have given the Baptists a lot of trouble. And "Doctor" Garner is having his share of it. To charge "that Baptists and others teach that one is saved by faith only" is declared by Mr. Garner to be :. "falsehood." He even declares that such claims are made "either through ignorance or dis- honesty." This would make the "Campbellites" a dis- reputable set. They are either too "ignorant" to know that neither Baptists nor others teach salvation by faith only, or they are too "dishonest" to tell the truth about it. But I wonder if the "ignorance" and dishonesty" can truly be charged against the "Campbellites" in this case. Perhaps, it is somebody else that is "ignorant or dishonest." Could it be that the "Doctor" is the guilty man' He states that as far as he has "been able to find there has never been any recognized minister of ANY RELIGIOUS FAITH OR GROUP who has ever taught that one is saved by faith only." Maybe his "research" has not been exhaustive enough. If he had made even a small percent of the re- search that he claimed to make in his tract on Instrumental Music (which, for the most part, was copied from O. E. 6 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS Payne's book), he might have "been able to find" a "recognized minister:' of some "religious faith or group" who has taught this theory of salvation by "faith only." And he might have saved himself the embarrassment of having to take the role of being "either ignorant or dis- honest." This statement made by Mr. Garner simply shows how reckless a "Doctor" can become when he starts pre- scribing "a few aspirins" for Baptist headaches. Forgetting for the time what Baptist preachers have said about the matter, let us see if "any religious faith or group has ever taught" this theory. A little later I shall present what Baptist preachers themselves have said about it. I wonder if the Methodist Church would qualify as a "religious faith or group"? Can any "representative man" of this faith be cited who has "ever made such a claim"? In the Methodist Discipline can be found about twenty-five "Articles of Religion." These can be found in any Methodist Discipline. Not only is this true of the Discipline of the present united Methodist Church, but it is true of the Disciplines of the various groups of Methodists before the union was consummated. I have before me the Methodist Discipline of the year 1896 of the Methodist Episcopal Church;. Also the 1914 edition of the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. The first of these has attached the names of eighteen outstanding ministers of that group. The latter has attached the names of twelve outstanding ministers of that group. Surely these were "representative men." But what does the Methodist Discipline say about salvation by "faith only"? The ninth Article of Religion reads like this: "We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort." Notice how definite this statement of doctrine is- "that justification by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort." Therefore, when "Campbellites" say that this "religious group" teaches salvation by "faith only" they are neither "ignorant" nor "dishonest,." They are simply stating what the Methodists have plainlysaid in their own Disciplines for many, many years. So if DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 7 there is any "ignorance" or "dishonesty" about this matter, it cannot be charged to the people Garner calls "Campbellites." How can Mr. Garner, in the face of this Article of Religion in the Methodist Discipline, say that "no repre- sentative man of any faith" has " ever made such a claim"? Is he so "ignorant" that he did not know this is published in the Methodist Discipline? Is it true that in all his research that he has not "been able to find" a copy of the Methodist Discipline? When he charged "Camp- bellites" with "duping their victims" with "falsehoods" when they say that some religious groups teach salvation by "faith only," the "Doctor" simply displayed his own ignorance. He will have to admit that he was so ignorant that he did not know that this statement about "justification by faith only" is in the Methodist Discipline, or he will have to say he "is downright dishonest when he made the charge. If he fails to admit such, the reader will know it anyway. But that is not all. In 1947 I engaged Mr. Glenn V. Tingley in a six nights' debate in Birmingham, Alabama. This debate was recorded and has been in book form about four years. Mr. TingIey represented the "religious group" known as "The Christian and Missionary Alliance." The last proposition of this debate, which Mr. Tingley affirmed the last two nights of the discussion, reads: "The scriptures teach that alien sinners are saved by faith alone before and without water baptism." Can it be that Mr. Garner did not know that this book is in print? I do know that he has been in audiences where the book was advertised for sale. Mr. Tingley definitely affirmed that "sinners are saved by faith alone." Was Mr. Tingley a "representative man" of this "religious group"? If not, then they have no representative men. But if he was, then Mr. Garner was woefully ignorant when he said that no "recognized minister" ever "made such a claim." If he was not ignorant, then he was dishonest when he pre- scribed his "faith alone" aspirin for the relief of Baptist headaches. Continuing the dissolution of "A Few Aspirins For Campbellism" that were prescribed for Baptist headaches by "Doctor" Albert Garner of Jacksonville, Texas, I ask 8 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS the reader to remember the statement already quoted from the booklet: "So far aù I have been able to find there has never been any recognized minister of ANY RELIGIOUS FAITH OR GROUP who has ever taught that one is saved by 'faith only'." This "faith only" aspirin is really proving to be very inadequate. I have already shown that the "Doctor's" research has not been very exhaustive, as the Methodist Discipline definitely teaches "justification by faith only" and that Glenn V. Tingley, in the Porter-Tingley Debate, affirmed that sinners are "saved by faith alone." These were representative men of different religious groups. To charge the "Campbellites" with being either "ignorant or dishonest" when they say that people teach such, as "Doctor" Garner did in his little book, but demonstrates his own ignorance-or dishonesty. I was recently amused at the "Doctor" when his attention, from another source, was called to this statement in the Methodist Discipline. Garner writes an article, "The Fat; Is In the Fire," in two Baptist papers--the Sword and Trowel, and the Missionary Baptist Searchlight. In this article he says concerning this quotation from the Discipline: "The quotation is exact, but the interpretation of it is a plain misrepresentation of the teachings of Methodism." O the meanderings of a Baptist "Doctor"! When "Campbellites" declare that the Methodist Discipline says that "justification by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine" the "Doctor" says the "quotation is exact." But when they believe Methodists teach what they say in that "exact quotation" and pass the word on to others, such is a "plain misrepresentat- ion" of Methodism. In other words, the Methodists do not mean what they say. They say one thing, but you must interpret it to mean something entirely opposite; if you don't, you are misrepresenting them. Perhaps that is also true of "Baptist Doctors" -they say one thing but it must be "interpreted" to mean something else. That, I suppose, explains the many inconsistencies of Baptist preachers. No wonder that "Campbellism" produces so many head- aches in the Baptist ranks. But have any "representative men" among the Bap- tists ever taught salvation by "faith only"? On page 4 of "Doctor" Garner's booklet we have this statement: DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 9 "Next time you hear the chant of 'faith only' charged against, Baptists, stick this article under their noses; ask them if they can produce any authoritative evidence that any one believes he can be saved by 'faith only'." Well, while "this article" is "under my nose" I shall see if I can find some "authoritative evidence" that any Baptist ever believed he could be saved by "faith only." Of course Mr. Garner says that no Baptist has ever taught such a thing. But the only way I know to determine what men believe is by what they say. If they say one thing but believe something else, that is their inconsistency. I proceed on the basis that men believe what they say. So if I can produce "authoritative evidence" that Baptist preachers have said that men are saved by "faith only," such becomes evidence of the fact that they believe it, unless they are either too "ignorant or dishonest" to say what they believe. Let us look at a few instances. We shall first notice some statements made by Mr. A. U. Nunnery. Mr. Nunnery has been preaching since 1895. During that time he has been pastor of nearly a hundred Baptist churches an engaged in more than thirty debates. I suppose, therefore, that he is a representative man. Take a look at the following statements from him: "An alien sinner is saved with out baptism, with- out the merits of baptism. Without anything save trust in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Woods- Nunnery Debate, page 122. If an alien sinner is saved "without anything save trust," would that be faith only? But read again: "And notice here again, in John 3:15,'Whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life." If this man has to do one thing in the world beside believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, that scrip- ture is not correct." Woods-Nunnery Debate, page 114. Is that plain enough? If a man does not "have to do one thing in the world beside believe," would that not be "faith only"? But if any one needs it any plainer, read the next statement: "Jesus said to the woman,'Your faith hath saved you'!" Luke 7:50. Was that the truth or not? 10 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS Was there any baptism there, there was not'! He said faith did it! If that's not enough, what more could Jesus have told her, any man could have told her, that she's saved by faith only." Woods- Nunnery Debate, page 109. Well, here is one Baptist preacher who said sinners are saved by "faith only," even though "Doctor" Garner says no Baptist ever made any such claim. But we have mole. I recently debated Mr. John L. Causey, another "Doctor" among the Baptists. When I made the charge that he believed in salvation by "faith only" he denied it and said that originated in my little brain. So I proceeded to read from one of his published debates. The following statements need no "interpreting." (And, since thinking about it, he must I;e a "representative man," as he is editor of one of their papers, The Sword and Trowel, at Little Rock, to which Dr. Garner sends articles.) "Eph. 2:8 tells 1.13 that we are saved by faith only which is grace." Goodwin-Causey Debate, page 58 "Thus we are saved by faith only and you deny the word of God in Eph. 2:8." Goodwin-Causey Debate, page 76 When these plain statements were introduced Mr. Causey was unable to interpret them to mean anything else. So he just accepted them and proceeded to try to prove that sinners are saved by faith only by appealing to Luke 8:50. The case he cited was the raising of the daughter of Jairus from the dead on the faith of her father, but that did not bother him any, for he boldly declared it meant salvation of the soul from sin. Before "Doctor" Garner repeats the statement' that "no Baptist ever said such a thing," it might be well to check with "Doctor" Causey. Then his utterance could be charged to his "dishonesty' instead of his "ignorance." But we have a statement from another man that might be considered "authoritative evidence" as to what Baptists believe. The man is Ben M. Bogard. He had 237 debates during his lifetime-more than any other Baptist preacher who ever lived. He was also editor of the Missionary Baptist Searchlight. Furthermore, he was the founder of the Missionary Baptist Seminary at Little Rock, Arkansas. it n-as this Baptist Seminary that conferred on Mr. Garner DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 11 the degree of "Doctor." It was there, evidently, that he got his authority to prescribe aspirins. So Mr. Garner will surely consider Mr. Bogard a "representative man" among Baptists. It might he well, however, to tell you that the Semi- nary that bestowed upon Mr. Garner the "Doctor's" degree is not even an accrcdited school. This is admitted by their own men. In the Sword and Trowel, edited by John L. Causey, June 15, 1961, Mr. J. O. Phillips has an article on "Christian Education." In this article, on page 1 of the paper, Mr. Phillips says: "The Missionary Baptist Seminary in Little Rock is the only school in Arkansas that teaches what Missionary Baptists believe." But on the same page he also sags: "There is not an accredited school on earth today that teaches what Missionary Baptists believe." But that is the school in which Albert Garner became a "Doctor." Let us get the following statement from Mr. Bogard relative to salvation by "faith only." "I am going to maintain that there is no act at all that any man In the Old Testament time or the New ever had to perform in order to be saved. Salvation is received by faith, and faith is the only thing you can do without doing anything." Hardeman-Bogard Debate, page 93. It does not take a logician to see that if a sinner is saved without performing any act at all, but by faith, and that faith is the "only thing you can do without doing anything," then such means salvation by faith only. If man does anything else, salvation would depend on performing some act. So Bogard simply said that a man is saved by "faith only." His language cannot even be interpreted to mean anything else. All these statements from "representative men" among Baptists show that "Campbellites" are neither ignorant, nor dishonest when they say that Baptists have taught salvation by "faith only." The charge must be placed somewhere else. But "Doctor" Garner says that Baptists teach that sinners must hear the word and repent of their sins in order to be saved, and that this would not be "faith only." He might say he can find statements made by the men mentioned that repentance and hearing the word are necessary. I do not doubt that in the least. The only thing that 12 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS proves is that Baptist preachers contradict themselves. It has often been said that no Baptist preacher can preach Baptist doctrine without contradicting himself at almost every turn. So any effort the "Doctor" might make along that line will simply prove the charge to be true. In an effort to give us "the truth about this 'faith only' way of salvation" the "Doctor" makes the following state- ment in his booklet: "Baptists do teach that it is at the point of faith that one is saved, but not by 'faith only.'...These same sectarians teach that one is saved AT THE POINT OF BAPTISM. Baptists do not lie on them and tell that they believe one is saved by 'baptism only.' We could charge them with teaching salvation by 'baptism only' as honestly as they do Baptists and others by 'faith only,' but we refuse to lie on them. Their doctrine is bad enough without having to lie about it." Page 2. This fragment of the "faith only" aspirin appears to be interesting, but it may prove to be a bitter dose if the "Doctor'' should be made to swallow his own medicine. It would be a lie, the "Doctor" says, to charge the people whom he calls "Campbellites" with teaching salvation by "baptism only." But if he could produce statements from the published works of representative men of that group that say men are saved by "baptism only," I have an idea Mr. Garner would be ready to proclaim such statements to the world. Since he cannot find any such statements made by such preachers, I am inclined to agree with him that he would be lying to make such a charge against them. If Baptists "refuse to lie on them," as Dr. Garner says, then of course he would not be guilty of making such a charge. He would not damage his reputation for veracity by telling such an enormous lie. However, in September, 1950, 1 met Vernon L. Barr, Missionary Baptist, in a debate at Center, Texas. The young "Doctor" from Jacksonville, Texas, was present for this discussion. He published a report of the debate in the Missionary Baptist Searchlight, October 10, 1950, under the heading: "Parr-Porter Debate As I Saw It." In this report Albert Garner said: "Vernon Barr established indelibly that Campbell- ites teach salvation by 'baptism only'." DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 13 Vernon Barr had tried to prove that we teach salva- tion by "baptism only" because we teach that salvation is not reached at the point of faith, or repentance, or con- fession, but at the point of baptism. Now, Mr. Garner comes along in his booklet and says that Vernon Barr lied on the "Campbellites" when he made that charge--that they teach no such thing. So, according to the "Doctor," Vernon L. Barr is one Baptist who did not "refuse to lie" about it. But that is not all of it. Mr. Garner, in his report of the debate, says that Barr proved it-- established it indelibly. Therefore, he indorsed the charge made by Mr. Barr, and in doing so, Mr. Garner admits that he lied himself when he sent that report to the Missionary Baptist Searchlight. To make such a charge against the "Campbellites," he says, is to "lie on them." Both he and Vernon Barr made the charge. So the "Doctor" declares that both of them lied on these "sectarians." I did not say they lied about it--the "Doctor" himself said so. But I am not inclined to dispute with him about it. It is still amazing how Baptist preachers continue to contradict themselves at nearly every turn. This "faith only" aspirin, when thus dissolved, turns out to be a very bitter dose to the "Doctor" who prescribed it. It has lost its power to relieve the headaches that his brethren are suffering, and he will need to prescribe something else. The "Non-Essential" Aspirin As I continue to dissolve "a few Baptist aspirins" that were prescribed by "Doctor" Albert Garner, a Baptist preacher of Jacksonville, Texas, I come next to his "Non- Essential" aspirin. This refers to the second chapter in his booklet, which makes it the second aspirin in his box, and like the one already considered, it is broken into several pieces by the "Doctor" himself. I should like for you to see the "prescription" written by the "Doctor" in his own bitter style. For the heading of the first two paragraphs in this chapter of his booklet, he asks the question: "DO BAPTISTS TEACH THAT BAPTISM IS 'NON-ESSENTIAL'?" And the following are some of his dignified words as he makes his desperate attack on the people who, to him, are a bunch of despicable "Campbellites." "This article is written to answer the notorious 14 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS lies that are being told on Baptists, circulated by the so called Church of Christ people, better known as Campbellites. In a recent public discussion, Mr. Charles Holt, Jr., of Mt. Pleasant, Texas, was very brazen in charging, "Baptists hate baptism, they teach it is non-essential, they hate it." This is a plain falsehood, used to prejudice their own peo- ple against Baptists, to keep them from learning what Baptists do teach about baptism. Mr. Holt, as a young Campbellite preacher, was possibly ignorant of what Baptists teach about salvation. He was either ignorant or dishonest. If he was ignorant, he is excusable, but not worthy of leadership among their brethren. If he is dis- honest, knows Baptists do not teach baptism is non-essential, then he is certainly unworthy of being a leader among his people." -- A Few Aspirins For Campbellism, p. 4. The "contemptible Campbellites," according to "Doc- tor" Garner's expert and elegant diagnosis, are a group of deluded ignoramuses or notorious liars. I have an idea, however, that it is not their dense stupidity or their notorious lying that is causing him so much trouble. Likely they are too well informed about Baptist teaching and are too exact in their reporting of it to allow the gentleman to have much comfort. And brother Charles Holt, Jr., it seems, has been a "pain in the neck" for Mr. Garner. The charge that brother Holt was "ignorant of what Baptists teach about salvation" or that he was dishonest in his dealing with it will have little weight with people who know brother Holt. Furthermore, I predict that the "Doctor's" headaches are not over if he has further discussions with brother Holt. He will need some one to prescribe some better aspirins for him for he will find the ones he has prescribed to be very inadequate and ineffective. That you may get a better view of the "Doctor's" vituperative bombast I give the following quotation from his booklet: "A Challenge To These Notorious Ignoramuses and Liars "Next time you hear one of these religious bigots blaze out the charge that Baptists do not believe BAPTISM IS ESSENTIAL, GET THIS ARTICLE AND STICK IT UNDER HIS NOSE. Then do this: ask the said fellow if he can show you one line or one statement where a Missionary Baptist has ever said that baptism was not essential." P. 5 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 15 Whew! The "Doctor" really seems to think that the "blazing" of "religious bigots" can be snuffed out by merely holding one of his aspirins under their noses. What pills these are to have such potency! But if either the "Doctor" or any of his patients should stick this article under your nose to prove that you are a "notorious ignoramus or liar," then you might respond by sticking the following statement under his nose: "So then, I want to tell you that baptism is not essential. It's not essential and God says that; in what I said this morning." Mr. A. U. Nunnery in Woods-Nunnery Debate, p. 122. Mr. Garner claims that any man is a "notorious ignoramus or liar" who charges that any "Missionary Baptist has ever said that baptism was not essential." He calls for "one line or one statement" ever uttered by a Missionary Baptist to that effect. Well, we have accommo- dated the "Doctor." Mr. A. U. Nunnery is a Missionary Baptist. Furthermore, he is a Missionary Baptist preacher and debater. He has had many debates with our brethren. His debate with brother Guy N. Woods, held near Parsons, Tennessee, in 1946, was published in book form. The above quotation is taken from that debate. So I have given both the "line" and the "statement" in which a Missionary Baptist preacher and debater said that "baptism is not essential." When, therefore, the "horrid Campbellites," who seem to be such a nightmare to "Doctor" Garner, say that Baptists have taught that "baptism is not essential" they are neither ignorant nor lying. So this fragment of the "Doctor's" aspirin dissolves into thin air. And, incidentally, I wonder if Mr. Garner knew that A. U. Nunnery had made the above statement. If he did not know it, then perhaps he is the one who is the "ignoramus." If he did know that Nunnery made that statement, yet claimed that no Missionary Baptist ever did, who would be proven to be the "notorious liar" in that case? So if some Missionary Baptist sticks Garner's article "under your nose," you have nothing to fear. All the vapors of that dissolving aspirin can be inhaled without any danger whatsoever. But Mr. Garner may claim that Mr. Nunnery simply meant that "baptism is not essential to salvation." The 16 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS fact remains that Mr. Nunnery said that "baptism is not essential" and used no qualifying terms. Mr. Garner says that no Baptist, that is, no Missionary Baptist, ever made such a statement. Therefore, following his own line of reasoning, he is proven to be either ignorant or dishonest. And using his own words, "If he was ignorant, he is excusable, but not worthy of leadership among their brethren. If he is dishonest"--knowing that a Baptist did say that baptism is not essential--"then he is certainly unworthy of being a leader among the people." No one would dispute, of course, that Mr. Nunnery meant that "baptism is not essential to salvation." But when the people of the church of Christ, considered by Mr. Garner to be "ignorant and dishonest Campbellites," make that statement about Baptists, they mean the same thing. The following quotation from Mr. Garner's booklet will give you what he thinks Baptists actually teach about baptism. Read it and marvel. "Baptists teach that baptism is essential. Baptists even teach that baptism is essential to salvation. Baptists do not teach that baptism is essential to acquire salvation, but they do teach that BAPTISM IS ESSENTIAL to demonstrate salvation." Page 5. Now, how does that look for a "Baptist Doctor" who is able to prescribe "Baptist aspirins" for a "Baptist head- ache"? Notice that he says that "Baptists teach that bap- tism is essential" with emphasis on the last two words. Not only so, but he actually says that "Baptists teach that baptism is essential to salvation." If this is so, then he could not interpret Mr. Nunnery's statement to mean that "baptism is not essential to salvation." for in that case, he would not be teaching that "baptism is essential to salvation." In view of what Mr. Garner says about it, for any one to charge that Baptists teach that "baptism is not essential to salvation" is to be guilty of inexcusable ignorance or downright dishonesty. Could it be, after all, that Baptists have always taught that "baptism is not essential to salvation" and that the "Doctor" is the one who is lying about it? I use the words "ignorance" and "lying" because they are standard equipment in the "Doctor's" pill bag. The use of these terms seems to be DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 17 his weakness, and they have become some of the funds- mental ingredients of his powerful aspirins. But let us see what some other Baptist preachers have said about this matter. Before giving the quotations, however, let us remember that the two words "essential" and "necess- ary" are synonyms. If a thing is "essential," it is "necessary;" if it is not "necessary," it is not "essential." The first witness will be the late Mr. Ben M. Bogard. Mr. Garner will certainly recognize him, for it was ill Bogard's school that Garner became a "Doctor" and got his authority to prescribe aspirins. Read the following statements by Mr. Bogard: "I object to the idea that baptism is necessary to salvation because, if true, it makes God dishonest." Bogard-Warlick Debate, p. 45. "Either way you take it, we see that baptism is not necessary to salvation." Bogard-Warlick Debate, Page 83. "The doctrine you are preaching that baptism is necessary to salvation is Roman Catholicism, and you borrowed it from Rome." Hardeman-Bogard Debate, p. 136. Now, compare this with Garner's statement. He says that Baptists teach that baptism "is essential to salvation." But Bogard says "baptism is not necessary to salvation." Furthermore, to preach that it is, he says, "makes God dishonest" and "is Roman Catholicism." "Doctor" Garner, therefore, got some of the ingredients for his aspirins from Rome! But let us hear some other Baptist preachers speak. Mr. J. W. Kesner of Fort Smith, Arkansas, made the following statements: "I believe Mark 16:16 just as strong as my friend believes it, but BAPTISM IS NOT essential to salvation." Hogland-Kesner Debate, p. 39. "Now my friends if baptism IS ESSENTIAL to salvation, as we have been debating the four nights it CONTRADICTS A GREAT BODY OF SCRIPTURES." Hoffland-Kesner Debate, p. 127. Next we will read from D. N. Jackson: "Paul said . . I have begotten you through the gospel, and since he did it, and yet didn't baptize them, therefore, baptism is not essential to being 18 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS brought into life." Cogdill-Jackson Debate, p. 81. "The fact that there are New Testament cases of people being saved apart from baptism shows that baptism is not essential to salvation." Supplement to Jackson-Smith Debate, P. 99. G. E. Jones may speak next: "Baptists do not teach that baptism is non- essential. It is not essential to salvation, but like the Lord's supper it is essential to declaring some things." Jones-Wilhite Discussion, p. 60. The next statements will be from J. E. Cobb: "Without entering into an extended discussion of this passage we say Acts 2:38 does not teach that baptism is, in any sense, essential to the salvation of a soul." A New Manual For Baptist Churches, pp. 44 and 45. "Baptism is the performance of a good work, therefore, it is not essential to salvation." A New Manual For Baptist Churches, p. 45. In the foregoing statements these Baptist preachers and debaters, Ben M. Bogard, J. W. Kesner, D. N. Jackson, G. E. Jones and J. E. Cobb, declare plainly that Baptists teach that "Baptism is not essential to salvation." But "Doctor" Garner, probably because he was in a tight spot, says that "Baptists even teach that baptism is essential to salvation." Well, it is Garner against all the rest of them. When, therefore, the poor wretched "Campbellites" state that Baptists teach that baptism is not essential to salvation they are neither ignorant nor lying but are stating what Baptist preachers have always taught. It will not do Mr. Garner any good to reject the testimony of D. N. Jackson, G. E. Jones and J. E. Cobb on the ground that a split has come within Baptist ranks, a new Association has been formed, and that these men are identified with one Association while Garner and others are with another Association. The statements quoted from these men were made before the division ever came. They were all lined up in the same Association with Garner, Bogard and Resner. And they simply stated what Baptists have always taught--that baptism is not essential to salvation. We would have to decide, from reading Garner's booklet, that they were all out of step except the "Doctor." DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 19 But even Mr. Garner reveals his inconsistency--if not his ignorance-in the matter. You will notice that he said that "Baptists even teach that baptism is essential to salvation." But he went on to explain that it is not essential to secure salvation but that "baptism is essential to demonstrate salvation." A "Doctor" who does not know that the two statements, "Baptism is essential to salvation" and "Baptism is essential to demonstrate salvation," are not identical is not qualified to pass on the intelligence or ignorance of any man. How can a man who thinks that these two expressions mean the same boldly pronounce any man an ignoramus? If "baptism is essential to salvation" means it is "essential to demonstrate salvation," then when the "Doctor" teaches that repentance and faith are necessary, or essential, to salvation, he simply means they are "essential to demonstrate salvation." And thus he would have salvation before repentance and faith, without any conditions at all, and that would be worse even than the doctrine of "salvation by faith only." But if "baptism is essential to demonstrate salvat- ion," what is essential about such a demonstration? Will a man's Christian security in this world be any greater or his eternal life in the world to come be any more certain because he "demonstrates" his salvation in baptism? Just what is essential in such a demonstration anyway? The matter resolves itself into this: The only way in which Baptists teach that "baptism is essential," according to the great "Doctor" Garner, is that it is essential to a non-essential. No wonder that he has a case of hyper-acidity and endeavors to vent his spleen on the poor deluded "Campbellites." The "Church Vote" Aspirin People who are familiar with Baptist theology and pra- ctice know something of their voting on people who apply for membership in the Baptist Church. The opposition to this practice by the people who are ignorantly or maliciously called "Campbellites" has caused many head- aches in the Baptist ranks. It therefore became necessary for "Doctor" Garner, while prescribing aspirins for Bap- tist headaches caused by opposition from other angles, to prescribe one for this particular type of headache. And 20 DISSOLVING a FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS this he does in his booklet, "A Few Aspirins For Campbellism," under the heading, "Why Are People Voted Into the Baptist Church?" In his attempt to answer this question Mr. Garner makes the following statement: "The only way any human being can get into any institution, any church, of the Lord or of the devil, is to be voted into it. One can not become a member of any institution on earth except by some kind of a vote. This is a principle that holds true with clubs, fraternities, and churches of all orders, GOOD OR BAD." Pages 6 and 7. It is evident, of course, that if the only way any "human being" can get into any church, "of the Lord or of the devil," is to "be voted into it," then you would have to get into the Baptist Church by that method. Certainly, it is either "of the Lord" or "of the devil." Regardless of which it is, according to "Doctor" Garner, a man has to be voted into it. There is no other way to get into one. If this is true, the "Doctor" has shown as clear as noon-day why people are voted into the Baptist Church. And this ought to relieve the headaches among his brethren. At least, it ought to relieve those which are brought on by being harassed on the voting question by a bunch of "Campbellites." It becomes evident, however, that "Doctor" Garner's idea of "voting" is a very far-fetched one. While any good authority on the meaning of words will tell you that a vote is "a wish, choice, or judgment, of a person or a body of persons, formally expressed, as by a ballot or with the voice," or "the expression of the judgment or will of a majority by means of votes," yet "Doctor" Garner makes a "vote" mean "any sort of decision" rendered by any one about anything. If some "club" requires the payment of a ten dollar fee to become a member of it, and someone applies for membership in the club, the secretary or treasurer who is careful to see that the application for membership is accompanied by the ten dollars is "voting" that prospective member "into the club." Such is the basis on which he claims that "one can not become a member of any institution on earth except by some kind of a vote." Thus he tries to make every other church just as guilty of voting as is the Baptist Church. DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 21 But if that is what voting means, then everything that a man does is by means of a vote. When the alarm clock goes off in the morning, the man "votes" as to whether he will get up and shut it off. When he starts to dress he has to take a "vote" on the matter, and even decides, according to the "Doctor," by means of a "vote" as to which shoe he will put on first. He "votes" on washing his face before breakfast, and when he goes to the table he "votes" on whether he will have toast or cereal. This certainly shows the absurdity of his basic claim that the only way a man can get into any church "is to be voted into it." In an effort to soothe the pains of his brethren "Doctor" Garner declares there are "three kinds of vote"-- the preacher vote, the elder or presbytery vote, and the congregational or democratic vote. To get before you his claim on these I shall give his statement regarding the first one: "1. THE PREACHER VOTE. The church is an institution of the Lord, in the world. No one can become a member of any church without someone's voting upon him. In some churches the preacher passes on, votes on, determines the worthiness, sincerity, or qualifications for mem- bership in the church. In such churches the preacher or elder asks public questions to the candidate offering himself for membership and fellowship in the local congregation, to determine for himself the sincerity of the candidate in his request. IF THE PREACHER OR ELDER is satisfied HE PASSES ON OR APPROVES the candidate for church membership. THIS IS THE PREACHER VOTE, the sorriest kind of a minority rule. Please excuse me from this vote." p.7. Mr. Garner follows a similar course in explaining the "ELDER OR PRESBYTERY VOTE." Thus you are able to see what he actually calls "voting" where other churches are involved. Inasmuch as the Bible requires a man to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" before he is baptized, if the preacher asks the candidate for baptism "if he believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God," he is "voting the man into the church." That is what he calls the "preacher vote." That is parallel with the secretary of a club who asks the applicant for membership if he has the ten dollar 22 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS fee. Both of them, according to the erudite "Doctor," are voting the men into the respective organizations. Such a display of learning baffles the imagination! He presents these in contrast with the "CONGREGATIONAL 0R DEMOCRATIC VOTE." But in each case, he asserts, a "vote" is cast, and consequently one cannot get into any church without being voted into it! But the absurdity of his claim is seen when it is remembered that in his "congregational vote" no effort is made to find if the candidate has met the requirements thus far for membership in the Baptist Church. That matter is brought out by the preacher in charge, and after the preacher has secured the candidate's experience of grace, the matter is then placed before the church for them to vote on whether they will receive him for baptism. The cases are therefore not parallel. The vote of the congregation is taken after the preacher has secured the evidence that the man is a believer. A parallel of this would be found in club membership if, after the applicant pays his ten dollar fee, the members of the club would then vote on him to see if they would accept him for membership. And the strange thing about all of this is that the course which "Doctor" Garner calls "the preacher vote, the sorriest kind of a minority rule" is the course followed by preachers in the New Testament. In the eighth chapter of Acts we have the conversion of the Ethiopian officer. Philip preached Christ to him. When they came to a certain water the eunuch said: "See, here is water; What doth hinder me to be baptized." Acts 8:36. Philip said: "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." Verse :17. He confessed his faith in Jesus as the Son of God, and Philip immediately baptized him. If Philip had been following the prescription given by "Doctor" Garner and Baptist practice, he would have said: "We will have to go back to Jerusalem and put the matter before the church for their vote. If they vote in favor of your being baptized, then I shall be glad to baptize you." But no such course was followed. No such vote was taken. Philip followed the course that "Doctor" Garner asks to be excused from. We shall excuse him, for it is evident that he does not want to follow Bible examples. If he did, he would not be a member of the Baptist Church in the first place. DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 23 To soothe the headaches of his brethren the "Doctor" endeavors to prove that preachers and churches of the New Testament followed the "democratic vote" as practiced by the Baptist Church today. A further dissolution of his "church vote" aspirin nùill be accomplished by consider- ing his proof for this. He seeks to prove that the apos- tle Paul obtained membership in the Baptist Church by majority vote. We shall let him tell of it in his own words: "Paul was converted on the road to Damascus, baptized into the fellowship of the church at Damascus, returned to the church at Jerusalem and 'assayed to join himself unto them.' (Acts 9:26) There was considerable objection when Paul tried to 'join' the Jerusalem church, but Barnabas stood up, vouched for Saul's conversion, assured the church that he was not a traitor, then he was with them 'coming in and going out'." Garner's Booklet, Page 8. You will note that Mr. Garner says that Paul was "baptized into the fellowship of the church at Damascus." I thought, according to Garner's previous statement, that the only way a man can get into the Baptist Church is to "be voted into it." But he tells us that Saul was "bap- tized into it." And how about the voting preceding his baptism? Does the record say that Ananias called the church together to vote on Saul for baptism? There is not a word about such a thing. No vote was taken to determine his fitness for baptism. It was another case of the pre- acher baptizing the candidate without the vote of the church-- "the sorriest kind of a minority rule," according to Mr. Garner. But "there was considerable objection" when Saul later "assayed to join himself to the disciples" at Jerusalem. Certainly so. But the objection was not raised for the purpose of forcing the matter to a "vote of the church." The objection was raised because "they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple." Acts 9:26. They knew of his former persecution of the church; they knew that he had been guilty of killing disciples; and they had not learn- ed of his conversion to the truth. So "they were all afraid of him." But when Barnabas told them of his conversion and of his preaching Christ at Damascus, their fears were allayed. But did they then take a vote on him? This is what the "Doctor" 24 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS claims. But I would like to see the verse in which one word is said about such a vote. It is not found in the New Testament record. It must be found in the ferthe imagination of a Baptist "Doctor" who is trying to relieve the headaches of his brethren. The next example of the democratic vote on those to be baptized, as given by "Doctor" Garner, is found in the conversion of Cornelius and household in Acts 10. Here is what the "Doctor" says about it: "He (Peter) took with him the church at Joppa, six men on this Genthe mission... Peter took a vote on receiving these Gentiles into the fellowship of the church at Joppa. His words were, 'Can any man forbid water that these should be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?' (Acts 10:47) ... There would have been no virtue in Peter's raising such a question if those present, members of the church at Joppa, had not had a RIGHT TO OBJECT." Page 9. This is quite interesting. When Peter took six Jewish brethren with him, "he took with him the church at Joppa." Was the membership of the church at Joppa made up of six Jewish men' Such is the claim of the great "Doc- tor.'' But I know that Dorcas was a member of that church. She had been raised from the dead by Peter. Acts 9:36-41. Also there were "the saints and widows" to whom Peter presented her alive. Verse 41. As a result of this miracle, "many believed in the Lord" Verse 42. So the "six Jewish brethren" were only a few of the "many" disciples at Joppa. Therefore, Peter did not take "the church at Joppa" with him. And if they voted on the baptism of Cornelius, it was not the "vote of the church" but only a "vote of a small minority." And "Doctor" Garner says that the vote of "minority groups" is "neither the Bible way of government; the American way of government; nor the Baptist way of government." Page 7 of his booklet. If, therefore, the six Jewish brethren voted on Cornelius, it was not according to the "Baptist way" and can give no relief to Baptist headaches. But there is not a word said about their voting. Yet the "Doctor" tells us that Peter would never have raised the question if these men "had not had a RIGHT TO OBJECT." In other words, the Lord DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 25 had given them the miraculous outpouring of the Holy Spirit to prove that he had accepted them, but these six men had a RIGHT TO OBJECT to this divine evidence and to veto the whole matter by their vote. God's whole plan of making the Gentiles members of his body could have been discarded by the vote of four men. To what extremes a Baptist "Doctor" will go in his effort to justify an unscriptural practice! But let us look at another case of voting by the church, as given by Mr. Garner: "Rom. 14:1 reads,'Him that is weak in the faith receive ye but not to doubtful disputations.' The 'ye' is plural and shows that every member of the church at Rome was commanded to receive any that they believed to be in the faith'." P. 9. I would have to agree that men who seek membership in a Baptist Church by means of vote, or otherwise, would certainly be "weak in the faith." But is there any voting here? The church was told to "receive" but was it told to "vote"? Not unless "receive" means "to vote"? If such is the meaning of the word "receive" then Jesus said: "He that receiveth (voteth on) you receiveth (voteth on) me, and he that receiveth (voteth on) me receiveth (voteth on) him that sent me." Matt. 10:40. Was every member of the church at Rome commanded to vote on both the Son of God and the Father? Mr. Garner refers to Acts 1:26 that tells of the sel- ection of Matthias, by casting lots, to take the place of Judas Iscariot. He refers to this as "the practice of the democratic, congregational vote, just for the world like Baptists do it today." Yet he does not even know what their method of "casting lots" was. How does he know it was "for all the world like Baptists do it today"? Besides this was the selection of an apostle--a thing which is never done by any Baptist Church today. And in making this selection one was chosen (Matthias) and one was rejected (Barsabas). It was the selection of one out of two. Is that the way Baptists vote on candidates for baptism. Do they accept one for baptism and reject another at the same time? If this is "for the world like Baptists do it today," that must be true. He also thinks the selection of the seven in Acts 6:5 26 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS was by majority vote. Since the command of the apostles to choose certain men to look after the daily ministrat- ion "pleased the whole multitude" the "Doctor" thinks the "deacons were elected by the vote of the church." But, according to his reasoning, if fifty-one percent of the "whole multitude" had not been pleased with the plan offered by inspired men, they had a perfect right to veto it and vote it down by a majority vote. Thus they would have determined by a "democratic vote" whether they would follow the plan offered by the apostles of Jesus Christ. According to this, a church would have a right to deter- mine by majority vote whether it would obey ally command- ment given by the apostles. Perhaps that is the reason the Baptist Church will not baptize people "for the remission of sins" according to Acts 2:38. They have voted it down by democratic rule. The following is another statement made by the "Doctor" : "Acts chapter 13 tells of the first CHURCH ELECTION and sending out of foreign mission- aries ... The Holy Ghost called the men to the work, then the church by vote of endorsement, sent them out, under the call of the Holy Ghost." Page 9. If this was the "first church election," as the "Doctor" says, 1 wonder what became of the election of Matthias in Acts 1:26. He gave that as an example of voting in the church "for the world like Baptists do it today." But now he says "the first church election" was held in Acts 13 when Paul and Barnabas were sent on a missionary journey. I am afraid the ingredients of this aspirin are bound to clash. With such self-contradiction so plainly evident, how can the "Doctor" expect his patients to get much relief from this aspirin? You will notice also that "the Holy Ghost called the men to the work" but the church "by vote of endorsement, sent them out." Here again, we find, according to the "Doctor's" prescription, that the church could have vetoed the call made by the Holy Ghost. Although the Holy Ghost called the men for the work, the whole thing could have been thrown aside if a majority of the members of the church at Antioch had voted against it. This certainly shows the absurdity of DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 27 the "democratic vote" as practiced by Baptists today, and the "church vote" aspirin prescribed by "Doctor" Garner has dissolved into harmless and helpless vapors. The "Baptismal Salvation" Aspirin Some of the ingredients of this aspirin, prescribed by "Doctor" Garner for the relief of headaches among his Baptist brethren, are found also in his "faith only" and "non-essential" aspirins. He has the broken pieces thrown around in such manner that it is a little difficult to tell to which aspirin the different fragments belong. But dissolving them, by using the word of the Lord, is such an easy matter that it makes little difference as to where in his package we find the fragments located. Besides this, he has ingredients in these aspirins that actually clash with one another to such an extent that little effort is necessary to bring about their complete dissolution. About all that is necessary is just to unwrap them, lay the pieces beside each other, and let the vapors from one annul and dissolve the other. This clash between the ingredients will become manifest as I point out the self-contradictions found in the prescript- ion written by the "Doctor's" own hand. The chapter heading for this aspirin reads like this: "HOW DOES BAPTISM BRING OUR PRESENT SALVATION?" Is that not rather a strange label to be found on a box of tablets prescribed by a "Baptist Doctor"? If there is any one thing, as already shown in this review, that Baptist preachers do not believe, it is that baptism brings our present salvation. Since they deny that such a thing is possible, why ask "how" it is done? But the question is a further and more complete revelation of Baptist incon- sistencies. The first paragraph of this chapter is in direct con- flict with the heading of this chapter. You will notice this contradiction in the "Doctor's" own language that follows : "1 Pet. 3:21 reads,'The like figure where unto baptism doth also now save us. Baptismal regenerationists twist this and a few similar pas- sages from their setting and use such to assure people that one must 'be-dipped-or-be-damned." Page 10. 28 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS It is evident to any intelligent reader that if baptism "brings our present salvation," as is clearly indicated in the chapter heading, then one cannot have present salvation until he is baptized. That would mean, if language means anything at all, that one is damned until he is dipped. To conform to Baptist teaching and to give any relief whatsoever to Baptist headaches, the heading of the chapter should read: "Our Present Salvation Brings Baptism." But the "doctor" did not write it that way. I am afraid that the language used by the "Doctor" will not only fail to relieve headaches among his brethren but that it will be the cause of a bunch of headaches for them that they might have escaped had it not been for the "Doctor's" prescription. In fact, it is likely to cause the "Doctor" himself to have an epidemic of headaches before the matter is ended. Remember then, that if "baptism brings our present salvation," we are not saved till we are baptized-- we are damned till we are dipped. Yet Mr. Garner says that any man who says you must "be-dipped-or-be- damned" is "twisting" the scriptures from their setting" and places himself among those whom he calls "baptismal regenerationists." "Doctor" Garner has therefore landed right in the middle of that "heretical bunch." How much relief can his Baptist brethren expect to receive from a prescription that is so self-contradictory. But this is not all. Let us take a look at two more fragments of these aspirins as I place them side by side. On page five of his booklet Mr. Garner says: "Baptists teach that baptism is essential. Baptists even teach that baptism is essential to salvation." This language of the "Doctor" might be easily under- stood if he said no more about it, but on page three of his booklet he makes this statement: "Surely baptism can be found in the means, instrumental, or agency case of the preposition if it is necessary to salvation." In one statement he says that "baptism is essential to salvation," but in the other he says it is not "necessary to salvation." Would a "Doctor's" prescription, containing such clashing ingredients, likely be a "headache reliever" DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 29 or a "headache producer" for his Baptist brethren? But take another look at his prescription. On page 10 he says: "Do Baptists believe that baptism saves them? Indeed they do!" But on page three we read: "Try to find where one IS SAVED BY BAPTISM! OR THROUGH BAPTISM!" These statements are self-contradictory-one says that baptism saves, and the other says it does not save. I am afraid the "Doctor" may prove a big disappointment to his suffering brethren. He may become as big a head- ache to them as "Campbellism" has been for all of these years. It is too bad to have to expose a great "Doctor" in such fashion, but if his prescription is any indicat- ion of his qualifications as a "Doctor," he should be dubbed a "quack" by his own brethren, and his license should be taken away from him. Otherwise, he may drive his suffering brethren, like many of them have done in the past, to seek relief from some other source. These self-contradictions may seem strange and start- ling to people who are not accustomed to reading the rantings of a Baptist "Doctor." If so, we might take a look at another statement. It is found on page eleven of Mr. Garner's booklet and reads like this: "Unless one is convicted of the Holy Spirit, repents of his sins, and becomes a child of God by faith in Christ Jesus before he is baptized, baptism does not save." This simply says that unless a man is already saved before he is baptized, baptism does not save him. Of course, according to this gem of logic from this super- intelligent "Doctor," if a man is already saved, he may then be saved by being baptized. In other words, "baptism does not save" the lost man, the unsaved man, but it saves the man who is already saved! If you can figure how a "Doctor" with such scholastic attainments that his very person reflects scholarship and brilliancy could make a statement like the preceding one, you deserve some sort of degree in higher mathematics. 30 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS Commenting on 1 Pet. 3:21 Mr. Garner makes this declaration : "Baptists have always taught that baptism saves them, just for the world like this passage of scripture says. Baptism does NOT SAVE US, IN A FIGURE. That is, baptism paints a picture or symbolizes the crucified, buried, and risen Christ who does save." Booklet, page 10. But it so happens that Peter in this passage does not say that "baptism saves us IN FIGURE." Baptist preach- ers constantly assert that Peter declares that "baptism saves us in a figure" and that "baptism is a figure of our salvation." But neither of these is even remotely hinted at in the passage. Peter says that Noah and family were saved in the ark by water and that our salvation by baptism is "the like figure," or "true likeness," of that. Noah was transported in the ark by the water from the old world to the new. So we are translated by baptism from a state of condemnation to a state of justification. One is a true likeness of the other. But nothing is said about baptism being a "figure of our salvation" or about being saved by baptism "in a figure." What if baptism does "paint a picture of the crucified, buried and risen Christ"? Does that change the language of Peter? Not in the least. That thing that "paints a picture of the crucified, buried, and risen Christ" is the thing that Peter says "now saves us." So all this painting, figur- ing, and symbolizing, accomplishes nothing for my friend's false doctrine. Baptist headaches are not so easily figured away, and the "Doctor's" aspirin dissolves without any damage to the truth of God. After asserting that "Baptists have always taught that baptism saves them," Mr. Garner proceeds to try to prove that it is not so by discussing the matter of "FOL- LOWING JESUS IN BAPTISM." Relative to this point he says: "No one can follow Jesus in baptism unless he is first a child of God. Jesus was the Son of God first; then he was baptized to make manifest to the world that he was the Son of God (John 1:31-33), just for the world like Baptists do it today." Page 10. DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 31 This system of reasoning is very unfortunate for Bap- tist doctrine. When Jesus was a little child, Herod, in his effort to slay him, had all children, two years old and under, slain that were in the region of Bethlehem. But Joseph had been warned by an angel "to take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt." (Matt. 2:18) In this way the life of Jesus was protected from the ven- geance of the ruler. Later, upon the death of Herod, an angel told Joseph to "take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel." (Matt. 2:20) In this return from Egypt Matthew says the prophecy was fulfilled: "Out of Egypt have I called my son." (Matt. 2:15) Since this was accomplished when Jesus was still a "young child," he was the Son of God while he was a young child. In fact, he was just as much "the Son of God" one minute after he was born as he was when he was baptized. Does this prove that nùe are children of God while in a state of infancy? Not according to Baptist doctrine, for Baptists say that little children are born "the children of wrath"--not children of God. Furthermore, in order to be saved, Paul teaches us that "our old man" must be "crucified with Christ." (Rom. 6:6) This process is referred to in Gal. 2:20 as being our crucifixion--"I am crucified with Christ." And in Gal. 6:14 Paul refers to the cross of Christ "by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." As Jesus was put to death on the cross, so must we have the old man crucified, the old manner of life put to death. This is our crucifixion--in this way we are crucified with Christ. Consequently, we are to follow Jesus in crucifixion. But how can we do it, according to "Doctor" Garner? Jesus was the Son of God before he was cruci- fied, but we must become crucified in order to become sons of God. If we must be sons of God before we are baptized, because Jesus was God's Son before his baptism, then we must, for the same reason, be sons of God before our crucifixion. On page six of his booklet Mr. Garner makes the fol- lowing statement: "Baptists 'follow Jesus' in baptism. We teach that people should be baptized, just for the world like Jesus was baptized. He was the Son 32 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS of God first, then he was baptized to make this manifest to the world...Baptism did not make Jesus more righteous or wash away his sins. It only demonstrated to the world that he was the Messiah." The "Doctor" claims in this statement that we should be baptized "just for the world like Jesus was." Since he was "the Son of God first" and then was baptized "to make this manifest to the world," he reasons that we must be the sons of God first and then be baptized to manifest it to the world. Of course, there is a vast difference between his being "the Son of God" and our being "sons of God." But to allow the "Doctor" to have every advantage possible we will let him assume that they mean the same thing. But you must not forget, as Mr. Garner himself admits, that Jesus was not only baptized "to make mani- fest to the world that he was the Son of God" but also in baptism he "demonstrated to the world that he was the Messiah." Now, following Mr. Garner's method of reason- ing, we would have to say: 1. Jesus was baptized to "demonstrate to the world that he was the Messiah." 2. We must be baptized "just for the world like Jesus was baptized." 3. Therefore, we must be baptized to "demon- strate to the world" that we are Messiahs. This argument furnishes quite a promotion for Mr. Garner--it lifts him from the position of "Doctor" and makes a "Messiah"---a Savior--out of him. Perhaps in this new role he may be able to give greater relief to Baptist headaches. In an effort to get baptism out of the plan of sal- vation and to bring relief to his suffering brethren, Mr. Garner makes an argument concerning the "MEANS AND INSTRUMENTS OF SALVATION." Under this heading his pre- scription for this aspirin reads this way: "There are prepositions of 'means' and 'instrument' in our English language. The most common are 'by' and 'through.' These two prep- ositions of 'means' or 'instrument' are used in showing how people are saved ...'Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.' (Gal. 3:26) Faith is an instrument or means of salva- tion. 'In whom we have redemption through his blood.' (Eph. 1:7) Then his blood is an instru- ment or means of salvation. 'For by grace are ye saved through faith.' (Eph. 2:8) Then both faith DISSOLVING A. FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 33 and grace are instruments or means of salvation. "BAPTISM IS NEVER USED IN THE 'Instrumental,' 'Means, or 'Agency' case as a means of procuring salvation. Let the honest, the sincere, the investigating consider well. If the Lord had meant for people to understand that the only way people could be saved was by or through baptism, WHY DID HE NOT USE BAPTISM IN THE INSTRUMENTAL, OR MEANS CASE EVEN ONE TIME when speaking on how to be saved?" Page 11. Here again we find the "Doctor" woefully lost in the fog of Baptist doctrine, for he had just used his "baptism in a figure" argument, which he based on 1 Peter 3:21, to prove that men are both saved and not saved by baptism. In verse 20 of this chapter Peter referred to the ark built by Noah "wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." Since Peter says they were saved "by water," I wonder if this was the "instrument, means, or, agency case" that Mr. Garner talks about. The word "by" is one of the specific prepositions mentioned by the "Doctor" to Drove his "agency case." Very well, then, verse 21 tells us: "The like figure whereunto," or as some translations give it, "After a true likeness, baptism now saves us." Since "water" was a "means" by which Noah and family were saved, and since baptism saves us "after a true likeness," I wonder how he will manage to rule out baptism as a "means" of our salvation. While Mr. Garner says that "baptism is never used in the 'instrumental,' 'means,' or 'agency' case as a means of procuring salvation," we have two passages in the New Testament that definitely put baptism in that case. Read them: "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." (Eph. 5:26) "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." (Tit. 3:5) Here we are said to be cleansed "with" the washing of water and saved "by" the washing of regeneration. These are the prepositions that are never used, according to the "Doctor," to pre- cede baptism. These passages definitely refer to baptism, for it is only in baptism that "water" has any relation to the church of the Lord. Chas. B. Williams, Baptist, in his New Testament translation, renders the 34 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS words in Eph. 5:26, "in the water bath." And in a foot- note he says, "Referring to water baptism." Tit. 3:5 he renders, "through the bath of regeneration." Edger J. Goodspeed, Baptist, in his translation, renders the first passage, "with the bath in water," and the second pas- sage, "through the bath of regeneration." The Bible Union Version, a translation made by T. J. Conant, H. B. Hackett and A. C. Kendrick, all Baptist scholars, renders the first passage, "by the bathing of water," and the second passage, "through the bathing of regeneration." In both of these passages the word "washing" of the Ring James Version is translated from the Greek "loutron." Thayer's Lexicon defines this word, "a bathing, bath," and he says that it is "used in the New Testament and in ecclesiastical writers of baptism." Page 382. He refers to Eph. 5:26 and Tit. 3:5 as uses in the New Testament. In facts, these are the only two instances of its use in the New Testament. There is nothing beneath the stars to which these passages can refer but to baptism. Since one of them says we are cleansed "with the washing of water," and the other says we are saved "by the washing of regen- eration," we have both the prepositions "with" and "by" that show baptism to be a "means" of salvation. The "Doctor" is wrong, his aspirin is gone, and his brethren must continue to suffer their headaches caused by New Testament teaching on baptism. The "Sunday Lord's Supper" Aspirin In the Missionary Baptist Searchlight of December 25, 1951 Mr. Garner refers to this review that is being made of his booklet. He says: "These fellows seem to he woefully ignorant of the fact that the better aspirins are dissolved the more they do." However, "these fellows" are not as "woefully ignorant" as the "Doctor" tries to make himself believe. At the very beginning I gave a reason why this was not true with "Dr. Garner's aspirins." We may grant that aspirins retain all of their potency after being dissolved, but to have any effect on the patient they must be swallowed. And tablets may become so bitter after being dissolved that it is diffi- cult to get one to swallow them. If the "Doctor" can get his brethren to swallow his tablets after they are dissolved, some sooth- DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 35 ing effect might be had on them, but when the ingredients are exposed by dissolving them, it will likely be a very difficult matter to get his brethren to swallow them at all. In this case, their effect is completely lost. Furthermore, if the "Doctor" really believes that this review of his booklet will make his aspirins more effect- ive, he will have a chance to prove his faith by his works. This review will be printed in booklet form. "Doctor" Garner, therefore, should buy an abundant supply of them, and every time he sells one of his brethren one of his booklets, he should also give him a copy of this review that his aspirins might do more for his brethren. I wonder if he will try such an experiment. Will some one please inform me if Mr. Garner proves to be that "woe- fully ignorant"? Relative to the Lord's supper, Mr. Garner states in his booklet, that he has been asked the question: "WHAT ABOUT TAKING THE LORD'S SUPPER EVERY SUNDAY?" This quest- ion has been asked, because of "Catholics and Campbel- lites, who teach that the Lord's supper should be taken on Sunday and EVERY SUNDAY." Regarding these two relig- ious groups the "Doctor" says: "One believes in the doctrine of transub- stantiation and the other in consubstantiation. One believes that after the priest's blessing the bread and wine such becomes the literal body and blood of Christ to remove the sins of the one eat- ing the same; while the latter believes that the bread and wine blessed by their minister has Christ, through the individual's obedience of taking it, to go with them and keep their sins rolled ahead one week at a time." Page 12. In this statement Mr. Garner displays something besides knowledge when he defines "consubstantiation" to mean that if men eat the Lord's supper, it will "keep their sins rolled ahead one week at a time." He might do well to check his dictionary to find the meaning of the term. And he also displays something besides honesty, unless he is "woefully ignorant," when he makes the charge that the headache-producing people whom he calls "Campbeilites" believe any such stuff. We do not believe that eating the Lord's supper on Sunday will "keep sins rolled ahead one week at a time." In fact, we do not believe that anything under the gospel ever "rolls sins ahead." Under 36 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS the Old Testament there was a "remembrance again made of sins every year." (Heb. 10:3) But under the gospel there is complete forgiveness and such sins are remem- bered no more. (Heb. 8:12) We therefore teach that sins are forgiven the children of God when they comply with God's law of pardon, but eating the Lord's supper is not even one of the conditions of that law. The charge made by the unreliable "Doctor" is an unadulterated misrepre- sentation. The ingredients of this aspirin begin to look suspicious. Answering the question, "HOW IS THE LORD'S SUPPER TAKEN ON SUNDAY?", Mr. Garner says: "The Lord's Supper is taken on Sunday by custom and tradition and not by New Testament command! There is not a command in the Bible for the Lord's Supper to be taken on Sunday at all, much less to take it EVERY SUNDAY. There is NEITHER A COMMAND FOR NOR AN EX- AMPLE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER BEING TAKEN ON SUNDAY AT ALL IN THE EN- TIRE NEW TESTAMENT." Page 12. I have not heard of any one who claims the Lord specifically commanded the Lord's supper to be eaten on Sunday, but the claim that there is not "an example of the Lord's supper being taken on Sunday at all in the entire New Testament" is just another wild blunder of a misguided and misinformed Baptist "Doctor." In Acts 20:7 the divine record reads: "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." There can be no question that "the first day of the week" is the day we call Sunday. This meeting of the disciples, therefore, was held on Sunday. Furthermore, they came together on Sunday "to break bread." This could not be the breaking of bread in a common meal, for the disciples did not meet together in public assemblies to eat common meals. In fact, Paul, who was one of the men present at this break ing of bread, on another occasion said: "Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home." (1 Cor. 11:33, 34) The breaking of bread in Acts 20:7 is therefore the Lord's supper--the communion of the body DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 37 and blood of the Lord as mentioned in 1 Cor. 10:16. Thus we have an approved example in the New Testament of the disciples coming together on Sunday to eat the Lord's supper. "Doctor" Garner deliberately denied there being any such example in the New Testament. This is another thing that will make it hard for his brethren to swallow this aspirin after it has been dissolved. Since Jesus commanded his disciples to take the Lord's supper, it must be done at some time. If they partook of it annually, the record would tell of their meeting on a certain day of a certain month to break bread. But no such reference is found in divine history. If they kept it as a monthly service, a certain day of the month would have been the time mentioned on which they came together to break bread. But no such service is mentioned. If they partook of it as a weekly service, a certain day of the week would be specified as the time on which they assemb- led to break bread. And this is exactly what the record says-"the first day of the week." We have therefore divine authority for a weekly service--not only a service for Sunday but for every Sunday. Would you like to know what the "Doctor" has to say about this inspired example. When you have read it you will begin to see why he styles himself "Doctor Garner." But here it is: "If you will read Acts 20 chapter carefully, you may even as I have done, come to the con- clusion that the only effort ever made in New Testament time to pin the law of the Sunday Lord's Supper on the church caused a fuss in the church at Troas. Paul preached on the subject-- objected to taking the Lord's Supper on Sunday, as a matter of law--argued with the church until midnight, when they had met together to take the Lord's Supper on Sunday. A young man in the upper chamber got tired of the discussion, dropped off to sleep fell out of the upstairs win- dow and killed himself. Paul went down, picked the boy up, restored him to life and then, early Monday morning he took the Lord's Supper with them. Thus Paul broke up this first effort to legalize this Sunday Lord's Supper law." Page 13. Talk about Catholicism! What Pope of Rome ever dared to make a greater revision of the divine record than 38 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS "Doctor" Garner has made of the 20th chapter of Acts to suit his theological dogma? He has assumed for himself the prerogative claimed for the papal chair--the right to change the word of God to suit his own ideas. Yes, you can begin to see why he is "Doctor Garner"-he has "doctored" the divine record to uphold Baptist doctrine and to relieve Baptist headaches. "The conclusion" that Mr. Garner reached in the above quotation was reached because he "read carefully" the twentieth chapter of Acts. Have you read it "carefully"? Did you see anything in it that remotely resembled the "conclusion" of Mr. Garner? If you did, I am not surprised at your "seeing" a "Baptist Church" in the Bible. A man who could see what Mr. Garner saw in Acts 20 could see anything he is looking for. Did you find the "fuss in the church at Troas" that Mr. Garner talks about? Mr. Garner "came to the conclusion" that there was one, for how else could he uphold Baptist theology? And did you read that "Paul preached on the subject" of the Sunday Lord's Supper? Well, it must be there somewhere for Mr. Garner "read it carefully." Did you notice in Acts 20 that Paul "objected to taking the Lord's Supper on Sunday" and "argued with the church until midnight" about it? If you didn't see that, you did not read it as "carefully" as the "Doctor" did. Take an- other look-maybe you missed something. And did you discover that the young man who fell out of the window had gone to sleep because he "got tired of the discuss- ion"? Well, that is why it happened, according to the "Doctor's" conclusion. Besides this, where does the passage say "early Mon- day morning he took the Lord's Supper with them"? In verse 11 we learn that Paul broke bread after midnight, but it does not say "with them." No one can definitely prove that this breaking of bread by Paul was the Lord's Supper. But suppose Mr. Garner could prove it, or suppose we just grant it without such proof, it would still re- main for him to prove that this occurred "early Monday morning." How does Mr. Garner know that they did not, on this occasion, follow the Jewish count, reckoning the day from sunset to sunset? If they did follow this count, then this breaking of bread could have occurred before day- DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 39 light on what we call Sunday morning. The only thing "Doctor" Garner could do in this case would be to assert, but having doctored the passages as he has otherwise, we should not be surprised at any assertions he might see to make. But "WHAT IS WRONG WITH TAKING THE LORD'S SUPPER EVERY SUNDAY?" This question Mr. Garner uses for the heading of another paragraph. He declares that "in the letter" there is nothing wrong, but "in the spirit" of the matter "there is much wrong." Then he goes on to say: "I think there would be nothing wrong with taking it seven days a week, if it could be taken in the right spirit." Page 14. The reader will notice that Mr. Garner continually links "Catholics" and Campbellites," claiming both groups teach that the Lord's supper must be taken every Sunday. He evidently hopes, by classifying the people he calls "Campbellites" with the Catholics, to arouse prejudice in minds of his Baptist readers and to soothe, to some extent, their aching heads. He knows his brethren have little respect for the Catholic religion, and if he can make them believe that the despicable "Campbellites" are identical in teaching with the Catholics, he will likely cause them to close their ears against the truth taught by them. But it so happens that the "Doctor" is either "ignorant or dishonest" in his dealing with the Cath- olics, for they do not teach any such thing. They teach that holy communion must be taken once a year, that good Catholics will try to take it once a month, and that the more devoted may take it weekly or daily. Note the fol- lowing statements from Catholic authorities: "The church enforces the command of Christ by requiring Catholics under pain of grievous sin to communicate at the Easter time. This is called the Paschal Communion."-Religion : Doctrine and Practice, by Francis B. Cassilly, page 230. "More frequent Communion however, is ardently desired by the church. As a rule, good Catholics try to receive it once a month and many fervent Christians practice even daily communion." Religion: Doctrine and Practice, page 230. 40 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS "By a law of the church Catholics are obliged to receive Holy Communion during the Easter time. Perhaps most communicants ap- proach the sacred banquet every month; while multitudes of pious souls receive our divine Lord sacramentally weekly or even daily." Catholic Religion, by Charles Alfred Martin, page 199. These authentic statements from Catholic authorities show that Mr. Garner is as far wrong about what Catho- lics believe as he is about what the troublesome "Camp- bellites" believe. According to these quotations, all Catholics take "Communion" yearly, many of them take it monthly, others take it weekly, and some of them daily. You will notice that two of these quotations speak of their "daily communion." And similar statements can be given from other Catholic authorities. In their time for communion, then, do the Catholics look like the people Mr. Garner dubs as "Campbellites"? Do they not rather look like Baptists? You will remember that Mr. Garner says, "I think there would be nothing wrong with taking It seven days a week." Thus he indorses "daily commun- ion." And that is exactly what the Catholics say. They do not require it to be taken every Sunday but actually urge that it be "taken seven days a week" if it can "be taken in the right spirit." They could well adopt Garner's statement as their own, for in their own language, when referring to daily communion, they say: "One who practices frequent Communion, however, should be very careful to do so from a right intention, and not merely as a matter of routine, or because others do so." Religion: Doctrine and Practice, page 230. How much difference is there between this statement and the one made by "Doctor" Garner? They are identical in principle. Instead of getting the "Campbellites" he got himself in a corner with the Catholics, both of them teaching that the Lord's supper can be taken daily. The final stroke of the "Doctor's" pen, as he pre- scribes this aspirin for his brethren, is shown in the concluding statements of this chapter of his booklet. The statements are as follows: "But the NEW LAW, unknown to the New DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 41 Testament, provided by Campbellism and Catho- licism, TO TAKE IT EVERY SUNDAY, TO ROLL AWAY ONE'S SINS FOR A WEEK, is the same kind of hypocrisy demanded by the formalism of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Bap- tists beg to be excused from such religious 'tom- foolery'." Page 14. But the "Doctor," as a representative of Baptists, does not "beg to be excused" from misrepresenting both religious groups to which he refers, for neither of them teaches the thing that he attributes to them. Can this he charged to "woeful ignorance" or"downright dishonesty"? He raises a loud cry about somebody's 'lying on the Bap- tists," but he might do well to have a little private talk with himself about how he deals with other religious people. Or would he rather be classed with "notorious ignoramuses" ? Instead of telling Baptists to "hold this aspirin under the noses of Campbellites," now that the aspirin is dis- solved and its ingredients revealed, it may become necessary for the "Doctor" to start "holding Baptist noses" in an effort to get them to swallow the stuff. The "Absolute Infallibility" Aspirin Misrepresentation is the ally of a weak cause. When men must misrepresent religious people in an effort to arouse prejudice against them, the cause which they represent is badly in need of support that cannot be obtained otherwise. Certainly "Doctor" Garner falls within this classification. The people whom he calls "Campbellites" are people who are determined to be guided by the unerring word of God. They simply ask for a "thus saith the Lord" for the things they do in religion. They want to be nothing in religion but Christians, to follow faithfully the divine standard of eternal truth. But such a desire and effort on their part arouses the hatred of Baptist "Doctors" like Mr. Garner, who cannot meet them on the basis of the teaching of the word of the Lord and must, therefore, try to arouse prejudice by base misrep- resentations. He may talk about "notorious liars" who "peddle falsehoods" and seek "through chicanery and deception" to create prejudice in the hearts of people toward the Baptists, but when he does so he gives a 42 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS vivid description of his own efforts to destroy what he calls "Campbellism." This is manifest in his first para- graph of this chapter of his booklet as he presents to his brethren his "absolute infallibility" aspirin that he hopes may be swallowed by them before they have time to look at it. He says: "There are two religious sects in the world that claim infallibility--the Roman Catholics and the Campbellites (choosing to fly their religious kite under the guise of church of Christ). Of these two sects, the Campbellites have become the most sectarian. The Catholic Church lays claim of infallibility for their pope only and that only when he speaks on matters of their church. The Campbellites 'Out-Pope' the pope of Catholicism and CLAIM ABSOLUTE INFALLIBILITY for their entire church or sect." Page 14. There you have it in the "Doctor's" own language! Poor, deluded "Campbellites"! They are worse than the Catholics ever dared to be. The "Doctor" still thinks he can get Baptists to swallow his aspirins if he can keep them thinking that the Catholics and "Campbellites" are Siamese twins. But the people whom Mr. Garner hates so desperately have never made any claim to infallibility. This is another of those things that have originated in the fertile imagination of this Baptist giant. But upon what does he base this reckless charge? He bases his whole contention upon the slogan we often use that "we speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent." Read it in his own words as he endeavors to soothe the headaches of his suffering comrades: "I have charged that these people CLAIM ABSOLUTE INFALLIBILITY. Sane people can see through the claim when they have it called to their attention. If one believes that the Bible is inspired and infallible, then 'to speak where it speaks and be silent where it is silent,' is to be infallible. Baptists do not claim to do this. The Catholics do not even claim not to err, but these people, dubbing themselves 'church of Christ,' do." Pages 14, 15. Let us dissolve this aspirin a little at a time and let Baptists see what its ingredients really are. There are DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 43 many honest people among the Baptists, and when they see the stuff that "Garner's Aspirins" are made of, they will refuse to be "doped" with any such "drugs." You will notice, in the first place, that the "Doctor" says that "Baptists do not claim to do this"--to "speak where the Bible speaks and to be silent where the Bible is silent." This is quite an admission to be made by a "Baptist Doctor," but I have been fully aware of this truth for many years. This fact accounts for the things that Bap- tist preachers preach and the things they do in relig- ion...This explains, in the first place, why such a thing exists as the Baptist Church. If men had been willing to "speak where the Bible speaks and to be silent where it is silent," there never would have been one, for the Bible in no way authorizes the existence of one. It is no where named in the Bible. Neither is there any statement made in the Bible that would lead to a scriptural con- clusion that any such church has any right to exist. Men had to depart from Bible teaching in order to establish any such institution. Furthermore, men cannot be governed by the Bible as their rule today and become members of the Baptist Church of any style or description. "Doctor" Garner is a member of the Baptist Church today, and he is a Baptist preacher, because "Baptists do not claim" to speak where the Bible speaks. Upon this same ground you can account for their false doctrine of "salvation by faith only." The Bible says that men are "justified by works and not by faith only." (Jas. 2:24) But Baptists do not claim to speak where the Bible Speaks. They, there- fore, can say, as I have shown by many quotations from them that men "are justified by faith only." If you wonder why Baptists teach that sinners may "pray through to salvation" at the mourner's bench, you don't need to wonder any longer. In the Bible, of course, inspired men told sinners, who were praying, to "arise, and be bap- tized and wash away thy sins." (Acts 22:16) But Baptists do not claim, according to Garner's admission, to "speak where the Bible speaks." So you should not be surprised that they make statements in direct conflict with Bible statements. If you have been puzzled as to why Baptists teach that baptism is "non-essential to salvation," your puzzle has been solved by the "Doctor." The Bible tells men to 44 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS "be baptized for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38), and it informs us that men are "baptized into Christ." (Gal. 3:27) But you don't need to expect to hear Baptist preachers repeating these statements- "Baptists do not claim to do this." Therefore, they can be expected to say that "baptism is not for the remission for sins" and that men get "into Christ before baptism." The course one fol- lows depends entirely on his attitude toward what the Bible says. If you have been trying to figure out why Baptist preachers teach "once in grace, always in grace," you have the solution to your problem. Paul in Gal. 5:4 actually said, "Ye are fallen from grace." But since "Baptists do not claim" to speak where the Bible speaks, you can understand why they teach otherwise. And if you have ever wondered why they are willing to wear the name "Baptist" instead of the name divinely authorized, you can now relax. "Baptists do not claim" to speak where the Bible speaks. The "Doctor" says so. The Bible says "the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch" (Acts 11:26) and "the churches of Christ salute you." (Rom. 16:16). But these modern day "Doctors"of religion of Garner's type say that "the disciples should be called Baptists" and that "Baptist churches should send their greetings." Is there any Bible for it? Oh, no. They don't need any, for "Baptists do not claim" to speak as the Bible speaks. After saying that "Baptists do not claim to do this" the "Doctor" goes on to say, "The Catholics do not even claim not to err, but these people, dubbing themselves 'church of Christ,' do." Since the poor, deluded "Camp- bellites" claim to "speak where the Bible speaks and to be silent where the Bible is silent," but neither the Baptists nor Catholics make such a claim, then I wonder who is more like the Catholics--the "Campbellites" or the Baptists. Here again the brilliant "Doctor," while trying to hem the "Campbellites" in a corner with the Catholics, finds himself in the corner with them. Does he think that "sane people' 'among the Baptists will not be able to "see through" this claim "when they have it called to their attention"? The truth of the matter is that Bap- tists have many things in common with the Catholics. Both of them claim to be able to trace a succession back DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 45 to the apostles; both of them wear sectarian names un- authorized by the Bible; both of them teach the doctrine of inherited depravity; both of them claim not to go by the Bible in many particulars; both of them use instru- mental music in their worship; both of them substitute human traditions for the word of God. Who is the great "Doctor" Garner to try to create prejudice against the "Campbellites" because he thought he found a similarity between some of their teaching and the teaching of the Catholics? "They who live in glass houses should not throw stones." Then, too, I might inform Mr. Garner that Baptist preachers do not seem to be agreed about this matter. In a recent debate which I had with Mr. Hoyt Chastain in Memphis, Tennessee, Mr. Chastain repeatedly said that "Baptists speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent." But Mr. Garner says that "Baptists do not claim to do this." It might be well for these two men to get together on this matter. Both of them attended the same school and got their "doctoring" authority from the same source. But "Dr." Chastain says one thing; and "Dr." Garner says the very reverse. Well, the difference was that "Doctor" Chastain was on the spot in a public discussion, and he had to make some ef- fort to justify his doctrine by the Bible, but "Doctor" Garner was in his room, with no one to disturb him, while he prescribed his aspirins. Likely, if he changed places with Mr. Chastian he would want to change doctrinal po- sitions also. But does the claim, "to speak where the Bible speaks and to be silent where the Bible is silent," mean absolute infallibility? Hear Mr. Garner as he rants and raves about it: "If the church does what it claims in the slogan then it is infallible; if it does err even in one point, then its slogan contains a PLAIN FALSEHOOD. To believe that the Bible is in- fallible, then to 'speak where it speaks and be silent where it is silent' is to be infallible. If this sect (known to history as Campbellites) has an infallible church as they claim in their slogan, it follows that EVERY MEMBER OF THEIR CHURCH MUST BE INFALLIBLE." Page 15. 46 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS This sort of profound reasoning, which is character- istic of the great "Doctor," puts the apostle Peter in a tight place. He said one time: "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God." (1 Pet. 4:11) I sup- pose that "Doctor" Garner, with all of his medical skill, and with all of his authority to prescribe aspirins, would not deny that "the oracles of God" simply means "the word of God" --the Bible. Then Peter simply said that "if any man speak, let him speak as the word of God speaks --let him speak as the Bible speaks." And notice that he said, "If any man speak." That simply means, "Let every man speak as the oracles of God." "Let every man speak as the word of God speaks." It is too bad that "Doctor" Garner was not present when Peter wrote that statement. He could have straightened him out on the matter. He could have said, "Now, Pete, I know that you are one of the apostles chosen by Jesus and that you are inspired by the Holy Spirit, but you don't realize just what you are saying. If you could have had a course in the Missionary Baptist Seminary at Little Rock, Arkansas, founded by the great Ben M. Bogard, and if you could have obtained a 'Doctor's' degree from this non-accredited institution, which would have given you the authority I have--the authority to prescribe aspirins--you would be able to see that you are suggesting ABSOLUTE IN- FALLIBILITY for EVERY MAN IN THE CHURCH. Don't you believe, Peter, that the oracles of God are infallible? If you do, then to 'speak as the oracles of God' is to be infallible. And since you tell every man to speak in this way, you are suggesting that 'every member of the church must be infallible.' So if the men to whom you are writing even claim to do what you are telling them to do, they are claiming absolute infallibility. And 'if any local congregation has one member that is not perfect, infallible, then their claim contains a plain false- hood.' Be careful, Peter. You are lining up with these 'arrogant, religious bigots and persecuting zealots', who are 'known to history as Campbellites,' constituting 'a sect that claims a franchise on the gospel of Christ'." Yes, it is too bad that Mr. Garner was not there to set right the apostle Peter when he said: "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God." He could DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 47 have told him that this sort of language was calculated to give Baptists a throbbing headache. But Peter rushed recklessly on, according to the "Doctor's" blusterings, and suggested the very thing that would cause the "Doc- tor" to raise the charge of absolute infallibility for all members of the church. Mr. Garner might have told him also that this "idea" did not originate with God but with an unbaptized man. Such is his language as found in his booklet, according to the following quotations: "In the first pace this slogan: 'Speaking where the Bible speaks and silent where the Bible is silent, is a statement originated by Thomas Campbell, a man who had not even been baptized." (Page 14) "Just be reminded that their slogan that lays claim to infallibility was originated by Thomas Campbell and not by the Lord. It was made by Mr. Campbell and is the idea of an uninspired, unbaptized man." (Page 2) One might well admit that the exact expression was framed by Thomas Campbell. Certainly, they are words that were spoken by him. But to say that the "idea" originated with Campbell is as far from the truth as is most of the other statements of the deceptive "Doc- tor." The words of the apostle Peter, which have already been given, contain the same idea that is expressed in the words of Thomas Campbell. The idea, therefore, did not originate with man, but the Holy Spirit revealed it to Peter and directed him to write it in the divine record. I am not surprised that it causes headaches among Baptists who do not claim to speak where the Bible speaks. And it will take more than any aspirin yet prescribed by the "Doctor" to bring them much relief. The dyspeptic "Doctor," made bitter by a long spell of nervous headache, gives expression to his acrimonious feeling in the following elegant style: "I ask myself,'Why do they require the HOLY CRACKER episode every Sunday if they are, as a church, infallible as the Scriptures?" (Page 16) The "Doctor" might well examine himself on other 48 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS points. He might ask himself' "How can a man with a HOLY CHARACTER speak of the Lord's supper as 'the HOLY CRACKER episode'?" If, as Jesus says, "from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh," we can have a pretty good idea as to what is on the inside of Mr. Garner's heart. A heart and mouth given to such blasphemy as to call the Lord's supper "the holy cracker episode" needs something more than a few aspirins. A good gospel purgative that will cleanse the inner man of his corruption and depravity is the kind of prescrip- tion the "Doctor" sorely needs for his own malignant malady. We would be exceedingly glad if someone should be able to induce him to try a little of it. I feel sure it would do him good. The final strokes of the "Doctor's" pen, as he fin- ishes his prescription for this aspirin, spell out the following words: "If you are persecuted by these conceited, arrogant, religious bigots, stick this article un- der their noses and let them smell of it." (Page 16) We gladly admit that this aspirin has a "smell' all right, but the odor is that of the infernal regions, the smell of brimstone, indicative of the place from which the "Doctor" got the ingredients for this potent little pill. But the people who take their stand on the rock of eternal truth, maliciously called "Campbellites" by Mr. Garner, are not likely to be put to sleep by the vapors of a dissolving aspirin that came from the lake of fire and brimstone. Having imbibed the essence of divine truth they will likely be immune to the "smell" of an aspirin prescribed by a Baptist "Doctor," and the headaches of Baptists will continue unabated. The "Plain Forgery" Aspirin The prescription for this particular aspirin is intro- duced by "Doctor" Garner in the following words: "I do not write this to insult or offend or for the particular benefit of Campbellites themselves, but to open the eyes of true Christians concern- ing Campbellism and her mischievous and wicked claim of a franchise on salvation and that one DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 49 must be a member of their particular little sect, known to them and dubbed by them, "The church of Christ,' or go to hell." Booklet, page 16. I feel certain that no one who has read the first fif- teen pages of Garner's booklet would ever decide that he prescribed his aspirins "for the particular benefit of Campbellites themselves." His fondest hope, of course, was to benefit his own brethren whose splitting headaches are produced by the arguments of "true Christians," dubbed "Campbellites" by Mr. Garner, as they expose the fallacies of Baptist doctrine. But if the "Doctor" had not written the preceding paragraph, somebody might have decided that he intended to be insulting and offensive by indulging in such dignified discourse and by using such sublime sentences and lofty language as are character- istic of the contents of his booklet. It was "mighty thoughty" of him to include that statement so that no one would be misled about the matter. A paragraph under the heading, "CONCERNING RELIGIOUS FORGERY," is presented, and Mr. Garner presents his charge in the following fashion: "To use the name of another for personal profits or benefit, without due legal authorization is called forgery. Campbellism has done this in this century, by assuming the name of Christ, without scriptural authorization. No local New Testament church ever wore the name of Christ or was named, "the church of Christ.' The name for a local church was forged by Campbellites about fifty years ago." Page 16. On the next page of his booklet "Doctor" Garner admits that "the local churches were called "the churches of Christ" in Rom. 16:16. In view of this admission and the New Testament statement, how can Mr. Garner con- tend that "no local New Testament church" was ever called "the church of Christ"? If "the local churches" were called "the churches of Christ," then certainly "the local church" would be "the church of Christ." Yet the "Doctor" would have you believe that "the name for a local church was forged by Campbellites about fifty years ago." This shows something of the nature of the ingre- dients that went into this "aspirin for Campbellism," for 50 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS if a plural number--local churches--were divinely called "the churches of Christ," would that not be sufficient scriptural authority for one local church to be referred to by the singular number of the same expression? The "Doctor" declares, however, that "to use the name of another for personal profits or benefit, without due legal authorization is called forgery." By "due legal authorization" Mr. Garner means, as is shown in the next sentence of the quotation, "scriptural author- ization.' Therefore, to use the name of another for personal benefit, without scriptural authorization, is plain forgery. Evidently the "Doctorù" is allergic to his own pills, for he gets a very unfavorable reaction from them. Mr. Garner wears the name "Baptist." He evidently wears it for "personal profits or benefit" that he hopes to get from it. But this is a name taken from the title given to John, the forerunner of Christ-John the Baptist. To wear this name "without due legal authorization" is to be guilty to plain religious forgery. Mr. Garner says so. But does he have any "due legal authorization" to wear this name? Does he have any "scriptural authorization" for it? If there is any scriptural authority--any "due legal authorization"-- for any man to wear this name in religion today, let Mr. Garner produce it. If he cannot, let him call in all the "Doctors" in Baptist ranks to help him find it. On page 20 of his booklet Mr. Garner says that "the name 'Baptist' was given in derision to churches that were followers of the Lord, during the protestant reformation for the first time." Since the name "Baptist" was given "to churches," according to Mr. Garner, "for the first time during the protestant reformation," that was sixteen hundred years too late for his "due legal authorization." There is not even a state- ment anywhere in the Bible that would authorize, by any method of teaching, any church to wear the name of "Baptist." But "Doctor" Garner and his brethren wear it. As they wear it "without due legal authorization," the "Doctor" being the diagnostician, they are guilty of "plain religious forgery." Thus you can see how this pill reacts upon the man who prescribed it. In an effort to explain the "MEANING OF THE TERM 'THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST SALUTE YOU'," the author of "A Few Aspirins For Campbellism" says: Dissolving A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 51 "Romans 16:16 reads, 'The churches of Christ salute you." This is a statement of fact. Paul wrote this letter to the church at Rome, from Corinth in Achaia, where there were several local churches located. The churches of Achaia and Macedonia were all churches that belonged to Christ, but none of them WORE HIS NAME, OR ASSUMED TO FORGE IT. Churches of New Testament days were named in keeping with their localities as the church of Galatia, Ephesus, Colosse, Corinth, seven churches of Asia, etc., all of them belonging to God and to Christ, but never did one of them assume to forge the name of Christ to its congregation or any minister or pastor presume to name any congregation by the name 'the church of Christ'." Page 17. This paragraph is quite revealing. If it is "a state- ment of fact" that "Paul wrote to the churches in Rome, from Corinth in Achaia, where there were several local churches" and that he referred to them as "the churches of Christ" in Achaia, why would it not also be "a state- ment of fact" to refer to the church at Corinth, where Paul was, as "the church of Christ" at Corinth in Achaia? If it was a fact that " several local churches" were "the churches of Christ" in that region, it is also a fact that "one local church" was "the church of Christ" in the locality. And if Paul could call the "several local churches," as Garner admits that he did, "the churches of Christ," without forging the name of Christ and without being guilty of any form of presumption, then why could not "one local church" be called "the church of Christ," without being guilty of forgery and presumption? It would be interesting to hear the "Doctor" try to explain his inconsistency on this point. Furthermore, if "several local churches" were called "the churches of Christ" by Paul, why does Mr. Garner say that "no local church" was ever called "the church of Christ"? It is impossible to apply the plural form of the expression to several of them without applying its singular form to one of them. But he tells us that "churches of New Testament days were named in keeping with their localities," as the church of Ephesus, the church of Corinth, and such like. Yes, sometimes the locality was mentioned, but Mr. Garner would not be willing to take the name of the location as 52 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS the name of the institution that is located there. Be- sides, we remember that Paul referred to "the church of God which is at Corinth." (1 Cor. 1:2) He did not always say "the church of Corinth." And he mentioned "the church of the Lord (Acts 20:28, R.V.) at Ephesus, and not simply and always "the church of Ephesus." But if Mr. Garner thinks he should name the church after its locality, why does he not practice what he preaches? Do Mr. Garner and his associate "Doctors" in the Baptist ranks simply refer to their congregations as the church of Jacksonville, the church of Henderson, and such like. Absolutely not. But they often designate them as the Bethel Baptist Church, the Berean Baptist Church, the Calvary Baptist Church, the Antioch Baptist Church, the Unity Baptist Church, and such like terms. What connection do the words, Bethel, Berean, Calvary, Antioch, Unity and Baptist have with their location? Not one bit in the world. You would never get the slightest idea as to their locality by reading such names. So they go contrary to the "Doctor's" pre- scription. Besides, did you ever read anything in the Bible that has the slightest resemblance to the Bethel Baptist Church at Corinth, the Berean Baptist Church at Ephesus, the Calvary Baptist Church at Thessalonica, or the Antioch Baptist Church at Colosse? Neither the term "Baptist" nor any of its qualifying terms is found in the divine record as designations of the New Testament church. No Baptist Church, therefore, of any type has ever been "located" in the Book of Almighty God. But let us listen again to the limping logic of the great Garner: "The term 'churches of Christ salute you' indicated that these churches belonged to Christ and not that they more the name. The term 'church of Christ' means the church that BE- LONGS TO CHRIST. lust like 'the car of Smith' means THE CAR THAT BELONGS TO SMITH. The 'car of Smith' might be a pontiac or ford or chevrolet by name." Page 17. In language as I have studied it, the words Pontiac, Ford, and Chevrolet should begin with capital letters, but since the brilliant "Doctor" wrote the prescription, I have just copied it as he wrote it. He tells us that "the church DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 53 of Christ" is "just like" the other expression, "the car of Smith." One means that the church belongs to Christ; the other means the car belongs to Smith. But "the car of Smith" is not the name, he says, for Smith's car may be a "Pontiac, Ford or Chevrolet by name." So if the other is "just like" that, then "the church of Christ" may be a Baptist, Methodist or Presbyterian by name. Will the "Doctor" have this? Oh, no, for in the next paragraph he says, "I believe the Baptist Church to be 'the church of Christ'." If the Baptist Church is "the church of Christ," then it cannot be "just like" the "car of Smith." To make his parallel stick, he will have to admit that the Methodist or Presbyterian may be "the church of Christ." He would not do this for he believes the "church of Christ" is the Baptist Church. I don't suppose anyone ever denied that "the church of Christ" denotes ownership --that the church belongs to Christ. But since the New Testament church was always called by such terms, why would it not be better to call it what it is called in the New Testament than to call it "Baptist Church," a term that is never found in any sense in all the Bible. If it is "the church of Christ," why would it be forgery to call it what it is? It appears to me that the man guilty of forgery is the mall that tries to forge for the church a designation that is never mentioned in the divine record. Can we be guilty of forgery if we call it just what the New Testament called it? If so, why were not the writers of the New Testament guilty of "plain forgery" when they used such terms to describe it? Mr. Garner undertakes to answer the question, "WHAT IS THE CHURCH OF CHRIST?" It is interesting and amusing, if not amazing, to read what he says: "What church today is the church of Christ, the one that belongs to Him? I believe the Bap- tist Church to be 'the church of Christ,' and the local congregations 'the churches of Christ,' the churches that BELONG TO CHRIST. Then why don't Baptists wear the name,'the church of Christ'? you ask. The answer is WE DO NOT WEAR THE NAME OF CHRIST BECAUSE AS A CHURCH, AS AN INSTITUTION WE ARE NOT MARRIED TO CHRIST! ... It is forgery for an unmarried young lady to wear the name of 54 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS one to whom she is not married. Whatever the New Testament church should be named, one thing is certain, and that is it should not wear the name of Christ, which neither He nor any of the apostles ever gave to any local congregation. The New Testament church is referred to as the bride of Christ, the marriage of which is to be in the future, at the second coming of Christ. Today the church is engaged to Christ, espoused, and is to be married to him in the future." P. 17. In the first place, I would have you to notice Mr. Garner's use of the expression, "the church of Christ," in the universal sense. This is contrary to the general teaching of Baptist preachers. They often say that the word "church" is used only in the local sense--that you can say "the churches of Christ," referring to local congregations, but you cannot say "the church of Christ" and mean the church universally. But "Doctor" Garner has prescribed a new aspirin for them that may change all of that--it is guaranteed to ease their headaches, or make them worse. You will notice that he speaks of "the Baptist Church" as being "the church of Christ" in contrast with "the local congregations, the churches of Christ." So he uses "churches of Christ" to refer to "local congregations" but he uses "the church of Christ" to mean "the Baptist Church" in a sense that is not local. We shall let him and the rest of the Baptist "Doctors" fight it out on this line. And, actually, if he believes the Baptist Church to be the church of Christ, he should call it that, unless he thinks he should not call it what it is. He tells us why the Baptist Church, which he believes to be the church of Christ, does not wear the name of Christ. It is "because as a church, as an institution," they "are not married to Christ." The marriage ceremony, according to the "Doctor," is to take place in the future when Christ comes. During the present age the church is only engaged to Christ. No woman has the right, during the period of engagement, to wear the name of her pros- pective husband. Hence, Mr. Garner says, "It is forgery for an unmarried young lady to wear the name of one to whom she is not married." I would have to agree, as far as ages of churches are concerned, that the Baptist Church is just a "young lady," with emphasis on the word DISSOLVING A. FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 55 "young." She was never heard of till sixteen hundred years this side of Christ. No Baptist Church can be found in the history of the world till the seventeenth century. And every one knows she is not mentioned in the Bible. Hence, she fits "Doctor" Garner's description-- 'an un- married young lady." But that does not prove that the New Testament church is an "unmarried young lady." Paul, in Eph. 5:23, said: "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church." Now, if Christ is the head of the church "even as" the husband is the head of the wife, the marriage relationship does exist-Christ is the hus- band and the church is the wife. They are married now. Consequently, the New Testament church has the right to wear the name of Christ now, even if the "unmarried young lady," the Baptist Church, does not have that right. Another thing I would like for you to notice is that Mr. Garner reasons that it is forgery for a young lady to wear the name of a man to whom she is not married. But what name does the "young Baptist lady" wear? She wears the name "Baptist." Where does she get this name ? It is derived from the designation given to John--John the Baptist. Therefore, one of two things must be true: The Baptist Church is married to John, or she is guilty of "forgery" for wearing the name of a man to whom she is not married. I wonder which of these the "Doctor of Aspirins" will accept. Will he say that she is married to John? If so, then she is not "an unmarried young lady." Furthermore, she would be married to one man and en- gaged to another--married to John and engaged to Christ --at the same time. (No Baptist headache will ever he relieved by this aspirin.) If the church is married to John now but will be married to Christ when he comes, when will the first marriage relationship give way to make room for the second? Will the church be forced to divorce John, the first husband, and become a "grass widow" that she might be married to Christ when he comes? If the marriage is not severed before the second takes place, there will be a case of bigamy of eternal durat- ion--the church will have two husbands throughout eternity, John 56 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS and Jesus. The whole thing, therefore, will be an eternal relationship of spiritual adultery. And furthermore, be- fore this second marriage takes place, I would like to know what right a woman has to be engaged to a second husband while married to a first husband. What estimate would "Doctor" Garner place upon a young lady who would tolerate such an arrangement? But that is the very course he has mapped out for the church if she is married to John now. Very likely, then, Mr. Garner will be forced back to his original position that the Baptist Church is not mar- ried to John--that she is "an unmarried young lady." Then I want to know what right she has to wear the name "Bap- tist." Remember that Mr. Garner says,"It is forgery for an unmarried young lady to wear the name of one to whom she is not married." The Baptist Church--not the people dubbed "Campbellites" by the "Doctor"--is the one, there- fore, who is guilty of forgery. I wonder how his Baptist brethren like the "smell" of this dissolving aspirin. In view of Mr. Garner's claim that an unmarried lady has no right to wear the name of a man to whom she is only engaged (and I shall indorse that claim as legitimate), I want to know if she has the right to wear the name of a friend of the prospective husband during her period of engagement. John declared that he was not the bride- groom but "the friend of the bridegroom." (John 3:29) Does the church, during the time she is engaged to Christ, have a right to wear the name of his friend? Would Mr. Garner permit his fiancee, or if he is already married, would he have permitted his fiancee, to wear the name of a friend of his during her engagement to him. I wonder if, under such arrangements, the ceremony would ever take place. But let us look at some more of the mixed meander- ings of "Doctor" Garner with reference to the marriage question: "As individuals we are now married to Christ and should produce spiritual fruit for Him. (Rom. 7:4) But the church of Christ is not married to Him, has no right to forge His name, as an insti- tution. We are not warranted as individuals to wear the name of Christ, be called Christians, DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 57 followers of Christ, BUT THE CHURCH IS NEVER REFERRED TO AS BEING NOW MARRIED TO CHRIST, NOR AUTHORIZED TO BE CALLED, AS A CHURCH, BY HIS NAME Until we are married to Christ, as a church, it is well that we be called Baptists as a church and Christians as individuals. To demand that our church wear the name 'the church of Christ,' and that before marriage, is engaging in spiritual fornication. Baptists and others beg to be excused. We refrain from religious forgery and such forni- cation." Page 18. If Baptists "beg to be excused from such fornication" as to wear the name of Christ before they are married to him, I wonder why they don't "beg to be excused" from wearing the name of John. They will have to admit that they are not "refraining" from "such fornication" or they will have to admit that they are married to John. I am afraid the "Doctor" will be unable to help them any in deciding which position to take. Yet we are told that "as individuals we are married to Christ," but as a church we are "not married to Him." Then it must be purely an individual relationship, and each Christian is the "individual wife" of Christ. Con- sequently, Christ has as many wives now as there are Christians. If there are a million Christians in the world, Christ has a million wives. This mould be polygamy with a vengeance. Furthermore, if ten million individuals have become Christians during this age, then when Jesus comes to marry the church he will have clinging to him ten million wives as he marches to the altar to take the church as his bride. Then throughout eternity He will live in spiritual adultery with ten million wives plus one. I think the Baptists would be in much better condition if they "beg to be excused" from swallowing such an aspirin prescribed by "Doctor" Garner. In fact, I doubt if an honest person among them could be forced to swallow this aspirin after it has been dissolved so they can actually see its contents. The "Name Wearing" Aspirin This is the last aspirin in "Doctor" Garner's pill box, and it is very much like the "Plain Forgery" aspirin that has already been dissolved. But I shall let Mr. Garner tell 58 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS you about it as he endeavors to answer the question, "WHAT ABOUT 'WEARING THE NAME OF CHRIST'?" "There is a modern sect of religion that makes 'much ado' about wearing the name of Christ. 'Why don't you Baptists wear the name of Christ?' they often ask. The answer is, Christ is not our Savior's name. His name is JESUS. (Matt. 1:21) "Thou salt call his name JESUS.' The term 'CHRIST' is a title given our Savior. The word 'Christ' comes from a Creek word that means 'christened' or 'anointed.' Hence the term 'Christ' is the title of our 'anointed King' who is yet uncrowned. We should not presume to wear his title 'Christ' and call it 'wearing the name of Christ.' Such is plain ignorance, unwarranted, and unauthorized." Page 18. While in many respects this aspirin and the one that went before it are alike, yet they have some ingredients that are in direct conflict with each other. In this quotation the "Doctor" argues that "Christ" is the title of the Savior but "Jesus" is his name. Therefore no one is "wearing the name" of Christ when he wears his title. Upon this point he further elaborates in the next para- graph: "To my knowledge there is only one religious group that wears the 'name' of Jesus: that is a religious order called the 'Jesuits.' The modern demand of a few religious sectarians, who place much stress on 'names,' is given very little respect by thinking and sincere people. Until they learn that Jesus never demanded that his name be worn by his followers, and then learn that 'Christ' is not our Savior's name, but His title, Christian people will do well to avoid and ignore their sec- tarian demands ... It is well to suggest that they call themselves 'Jesusites.' This would at least be wearing, as they demand, the NAME OF JESUS instead of his title." Pages 18 and 19. Thus you will see that to accept either the term "Christ" or "Christian," according to Mr. Garner, would not be "wearing the name of Christ." It would simply be wearing his title. In order to wear his name we would have to call ourselves "Jesuits" or "Jesusites. But in his prescription for the preceding aspirin the "Doctor" talks out of the other side of his mouth or writes with his other DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 59 hand. You will recall that he said he believed "the Baptist Church to be the church of Christ." Then if some one should ask him why Baptists do not wear the name, "the church of Christ," he states that his reply would be that "we do not wear the name of Christ because we are not married to Christ." Furthermore, he said, "To demand that our church wear the name 'the church of Christ,' and that before marriage, is engaging in spiritual fornica- tion." (Page 18) So in this prescription for that aspirin he said that to wear the name, "the church of Christ," is to wear the name of Christ before marriage and makes us guilty of "spiritual fornication" and "religious forg- ery." Yes, those who wear the name, "the church of Christ," are wearing the name of Christ by forgery. But in his prescription for this aspirin he says it would not be wearing the name of Christ at all but his title. And even to call it "wearing the name of Christ" is an evi- dence of "plain ignorance, unwarranted, and unauthor- ized." But in the preceding chapter he called it "wearing the name of Christ." Then he was guilty of "plain ignor- ance, unwarranted, and unauthorized," according to his own diagnosis. This is quite a confession for such a brilliant "Doctor" to make. Some "plain ignorance" is manifested somewhere, for the two groups of statements are in plain conflict, and one aspirin actually cancels the effect of the other. But me are told by the befuddled "Doctor" that to wear the name "Christian," derived from the title of Christ, and to call it wearing his name is nothing but plain ignorance. This causes me to wonder about those who wear the title of John. If they claim to be wearing a name when they are only wearing a title, does the same charge of "plain ignorance" hold true? But who is doing that? Mr. Garner and his brethren. Note what he says about it himself: "The term 'Baptist' like 'Christ' was first given as a 'title.' John the Baptist was named 'John.' (John 1:6) His title was Baptist, because he had authority and was authorized to baptize." (John 1:31-33) Page 20. That ought to settle it. Baptists claim to be wearing 60 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS a "name" but it is the "title" of John that they are wearing, and in so doing, they are manifesting what the "Doctor" calls "plain ignorance." I wonder if this will relieve Baptist headaches. If wearing the term "Chris- tian" is wearing a title instead of a name, then wearing the term "Baptist" is wearing a title instead of a name. Such is the predicament of Baptist "Doctors" when they start prescribing aspirins to destroy "Campbellism" in an effort to soothe the throbbing heads of their brethren. The "Doctor of Aspirins" (His scholastic degree should be D.A.) informs us that "the modern demand" made by a "few religious sectarians, who place much stress on 'names,' is given very little respect by thinking and sincere people." Then I wonder why he ever prescribed his aspirins in the first place. Does he not think his brethren are "thinking and sincere people"? If they are, and if they give but "very little respect" to the "modern demand" made by "Campbellites" to wear a scriptural name, there was little occasion to spend his time and effort to write his booklet. But Mr. Garner was more uneasy about the matter than this statement would indicate. He knew that many of brethren leave the Baptist Church, with its unscriptural name, and take their stand with the people who wear the name of Christ. So he wrote his book in an effort to slow down the exodus. The "Doctor's" logical discrimination is further re- vealed in the following quotation: "Those who cry so much about 'wearing the name of Christ,' whose name is Jesus (Matt. 1:21), also teach that one can not be a Christian unless he 'wears the name of Christ.' This being true, one would have to be called a 'Jesuit' or a 'Jesusite' in order to be saved and this whole feud- ing clan, who demand that one must wear the name of Christ, ignorantly wear the 'title' of Jesus, which is 'Christ,' then call it 'Wearing His Name'." Page 19. It is thus that we are again informed by the deluded "Doctor" that those who wear the name "Christian" and call it "wearing the name of Christ" are ignorantly wear- ing the "title" instead of the name. If they want to wear the name, they must call themselves "Jesuits" or "Jesus- DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 61 ites." It is also true that the term "Christ" given to him means the "anointed." But it is likewise true that the term "Christ" became a part of his name and is so recognized by divine writers. And they also declare the name "Christian" to be "the name of Christ." Let us examine a passage and see if this is not true. In 1 Peter 4:14-16 the apostle Peter says: "If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters. Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf." Two expressions of this passage, one in verse 14 and the other in verse 16, are used interchangeably. Verse 14 says,"If ye be reproached for the name of Christ." Verse 16 says, "If any man suffer as a Christ- ian." These two expressions mean exactly the same thing. What Peter calls "being reproached for" in verse 14, he calls "suffering as" in verse 16. What he calls "the name of Christ" in one verse, he calls "a Christian" in the other. Therefore, to "be reproached for the name of Christ" is to "suffer as a Christian." In other words, the man who "suffers as a Christian" is "being reproached for the name of Christ." Thus Peter shows that the name "Christian" is "the name of Christ," and the man who wears the name "Christian" is wearing "the name of Christ." It is too bad that "Doctor" Garner was not present when Peter wrote that passage. He could have informed him that it is "plain ignorance" to think the name "Christian" is "the name of Christ." But as there were no Baptist "Doctors" in those days, Peter "ignorantly" thought that those who suffered as a "Christian" were suffering for "the name of Christ." However, according to Mr. Garnet, no one in the days of the apostles ever was "reproached for the name of Christ." For such to be possible a man would have to "suffer as a Jesuit" or "as a Jesusite." But the Bible never makes any reference to "suffering as a Jesuit." In fact, the words "Jesuit" and "Jesusite" are not even mentioned in the Bible. Can it be that no one was ever "reproached for the name of Christ" in those days? It 62 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS must be true if we can rely upon the "Doctor's" diagnos- is. And Peter was simply wasting his breath when he pro- nounced a blessing upon those who were "reproached for the name of Christ." But let us get another statement from Mr. Garner's booklet: "If no one could be saved without wearing the 'name of Jesus,' or the 'title of Christ,' which is 'Christian,' then it would follow that there were no Christian until A.D. 41, some eight years after Pentecost, (Acts 11:26), where they were 'first called Christians at Antioch." Page 19. Upon the basis of this argument Mr. Garner im- mediately consigns to hell Peter and all of the apostles and "the 3,000 converts at Pentecost" because the name "Christian" had not then been given. Certainly, no one had any responsibility to wear the name before it was given and revealed. But for a man to refuse to wear it after the revelation was made and the name given is an entirely different matter. Even a man who is qualified to prescribe aspirins ought to be able to see this. We are further told by Mr. Garner that: "The term Christian originated in heathen- ism and was given in derision to those who were followers of our Savior. The term was used only three times in the New Testament. Acts 11:26; Acts 2(;:28; 1 Peter 4:16. Christ never commanded saved people, His disciples, either to wear his name or his title, neither did His apostles." P. 20. That "the term Christian originated in heathenism" is another inaccurate idea that "originated" in the be- fuddled brain of a deluded "Doctor." In Acts 11:26 it is said, "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." The words "were called" are from the Greek "chrematizo," which means, according to Greek lexicons, a "divine calling." There Luke said, "The disciples were divinely called Christians first at Antioch." Since they were "divinely called" Christians, I know the term did not originate in heathenism. Furthermore, Isaiah prophes- ied of "a new name" to be given after "the Gentiles" would see "God's righteousness" that would be given by "the mouth of the Lord." (Isa. 62:2) The name "Christian" DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 63 was given at the right time--the Gentiles were converted to God's righteousness in the preceding chapter, it was a "new name," for this was the first time it was ever used, and it was given by "the mouth of the Lord," for they "were divinely called Christians." Mr. Garner, therefore, is as far from the truth of the matter as is possible for one to be. Is it true that none of the apostles ever commanded saved people to wear this name? Peter told them to "glorify God in this name." (1 Pet. 4:16, Revised Ver- sion) Could they obey this injunction without wearing the name? How would the Lord's disciples "suffer as a Christ- ian" and "glorify God in this name" if they did not wear it? It is true that the name "Christian" occurs only three times in the Bible, but one time the disciples "were called" that by divine authority, another time Paul "almost persuaded" Agrippa to become that, and the third time the Lord's people mere told to "glorify God in this name." How many times must the Lord say a thing to make the "Doctor" believe it? And in this connection I wonder how many times the name "Baptist" was ever applied to the disciples of Christ. Do you ever read, "The disciples were called Baptists at Antioch"? Or did any apostle "almost persuade" any man to "become a Baptist"? Or were the Lord's people ever told to "glorify God in the name Baptist"? There are no such statements on record, but the "Doctor" has no scruples against wearing that name. How- ever, he admits there is no scriptural authority for his use of this term, for he says on this same page of his booklet, "The name 'Baptist' was given in derision to churches that were followers of the Lord, during the protestant reformation for the first time." He also says, "The term 'Christian' was applied to individual followers of Christ A.D. 41, in derision for the first time. The term: 'Baptist' was popularized during the protestant reformation." Thus he declares that the term "Christian" was applied to the followers of Christ sixteen hundred years before the term "Baptist" was. "Thanks a million," Mr. Garner. There is still something in this paragraph of Mr. Garner's that I want you to see: 64 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS "Those he (John) baptized, by God's com- mand, authority, became Baptists, just as those who accepted Christ and became his followers were Christians." Page 20. It is amazing how a Baptist "Doctor" will make admissions. He distinguishes between those who became Baptists and those who became Christians. Those who accepted John, or were baptized by him, "became Bap- tists," according to Mr. Garner. But those who "accepted Christ and became his followers" became Christians. Therefore a "Christian" is one who becomes a follower of Christ, or one who accepts Christ; a "Baptist" is one who becomes a follower of John, or one who accepts John. A man does not become a Baptist by accepting Christ---a Baptist is not a follower of Christ. If he accepts Christ and becomes his follower, he is a Christian. He must accept something else and become a follower of someone else to become a Baptist. Well, I am content to be "a follower of Christ" and wear the name "Christian." Mr. Garner can be a "Baptist" if he wants to. Those who are content to follow Christ "beg to be excused." The nest paragraph of Mr. Garner's booklet is given to an effort to Drove there mere "BAPTISTS AND BAP- TIST CHURCHES IN EVERY CENTURY." But he has himself blocked before he starts, for he has already admitted that "churches" were called "Baptist" for "the first time" during "the protestant reformation." So he knocks himself out of about sixteen centuries before he gets started. He appeals to Alexander Campbell, who, as recorded in the Campbell-McCalla Debate contended that "the sentiments of Baptists and their practice of baptism have had a continued chain of advocates" in every century "from the apostolic age to the present time." And also to his hook on baptism that "The Baptist denomination in all ages and in all countries has been, as a body, the con- stant asserters of the rights of man and the liberty of conscience." But Mr. Garner's application of these quotations from Mr. Campbell is a base misrepresentation of Campbell's position. Campbell had no such idea that "the Baptist Church" as now exist, and to which Garner belongs, could trace its way back to the apostolic age. When Campbell used the term "Baptist" he simply meant people who DISSOLVING; A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS 65 held to believers' baptism by immersion. Any one who held to the baptism of believers and practiced immersion Mr. Campbell listed among those whom he called "Bap- tists." This is shown in a statement from Campbell, from Ford's Repository, published in the Tennessee Baptist of December 22, 1883, and republished in Orthodox Baptist Searchlight, August 25, 1943. In this document Mr. Camp- bell said, "The Baptists can trace their origin to apos- tolic times and produce unequivocal testimony of their existence in every century down to the present time." But whom did he mean by "Baptists"? He goes right on to show beyond any doubt. He said he referred to those who "re- quire faith and repentance, as previous to baptism, and to immerse the subject professing faith and repentance in water." Then he said, "All that believe and practice in this way are Baptists; and all that do not are not Bap- tists. I now proceed to show that the Baptists have ex- isted in every century from the Christian era to the present day." Any one who can read this statement from Campbell and then claim that Campbell means the "Baptist Church" as exists today would not be immune to making any sort of claim. He simply referred to men who taught believer's immersion, regardless of the church they might be members of. The "Doctor" loses his witness. Further- more, Campbell's Millennial Harbinger, Vol. 5, No. 9, 1841, carries the statement, "The Baptists, as now dis- tinguished from other protestant parties, began since the Protestant Reformation... From this document and its history we can give to the Baptist denomination a habita- tion and a name two hundred years old." Campbell's statement thus agrees with other men who have spoken-- that the Baptist Church, as it is now existing, began about the seventeenth century and now would be a little more than three hundred years old. But Mr. Garner's kind can't begin to go back that far. The last fragment of the final aspirin prescribed by "Doctor" Garner now comes up for dissolution. He refers to "THE GREATEST MAN WHO EVER LIVED BEFORE CHRIST." He quotes the language of Jesus, "Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist." Then he refers to Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Solomon as great men, but he says: 66 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS "John the Baptist was the greatest man, in the estimation of our Lord, who had ever lived on the earth in 4,000 years of history." Page 21. This shows how far a Baptist "Doctor" will go in order to try to give importance to his "Baptist" name. Jesus did not say that John the Baptist "was the greatest man who had ever lived" prior to his time. Mr. Garner mis- represented the words of Jesus, just as he did the words of Campbell, and as nearly all others with which he deals. To say what Garner attributed to him, Jesus would have to say, "There hath not risen one as great as John." But Jesus did not say "none as great as John" had ever risen, but "none greater." This meant there were others just as great, but none that were greater. This does not make John "the greatest man" who had "ever lived on the earth in 4,000 years of history." Mr. Garner was either ignorant or dishonest, as he has said about others, when he made that statement. If he was ignorant, it would not be safe to follow him as a leader; if he was dishonest, he is totally unworthy to occupy the position of leader among his brethren. The aspirin box is now empty, the aspirins are all dis- solved, Baptist headaches are unrelieved, the aspirins are too bitter to be swallowed now, and his suffering brethren are sorely in need of a better physician than "Doctor" Garner proved himself to be, while the church of Christ, dubbed "Campbellites" by Mr. Garner, standing on the undying principles of eternal truth, goes marching triumphantly on to greater victories for the Lord.