SALVATION

H. E. Phillips

It is clearly evident from the Bible that salvation cannot come purely by law. The Jews were given a law which could not give salvation because none could keep it perfectly. James says if one keeps the whole law, yet offends in one point, he is guilty of all (James 2:10). To be saved by the law one must keep it perfectly, but no Jew could do that (Rom. 3:23).

It is likewise evident that man could not work out a formula without law that would give him remission of sins. The Gentiles were without this law given to the Jews, and they were no better off (Rom. 2:14; 11:32). Since neither the Gentiles without the law nor the Jews with the law could obtain forgiveness for a single sin committed, some plan must be provided by God through which this salvation could be obtained. This is what we call the Gospel Plan of Salvation.

This plan requires preaching the gospel (I Cor. 1:21; Rom. 1:16). Nothing else is permitted to be preached (Gal. 1:8, 9). This plan also required belief on the partof the hearer of what he has heard (Rom. 10:9, 10, 13; Heb. 11:6; Mk. 16:16). The plan of God also requires repentance by the believer. (Acts 17:30; 2:38). The believer who has repented of his sinful life is required to confess with his mouth the faith that Christ is the Son of God (Rom. 10:9, 10; Acts 8:37). This believer is then ready to be baptized into Christ for the remission of his sins (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; Gal. 3:26, 27;.Rom. 6:4). This plan is of God and can be clearly read in the New Testament.

Everyone knows that there are some systems of salvation taught by religious denominations today that conflict widely. Men are required to do various things in an effort to reachforgiveness of sins, some of them differing so widely as to be incongruous. Shall we say that God is the author of such confusion. Certainly not (I Cor. 14:33). God has one single plan of salvation, and to be saved every man must submit to it.

These systems of salvation by men fall into two classes:

(1) Salvation by Faith Only. (2) Salvation by Works Only. It is impossible for both of these to be true at the same time. Neither of them may be true, or one may be true, but both cannot be true.

NOTICE

Please note this change of address when writing to Searching The Scriptures, Phillips Publication or H. E. Phillips. Effective September 15 addressall correspondence to: P. O. Box 9095, Tampa 4, Florida. Searching The Scriptures will be published from Tampa, Florida beginning with thenext issue.

FAITH ONLY SALVATION

The majority of Protestant denominations hold to this plan in one form or another. They differ somewhat as to the process of this system, but they are generally agreed that salvation is by "faith only." The process of reasoning in formulating the plan is simple: Find a passage that attributes salvation to faith and conclude that salvation requires nothing more. Then explain out every other passage that may attribute salvation to any other condition.

They use many proof texts which have one of twothings in common: They either have to do with matters under the Law of Moses, or else speak of the entire plan under the term "Faith" in contrast to the Law of Moses. The principle texts are: Luke 7:50; John 3:16, 36; 5:34; Acts 16:30; Rom. 5:1; 9:30-33; Eph. 2:1, and others of similar import. None of these passages are denied, nor do we deny that everyone is saved by faith. But it is entirely different when someone adds the word ONLY to the proposition. Not one of these passages teach that one is saved by FAITH ONLY. There is a big difference. We are saved by the blood of Christ, but not by the BLOOD ONLY. If that were true, faith would not enter at all. Faith only means nothing except faith. That would eliminate repentance, prayer and other things they require the sinner to do to be forgiven.

Not only does the New Testament not teach the doctrine of salvation by faith only, it condemns it in no uncertain terms. In the epistle of James we have an inspired argument to this very end. In verse 14 of the 2nd chapter we find these words: "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?" Now he is stating the very proposition— "can a faith without works of any kind save a man?" In verse

17: "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works:

shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee

my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God:

thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." He

clearly states that faith without works is dead. Will a dead

faith save anyone? If so, the devils have nothing to fear

in eternity, for they go that far. It will do no good to say

that this is "historical" faith, for there is not one single hint

anywhere in the Bible of such a thing. The difference in

faith and all other kinds is that one works in obedience and

the others do not. Whatever one calls it, any faith alone

is dead and will not save.

But James goes on to prove from the history of Abraham

that the faith that blessed him was one that obeyed. There is

not a single example anywhere in the Old or New Testament

that shows a man was blessed until his faith obeyed God.

That is the difference in "faith only" and a "live faith." In

verse 24 James says: "Ye see then how that by works a man

is justified, and not by FAITH ONLY." This is the only

place in all the Bible where the words "faith only" are to

gether. This teaches that one is NOT saved by faith only.

There are some Scriptures that thoroughly destroy the

system of salvation by faith only. In John 12:42, 43 we

read: "Nevertheless among the chief priests also many

BELIEVED on him; but because of the Pharisees they did

not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:

for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of

God." Here are some who believed on Christ, and the same

writer said in chapter 3:36 that "he that believeth on the

Son hath everlasting life ... " Were they saved? They

were if faith only saves. But the obvious meaning of this

passage is that some among the chief rulers believed as

others who were saved but did not go on to confess him be

cause of fear. Jesus said those who would not confess him

before men would be lost (Matt. 10:32, 33).

In Acts 2:38 the people who heard Peter and the apostles were "pricked in their hearts," which is the same as believing or being convicted. Peter did not tell them to believe when they asked what to do, and the reason is that he knew they had already believed. He told them what more they must do in addition to just believing— "repent and be baptized." This proves something more than belief to be saved.

In Acts 16:30 Paul told the jailor to believe on the Lord and he would be saved. Then he preached Christ that he might believe. After the jailor was baptized he brought them into his house and set meat before them, "and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house" (verse 34). His believing included his obedience and was not "faith only"— without anything else.

The plan of salvation taught in the New Testament was not a plan of "faith only." It included something in addition to faith, but was based upon faith.

WORKS ONLY SALVATION

This position is the opposite extreme of faith only salvation. It was the principle idea practiced by Catholics and included in many denominational practices later. One strange thing is that most of the religious bodies who teach the doctrine of "faith only" actually practice the doctrine of "works only." A denial of this is expected but the evidence is too strong to deny.

Works only means salvation that results by works of some sort without faith. The majority of religious bodies today practice infant baptism, and their creeds show that they

Continued from page 3

Jesus taught his disciples in many parables. Among them is the parable of the sower, so well known to most every Bible reader. In this parable Christ explains that the four soils mentioned represent the people who hear the word. The final object of the sown seed is to produce fruit, and where no fruit is produced the Lord blames the soil. It could not be the fault of the sower or the seed, for they acted exactly alike upon each of the soils. Since the soil represents the people who hear, we who hear today are included in one of the four classes.

In Matthew 13:22 we read the following: He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful." Why is it that no fruit is produced in the thorny ground? Christ answers that it is because of the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches.

Far too many people are more interested and concerned about the cares of daily living than in heeding the word of God. The deceitfulness of riches goes along with the common cares of the world. Many are more engrossed in makingmoney than in serving God. Many offer what they think is an acceptable excuse for absenting themselves from wor-ship by saying they had to work.. No business, however honorable and important it may be, is worth selling one's soul for it. If one's business forbids him ever attending worship with the saints, he should seek another business. It is far better to sell or give away any work that will cost you eternal life, and the Lord does not accept excuses such as this.

Still others are much more interested in some form of entertainment or pleasure than in doing the work of God. The cares of this type are occupying so much time that it is difficult to get members of the church to worship. Television, fishing trips, shows, ball games, etc., are sapping the spiritual life of thousands every week. These things are strangling the life of many so that they bear no fruit.

Some use health to excuse themselves from Christian duty. We do not mean that sick people are in sin when they miss worship because they are unable to attend. What we do mean is that many claim to be too sick to do the Lord's work, but never too sick to work for their pay checks,or do something they really want to do.

If we really want to please God and go to heaven when this life is over, we must bear as much fruit as. possible for us. This demands that we become good ground to receive the implanted word without letting any of the cares, pleasures, riches, etc., of this world rob us of eternal life. Let your life be a shining example of God's Holy Will.

SALVATION Continued believe in infant damnation or original sin. If one believes an infant is born in sin and lost, he must be consistent to have same plan by which the infant can be saved. Baptism upon the faith of his parents is used for this purpose. God does not save us on the faith of others. If an infant is saved from original sin by baptism without faith— and no infant can believe— then is it not by works without faith? Every practice of infant baptism tells of a salvation by works without faith. But Paul says, "for whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23). Again, "But without faith it is impossible to please him . . ." (Heb. 11:6).

"WORLD"

In the New Testament the Greek word kosmos, from which we get the term "world," has a variety of meanings. These definitions may be seen in Thayer's Lexicon, pp. 356,

357. Basically, the Greek term means "order." But in I Cor. 3:22 the term means the universe. Again, in Mark16:15,-etc., the word refers to the earth. In John 3:16 the term refers to the inhabitants of the earth. In James 1:27 the term "world" refers to the ungodly multitude on the earth. In I John 2:16 the word refers to worldly affairs, or earthly things, such as riches, advantages, etc. It would follow, therefore, that when people are inordinately associated with the world (to use that term in the sense of worldly affairs) they are "worldly." Hence, the term "worldly" is not to be used as a meaningless abstraction in branding those who happen to be our enemies.

We frequently concern ourselves with the speaker'sability to deliver. Should we not be more concerned withour ability to receive?

* * *

True happiness does not come by accident. It cannot be stolen, bought, inherited or traded. It comes by due process of divine law as applied to the heart.

I marvel that brethren who have had the battles for truth fought for them in the past would believe that one victory will last for all time. I have just returned from a meeting with the church in New Albany, Indiana. This is just across the river from Louisville and on the Indiana side near where for over two decades Premillennialism has had its strongest forces. It was in Louisville that the late R. H. Boll found his greatest following. There are a dozen churches in Louisville today that actively teach and spread the theory of the thousand year reign of Christ. They are far from dead andfar from being defeated forever. During the meeting, I visited in the home of Dave Merry's parents. For years they have lived in Sellsburg, Indiana, where the premillennialists operate a home for orphans and have a congregation of over 300 members. Dave Merry is a faithful young gospel preacher and his parents have stood against the false teaching of Boll and other materialists.

It has been 27 years since Foy E. Wallace, Jr., met Neal in the great debates on the thousand year reign of our Lord. The victories at that time were complete and overwhelming. On every hand brethren said, and rightly so, "Foy Wallace has saved the church from Premillennialism." Since those great victories the brethren in too many places have lost thetaste for battle. Resting on the ground gained by others, the church has become complacent and liberal to the point that they can see no danger. In the meanwhile, the churches that teach this error, combining the materialist doctrine of Premillennialism with methods of the sects round them, continue to gain some ground.

THE NEED GOES ON

One great truth is clear. In every decade and in every generation, the battles for truth have to be fought over. Every boy and girl, man and woman that comes into the church of the Lord must not only be taught against these errors but indoctrinated against them. Great men of other years cannot do this for us. Every preacher of the gospelneeds to teach on these subjects. It is the duty of every preacher to inform himself on these evils and then have the courage and conviction to teach them. It is a tragic thing to hear preachers say, "I do not know about things like that. I have never made a study of them." In statements like this we may have the greatest danger before the church. Too many men think that it is not their duty to take a stand. They feel that all that is necessary is to declare themselves neutral or unconcerned and that will solve the problem. False teaching will not be left alone. All it needs to rise again is just an attitude. True gospel preachers cannot be neutral where any error is concerned. It makes little difference whether it be premillennialsm or institutionalism or denominationalism. Men of God must take their stand on the side of truth. To paraphrase the slogan of a popular TV program in our day we need men that HAVE CONVICTION, WILL STAND.

THE KINGDOM NOW

Paul in Colossians 1:12-15 teaches in clear tones. "Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light. Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son. In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." It is not hard to see that we are moved by the bloodout of darkness into the kingdom. It is by blood that we make the move. The blood overcame the bondage of darkness when it freed us from our past sins. Thus we see that if;

We do not have the kingdom now;

1. We have no blood now.
2. Hence we have no redemption now.
3. We have no light now.
4. We have no saints now.
5. We have no inheritance.

Just think of a preacher that would say, "It does not matter." He may as well say that the blood does not matter, redemption is not important, light is not necessary, and thereis no inheritance.

BRETHREN BE INFORMED

Brethren, we need to be informed. Never think that battles for truth have to be fought just one time. Stand on the walls and watch ready at all times and in every generation to teach the truth and to keep back nothing. Let our watchword be, HAVE CONVICTION, WILL STAND.

WHAT IS YOUR ATTITUDE?

Wayne Earnest, Branford, Fla.

Friend, what is your attitude toward the Word of God,toward Christ, toward the gospel, toward life, toward self, toward others, toward sinners, and last of all, toward time itself? For instance, what was your attitude toward yesterday (the past) concerning the items just mentioned? What is your attitude today (the present), and then what is your attitude for the morrow (the future) ? Attitudes have always played an important part in the making or in the breaking of an individual or a nation. Webster says of the word attitude, "Posture; position assumed or studied to serve a purpose." Phil. 3:12-14 illustrates to us Paul's attitude, andcertainly one worthy of our consideration. Paul on one occasion, (I Cor. 11:1) said, "Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ."

"Not that I have already obtained, or am already made perfect" (Phil. 3:12a).

None of us are perfect. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" (I Jno. 1:8). John had a message to proclaim. "And this is the message" (I Jno. 1:5). The preacher truly is a messenger. A preacher without a message is like a boat without a rudder and ship without a sail. John's message was to Christians— "My little children", not to his physical children of the flesh, but to his brethren, the children of God. Likewise, Paul had a message to sound forth when he said "Not that I have already obtained, or am already made perfect."

"But I press on" (3:12b).

Sometimes we fail to press on because we fail to forget the past. (v. 13). Paul is not teaching here that it is wrong to look into the past and profit from mistakes that were made, but that it is wrong to let the raging current of our past life keep us from emerging upon the sea of time withan eye of faith" stretching forward to the things which are before" (3:13). Sometimes various burdens of life, heartaches, and disappointments blur our vision. Thus we lose sight of our goal and consequently fail to press on.

I often wondered how it was that an uncle of mine could plow such straight rows with his mule and plow. Sometimes these rows were quarter of a mile long, yet there wasn't even a wobble in the row. His method was this. He said, "I fixed my eye upon an object at the other end of the field. I always kept my eye on it and never looked back, because if I had looked back I was sure to make a wobble.

Sometimes we fail to see God in the future. But my friend, God is there. The "Sweet Singer of Israel" said, "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou are God. When we leave God out of our plans we become failures. Every turn we take seems to put us on a worse road. "To press on" we must go back to where we left God. Man just cannot direct his own steps. "O Jehovah, I know that the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man that walketh to direct his own steps" (Jer. 10:23).

Our Savior taught us to go forward— to press on. "ButJesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God" (Lk. 9:62). He taught us to be progressive. Progress should be a watchword. But then again, what is your attitude toward progress? We have just completed our new meeting house. Truly this is one mark of progress, but that alone is a poor standard for progress. Suppose our building was inlaid with gold and diamonds, with all that could appeal to the eye of men, and suppose it towered into the sky higher than the New York Empire State Building, but we failed to have the proper attitude to God and His Word, failed to encourage the weak, restore the fallen, failed touse our homes to hold cottage meetings, failed to teach God's word, failed to baptize souls into the body of Christ . . . failed to realize that with the Lord all things are possible. Think what an inglorious failure one will have been if he gains the world but misses Heaven. Let us not give up the old ship of Zion, but let us "press on." Much has been said about the growth of the church in the last ten years. We hear the cry, "the church is on the march," but which way is it heading? Sin is winked at, worldliness is not rebuked, Lukewarmness is prevalent and the swelling current of liberalism has tainted the souls of many Christians.

"Toward the goal" (3:14)

Paul's attitude included a goal. Where is our goal, our position, our mind? (Col. 3:1-2). Some folk lose track of their goal. — Make new year resolutions but break them. Do we quit drinking water just because the pitcher is broken? His attitude also included a prize— one worth running the race of life. "Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness" (II Tim. 4:8). This prize was not one of low estate but was one of high calling (v. 14).

The thought I want to leave with you today is that Paul's attitude included God and Christ. "Wherefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that yourlabor is not vain in the Lord". (I Cor. 15:58). Sometimes there is no immediate visible results. Sometimes the Word falls on hard and rocky soil. Some hearts are harder than others. Paul said, "But they did not all hearken to the glad tidings. For Isaiah saith, Lord who hath believed our report" (Rom. 10:16)? Remember this labor is not in vain in the Lord. Maybe a year or two from now the Seed of the Kingdom will be dislodged and fall into a crack between such barriers as prejudice and popularity and then to begin to germinate. Knowledge disturbs ignorance. Sometimes confusion follows. The knowledge of God's word says there is one church yet one looks round about and sees manychurches with many different doctrines and plans of salvation. The Word is getting its roots attached. It begins to convict and soon we with Peter hear the cry on Pentecost "What must we do" ?

Why I Believe A Roman Catholic Should Not Be President

Frank M. Melton, Bowling Green, Ky.

(This is an article prepared by Frank M. Melton whilehe was in the University of Kentucky at Lexington. He received an A on it. I think it is a good and timely paper and shows good thinking on the part of a student. Frank is now at the University of Florida in Gainesville. I commend to you Frank Melton and his good article which follows— B. G. Hope.)

INTRODUCTION

In 1928 Alfred E. Smith, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, was nominated for the presidency of the United States by the Democratic party. His religious affiliation played an important role in his defeat. Now that Senator John Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, is the front runner for the Democratic party, the same problem of whether or not a Catholic should be president has arisen. In the time period that has elapsed since 1928, resentment against a Catholic for a high office has lessened, but still I believe that a Roman Catholic should not be President of the United States.

DISCUSSION

I. I do not believe a Roman Catholic should be President of the United States for the following reasons:

A. A Catholic would put the demands of the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church in Rome, above the demands of the Constitution and the United States Citizens, because the Catholic Church claims power over every member by way of the Pope.

(1) The Vatican Council Session IV said, "The Roman Pontiff is possessed with that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that, therefore, such definition of the Roman Pontiff, are of themselves, and not from the consent of the church, irreformable. But if anyone presume to contradict this our definition, let him be Anathema." (Quotation from Separate Church And State, Now, Dawson, Joseph Martin.)

(2) The Civilta Gattolica, Jesuit World organ states very plainly, "The Roman Catholic Church, convinced through its divine prerogative of being the only true church, must demand the right of freedom for herself alone. As to other religions, the church will never draw the sword, but she will require that, by legitimate means, they shall not be allowed to propagate false doctrine." (Quotation from Readers Digest, March, I960, Condensed from Life James A. Pike.) (3) The Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII states that, "Union of minds requires complete submission and obedience of will to the church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God himself." (Quotation from Papal Pronouncements, Pope.) (4) Pope Pious IX states in his Syllabus: "It is not true that in the present day it is no longer expedientthat the Catholic Religion should be held as the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all others." (Quotation from Papal Pronouncements, Pope.) (5) Louis Venllot, French Catholic writer, says, "When we are in a minority, we ask for religious liberty in the name of your (Protestant) principle. When we are in the majority, we refuse it in the name of ours." (Quotation from Separate Church And State Now, Dawson, Joseph Martin.) (6) The American Lutheran magazine says it could not stop being disturbed by the prospect of a Roman Catholic in the White House unless the church itself disavowed its traditional position. (Quotation from Courier-Journal Editorial, April, I960.) B. A Catholic President could break down the wall between church and state by appointing an ambassador to the Vatican. (1) "This relationship is contrary to the constitution in that it creates an official relationship between the United States Government and the Roman Catholic Church. (2) Myron C. Taylor was appointed by a president as his personal representative with the rank of ambassador, but his actual status proved that he was an ambassador both in rank and name. (a) He was to report to the United States Government, and not to the President. (b) He was accredited to the Pope as Head of the Roman Catholic Church and not as Head of the political state, Vatican City. (c) He was officially listed in the Pontifical Directory as an ambassador. (d) He describes himself in a biographical dictionary as "Taylor, Myron C, Ambassador to Vatican." (FromSeparate Church and State Now, Dawson, Joseph Martin.) C. Another situation that tears away at the wall between church and state is public support for parochial schools. (1) Pope Pious XI states in his Encyclical of December 31, 1929, "The so-called neutral or lay schools from which religion is excluded are contrary to the fundamental principles of education. Besides, such schools are not practically possible, since in actual fact they soon become anti-religious. The state ought more reasonably ' and can also more easily provide schools by giving freereign to the initiative and work of the church and the family or by helping them with adequate subsidies." (Quotation: Papal Pronouncements, Pope.)

(2) The "Free Schools Committees" at Dixon, New Mexico, a mountain village of twelve hundred, half Protestant and half Catholic, protested against conditions in their public schools. They gave the following report.

"Six years ago, the Catholic Church assumed controlof the public schools in Dixon without the people's consent. Pupils and equipment were moved into Catholic Church property . . . The school then became known asSt. Joseph Public School, but in the Diocesan recordsit is listed as a Parochial school . . . The salaries for the teachers, who were nuns teaching the Catholic Religion,were paid by state funds.

"Upon investigatoin, it was found that the Catholic Religion was being openly taught to all students attending this so-called Public School; the Hail Mary was recited by all students four times a day; bingo was played in school hours at five cents a game to raise money; students were known to have been urged to go to confessional and have been punished if they refused; and whole grades had been skipped by students who memorized the Catholic Catechism." (Quotation: Separate Church and State Now, Dawson, Joseph Martin.)

(3) Priest David B. Walker said, "Unless you suppress the Public School System, it will prove the damnation of the country." (Quotation: Separate Church and State Now, Dawson, Joseph Martin.)

D. There is evidence of a "bloc vote" or "Catholic vote," if Kennedy is nominated on the Democratic ticket.

(1) In an Associated Press release Senator Kennedy said, "I am not appealing to a Catholic vote. I want to make one thing clear: I want no votes solely because of my religion." (Quotation Courier-Journal.) (2) But from an Associated Press release in the Democratic Convention of 1956, Kennedy's staff prepared and circulated, with his consent, a 3,000 word memorandum which purported to show, not only that there was a "Catholic vote," but where it was located, how it could be organized, and why it would be decisive in wining the election for the Democratic Party."

E. The demands of the Pope, public funds for Parochial schools, and an Ambassador to the Vatican could all break the wall between church and state and eventually unite them.

(1) The Syllabus of Errors by Pope Pious IX states:"It is not true that the church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." (Quotation:

Papal Pronouncements, Pope.)

(2) An article ,in the Catholic Encyclopedia says, "Between the church and the state which is non Roman Catholic, a condition of separation is to be expected. Such a separation for a Catholic State would be criminal, as ignoring the sacred obligations of the State."

II. Many people object to my belief, but I have answers for these objections. A. They may say I am prejudiced against Catholics. B. I am not prejudiced against Catholics, but I feel thathis religion will affect his fitness for high office. (1) Prejudice is a preconceived judgment or opinion without sufficient grounds. (2) I have sufficient grounds on which to base my opinion, so it is not a prejudice. (3) James A. Pike says, "I am not prejudiced against Christian Scientists, but I would not want to see one become a Federal Health official. Quakers are fine, but I would not want to see one become Secretary of De

fense. Thus it is not anti-Catholic to be concerned about where a candidate stands on important church-state questions." (Quotation: Readers Digest, March, I960, Condensed from Life, James A. Pike.)

C. Catholics say that providing their own schools, they save the state vast sums of money and simple justice would compel the states to give the same support for the sectarianinstitution as for the public one.

D. Catholics are not being cheated in this way.

(1) Catholics could send their children to public schools if they wanted direct benefits from public school tax. (2) Bachelors and unmarried women, married couples without children or without children of school age, or those who prefer to send their children to private schools might present the same argument, but the basis for support of schools by taxation is the need for educated citizens.

E. American Catholics say they are different from Roman Catholics.

F. I believe they are the same as Roman Catholics.

(1) The American Catholics wear the same name as Roman Catholics from Italy. (2) The Encyclical Letter, Longinque Oceani says, "Yet though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the church. Or it would be erroneous to think that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be as in America, dissevered and divorced. The church spontaneously expands and propagates herself, but she would bring forth more abundant fruitsif, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the lands and the patronage of public authority." (Quotation: Courier-Journal, Louisville.)

G. In an Associated Press release Kennedy said, "I do not speak for the Catholic Church on issues of public policy — and no one in that church speaks for me."

H. The Church and the Pope say they do have control over their members.

(1) The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "The church has the right to govern her subjects, wherever found, declaring for them moral right and wrong, restricting any such use of their rights as might jeopardize their eternalwelfare." (Quotation: Courier-Journal.) (2) The Vatican in an Associated Press release newspaper and Lasservatore Romano said, "The political-social problem cannot be separated from religious because it is a highly human problem."

CONCLUSION

A Catholic cannot remain faithful to the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church and be an advocate and supporter of the First Amendment of the Constitution which says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Even though Kennedy has said he will not let thePope control him, he is still in the Catholic Church. I would not trust a man like this as President.

If we watch over our conduct and try to keep it right, and always do our duty, we will not have time to watch for faults or idleness in others. This will keep us out of mischief and make us helpful to others.

— Via. Christian Review, March, 1914.

QUESTION: What is the "first resurrection" of Rev. 20:5, 6? — J.J.M.

ANSWER: The above question is based upon the letter referred to in last month's article (See August issue). Our querist seeks information on the theory which affirms a first resurrection (of the righteous) and a second resurrection (of the wicked) with a thousand year reign of Christ on earth intervening. This is Premillennialism.

In our former article we pointed out that things necessary to sustain this theory are not mentioned in the twentieth chapter of Revelation. No mention is made of a thousand year reign of Christ. We do read of a thousand year reign of souls "with Christ." There is a vast difference between the two.

In Rev. 20 we read of an angel coming down out of heaven, a key, a bottomless pit, a chain, the dragon, thrones, the beast, his image, and other things which are figurative. In the light of their context and with respect for the harmony of truth a literal application of these things is impossible. Then why make a literal application of the thousand years? The thousand years, like the other things mentioned, is a symbol of something else.

The "first resurrection" of verses five and six is likewise figurative. This should not appear strange, for figurative resurrections are found elsewhere in the Scriptures, especially in prophecy.

In E2k. 37:1-14 we have a prophecy of the restoration of Israel from Babylonian captivity. While in captivity they were pictured as a valley of dry bones; also as being in their graves. Then we are told that the bones came together, flesh came upon them, skin covered them, breath came into them, and they lived. God said, "I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel . . . And shall put my spirit in you, andye shall live." Here is a figurative resurrection.

In Isa. 26:13-19 we have a prophecy of the release of Israel from other lords. While the other lords exercised dominion over God's people they were said to be alive. The loss of that dominion was foretold in these words: "They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise." Here is a figurative death. It symbolized their loss of power. The release of God's people from this dominion is described in the words "thy dead men shall live." Here is another figurative resurrection.

In the above prophecies the figure of a resurrection is used to picture the persecuted people of God in the Old Testament and their victory over their persecutors. Likewise, in the book of Revelation the figure of a resurrection is used to picture the persecuted church in the New Testament and her victory over these persecutors. In chapter six the persecuted church is represented by these souls under the altar. In Rev. 20 the victorious church is represented by these souls being elevated to thrones and reigning with Christ, hence, a figurative resurrection. The expression "But the rest of the dead lived not" is parallel to Isaiah 26:14: "They are dead, they shall not live ... " Just as this is a figurative death representing the loss of dominion of the "other lords," so it is with the "rest of the dead" in Rev. 20:5. It symbolizes defeat for the persecutors for a period of time.

The "first resurrection" stands in contrast to the second which is implied in the statement "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished." The "first resurrection" is that of a righteous cause; the second, that of a wicked cause. Those blessed have part in the first.

The causes of righteousness and wickedness have alternated through time. These figures revealed to the early church "things which must shortly come to pass." The facts of history show the fulfillment of these figures. In Rev. 20 we have no literal one thousand years, hence, no millennium! We have no literal resurrection of the righteous or the wicked, much less a literal thousand years intervening; we have no literal thousand year reign of Christ anywhere, much less on earth, hence, no Premillennialism! We do have alternate periods of defeat and victory in the history of the church symbolized.

Have you ever wondered just what makes you "tick"?Why do men act as they do under certain given circumstances ? Why does one man respond to a duty in one way and another man respond entirely different to the same duty? Psychologists tell us that man's behaviour is determined by his environment. Then in addition to environment the motives and hopes cause a man to react in a given way to any stimulus from his environment. Motives and hopes are based upon a man's knowledge of goals and methods. I react a certain way to an opportunity because I know that course will lead me to a desired goal, which is my hope.

But what has all this to do with Christianity and thechurch? It helps explain why all men are not as interested and zealous in their obligations as they should be. All of us have about equal opportunities to know of Christ and attend faithfully all services in His name; we are all in about the same environment yet we do not all strive for eternal life. It must be because our motives and hopes are not the same. Those whose motives and hopes are not what they should be need KNOWLEDGE of God's word. The Sunday morning Bible study period is one of the best places and opportunities to obtain this working knowledge of the Bible. Try to stimulate your interest and love for divine truth in order that your hopes and motives in reaching them will be favorable foryou. Remember this: Though we may act in different ways in the same environment, we are all accountable to God for our acts.

It is a common thing for ignorance to denounce what itdoes not understand.

CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL ORDER

By Edwin R. Erret

(NOTE: The following lecture was delivered by itsauthor at a Conference called CHRISTIAN ACTION WEEK at Lake James, Ind., July 8-14, 1935. The lectures were printed in a booklet, the Foreword of which bears the signature of James DeForest Murch. Sis. P. L. Harper, an elderly, well-informed sister in the 9th Ave. church ofChrist has a copy of the booklet, and allowed me to borrow it, calling this particular lecture to my attention. Due to the pertinence of the material contained in it, I have copied it and wish to pass it on for what it's worth. It will become evident as one reads this speech that this was a conference of our digressive brethren in more conservative days, when many of the stronger ones were striving to defeat the entrance of the social gospel concept among them. And though one cannot endorse every conclusion nor countenance all the phraseology found herein, the serious reader cannot help but see the similarity between what was happening to them then and what is happening to us now. We believe the material in general portrays a more scriptural concept of the mission and work of the church than is possessed by many of our present day advocates of the social gospel theory. The lecture is quoted verbatim with the exception of a place or two where I have deleted some extraneous matter along with some poetry used. Please read the article with these preface remarks in mind. — James P. Needham, St. Petersburg, Fla.)

Bro. James Small has read for you the first eight verses of the twelfth chapter of John at my request, because it seems to me they raise rather definitely the question as to what is Jesus' attitude to social reform— social betterment:

That incident has caused no little heart searchings and some confusion upon the part of very good students of the Scriptures, that Jesus would seem to approve the pouring out of wealth upon Himself when there were poor all about Him who might have been cared for with this wealth. And then the other question that is raised in the same passage: Is it true that we shall always have the poor with us— that poverty can never be eradicated by the efforts of even the best of our Christian society? Unhappily it has been so all through the centuries. Is Jesus correct in saying that we shall always have the poor with us, no matter what we do? And is He (and this is a more vital question)— is He correct in indicating that it is better that the ointment shall be poured out upon His head than the wealth of it should be given to the poor?

Now, some one might say that that is only an incidental treatment of Jesus' attitude to the social question, and I grant that. And yet I think it holds in it the germ of all that is significant in Jesus' attitude to the social question. As I begin this discussion I want to say, first of all, that in my judgment, outside the Mosaic law, all that has ever been done in this world for social adjustment and betterment, all that is vital that has ever been done, has been done at the inspiration of the Christian gospel. But there is a peculiar fact that many zealous advocates of social action overlook, I am afraid, and that is that Jesus turned away definitely fromsocial approach at the betterment of humanity; that Jesus had a most supreme opportunity to take the social road to save humanity and He turned it down.

You recall what was the Hebrew expectation at the time Jesus came to earth; everything was in terms of a Messiahship that was temporal and worldly. From the knees of his mother, every child among the Jews was raised with a keen expectation of that coming of a Messiah whose work would be political and social. You cannot make that too emphatic— that was the obsession of the Jews, and that was the thing that Jesus had to fight, not only among the multitudes generally, but among His own disciples as well: the idea that the Messiah, when He came, would take charge of a social action, that He would launch a revolution.

In some ways you can not blame the Jews. They had a social system given to them at Mount Sinai. I insist that if it is social laws that we need, nothing has yet been given that is superior to that which God gave through Moses at Mount Sinai. Why it be? If humanity is to be saved by regulations imposed upon the part of society, what possible superiority could there be to that which was dictated by heaven itself? It is true not only from the theoretical standpoint, however; it is true from a practical standpoint. Take but one instance: What is it, fundamentally, that we arestruggling against in all of this effort at social reform? Isn't it the fact that certain parts of society posses the fundamental factors in our wealth, the property? In the social order that God undertook to establish through law at Mount Sinai (it never was perfectly established, not because of its imperfection from the divine standpoint, of course, but because the Jews did not keep it as ordained) it was definitely provided that no few men could for very long hold any more than their share of physical wealth. The land went back to the family— no matter how many black sheep there had been in the fifty years, no matter how many spendthrifts, no matter how complete the descent of that family into poverty throughits own inability or inefficiency or waywardness; it went back into the family. There never has arisen a man in the present day who has offered a scheme for breaking the hold of a few people upon the property that can compare with what God gave at Mount Sinai, for it is a revolutionary and complete solution to that problem.

Now, the Jews had an idea that the Messiah who should come would take that old system and put it not only upon themselves, but upon the whole of humanity. Every child, as I said a moment ago, had grown up through the training of his father and his mother, and then in the synagogue, to expect just such a leader. And when Jesus came and theyhailed Him as the Messiah, those poor people had a feeling that there was the one who would carry out complete social reform.

I am much chagrined, from time to time, as I meet students who claim to be somewhat educated in the history of our Lord's life upon earth, to find how frequently they have failed to grasp the fact that there was a turning point in His earthly ministry just a year before His crucifixion. There is, in my judgment, no understanding of the earthly ministry of Jesus except in the light of that turning point. Through those first years, Jesus was followed by multitudes. It may almost be said that He could not take care of them. Everywhere He went they thronged Him and finally there came that occasion of the Passover just after John's life had been given up; the people were highly excited, patriotically inspired at the time of their particularly patriotic festival. Rallying to Jesus there were five thousand men, besides women and children. According to John's Gospel, they wereready to take Him by force and make Him a King. And when that day was over the first thing He had to do was to get rid of His own disciples. If I am any judge of the whole occasion, I think the emphasis is clearly upon the fact that He had to break up an effort that would wreck His whole career upon the effort to try to establish a worldly kingdom. And He sent His own disciples away and dismissed the multitudes, and the next day found some of the multitude upon the other shore and lectured them pretty soundly upon the business of seeking loaves and fishes. From that time the people went away from Him. From that time He had to give attention to the disciples, having first asked them, "Will ye also go away?" From that time on it was the training of the disciples. From that time on He took the road that ended when He was alone in Gethsemane. Why was He alone? Because not a solitary one of them all, including His disciples, had yet grasped the idea that He was not here to establish a worldly kingdom.

That whole question came up in His temptation and again and again and again and always Jesus met it by choosing the road to the cross, choosing the road that meant turning his back upon a multitude who were determined to have a social reformer.

That was not easy to do. You take time for a while to think about it. I have never been able to find just how manyslaves there were in the Roman Empire, but some historians declare there were three slaves to every free man. I have no way of measuring how much drunkenness there was in the Roman Empire. I have no way of measuring how much militarism there was at the time, but society was pretty well saturated with it. There was an immense amount of graft; society of the day was throughly saturated with marital infidelity. In short, we know that the society of that day was ripe for social reform. If ever there was an occasion on earth when rich people had all the riches and poor people had nothing and were being entertained by circuses instead of being fed, that was the time. It was no easy thing, I tellyou, for the Prince from heaven to' turn His back upon the opportunity to change social conditions.

And in the emphasis I am now giving to it, I am not undertaking to say that it is not an important thing to change these social conditions. What I am trying to show you is that, when the Lord walked this earth, He had the opportunity to take the path of social reform, and He rejected it. He had the opportunity presented Him in His temptation to use His power simply for display and to catch the multitude and to get control of worldly kingdoms. All through His ministry there was that constant temptation even through those dearest to Him. It was no easy thing, especially in the light of the fact that He had had a multitude, as I said a moment ago, who were trained to expect just that kind of a thing. Why did he do it ? He chose the longer and harder path. He told Nicodemus in the beginning of His ministry that "except ye be born again ye cannot see the kingdom of God." And He told Pilate at the end of his ministry, "My kingdom is not of this world." He was consistent all the way through and when after His resurrection the disciples said to Him, "Lord wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom?" He said, you remember, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, but ye shall receive power." (I dare say Peter and John and James thought, Now, it is coming! Now comes the assignment of the offices!) "And ye shall be my witnesses." That is all the power He ever gave them: Power to be witnesses; and He staked everything— everything— upon that power. And, as we were reminded in the hillside service tonight, as He came to theend of His ministry and looked at these men He said very definitely (I tell you there is a whole sermon in it), "I pray not for the world .. . I pray for these men." You think of the Man who was sent from heaven— an expression of the love of God for the world— standing there and saying, "I pray not for the world," as if He were definitely excluding that world. I pray for this world? No. "I pray not for this world; I pray for these men." In saying that, He took the harder path.

It is an easy thing, comparatively, to get excited over social reforms. And it is an easy thing to set out to rally people to change laws. But it is an infinitely hard thingto change men. It is an easy thing to sit down and draw a plan of a building. These architects draw a beautiful plan. The hard thing is to make the wood and the stone and everything work together so that you have the thing that was planned there. And it is an infinitely harder thing to make the trees and to make the stone. God takes not only His hundreds, but His millions, of years to make them. Now, what He is doing here is to make men; to regenerate men, to have reborn men. While we do not understand all of the economy of heaven, it is made abundantly clear to us that it is not possible to make those men without Gethsemane and Calvary and whatever when on beyond in the spirit realm.

That is the path Jesus chose. I want to call attention, just momentarily, to one other phase of the matter definitely related. Paul brings it out most forcefully. That is that the gospel of Christ definitely turns away from the philosophy of laws to the philosophy of grace and redemption. I said a moment ago that the old law from Sinai failed. Paul says that very definitely: "And what the law could not do, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh" did. The gospel turns away from law to accept the pathway of grace. This whole business of social reform, if one is not careful, depends upon law. A couple of years ago, in the midst of all this depression, there was a tremendous amountof enthusiasm and joy as the people stepped out in to a new administration. There was almost the zeal of evangelistic fervor in the thought that now we were going to make the nation over again. I am not entering into politics now, but I am saying honestly, we have all of us come to know, after these two years and more, that that has not been done. I am not saying anything about the intention of the men trying to do that, but the pitiful thing is that they thought men, with laws, could change society. They entirely forgot that you have got to change men. I have no criticism of anybody who wants to change the laws, but I have decided criticism of anybody who thinks that new life can be created merely byhuman laws; merely by regulating society. And in all kindness, I say that you are not going to make a new world out on a fishing trip on the Lord's Day.

(Continued in next issue)

. . . They rehearsed all that God had done with them . . ."— Acts 14:27

CLINTON HAMILTON preached in a meeting with the Park Blvd. congregation in Louisville, Kentucky last month . . . BOB BRYSON and WESLEY JONES recently spent ten days preaching in the Panama Canal Zone . . . Vacation Bible School at MacDill Avenue in Tampa will be August 15-19 and at Seminole in the same city August 2226 .. . GEORGE LAUER is now the preacher for the church in Ft. Gaines, Georgia. They are planning the purchase of property for a new building . . . LEMAN RILEY works with the congregation known as Antioch a few miles north of Temple Terrace, Fla. . . . North Street congregationin Tampa set a new record during their Vacation Bible School last month . . . An effort is being made to establish the work in the Gulf Breeze-Pensacola Beach Area. This is in greater Pensacola . . . CLAUDE WILSFORD preaches for the East Hills church in that city . . . ROBERT PRESSNELL did the preaching in a meeting with the Academy Street church in Dickson, Tenn. last month . . . LEONARD TYLER was the speaker at Bon Aqua, Tenn. in the meeting in July . . . ROBERT JACKSON at Antioch near Dickson also ... HAROLD HOWARD has just closed an effort at Mt. Hebron in that same section . . . Vacation Bible School set for Wendell Ave. in that city for August 22-26 .. . FOREST HURST high in the Fire Department busy also in the section . . . JAMES P. MILLER in a meeting this week at Sulphur Well in Henry County, Tennessee.

HAROLD SAVELY has moved from Nashville to the Valley Station congregation in Louisville . . . EARL FLY preached at Valley Station before Savely . . . HAROLD BYERS beloved Chiropractor of Louisville is doing more and more preaching in that section . . . JULIAN SNELL preaches for the West End church in that same city. B. G. HOPE of Bowling Green, Ky., has preached in a meeting at West End recently . . . JOHN H. GERRARD has moved from the Harding Avenue congregation in Portsmouth, Ohio to theSilver street church in New Albany, Ind. . . . A. C. GRIDER has written a tract called, "What is the Herald of Truth," that has received favorable attention all over the nation. Mail 10c to A. C. GRIDER in care of the Preston Highway church in Louisville . . . DAVID CLAYPOOL preaches at Park Boulevard where CLINTON HAMILTON preached in a meeting in July. . . . H. ROBERT WILLIAMS preaches for the new congregation meeting in Clarksville, Ind. They had 165 present one Sunday last month . . . SAM BINKLEY formerly with the East Hills church in Pensacola, Fla. has moved to the Harding Avenue church in Portsmouth, Ohio . . . MAX RAY is now with the Oak Grove congregation in Jefferson County, Kentucky . . . GEORGE T. JONES ofKilgore, Texas is now preaching under a tent at Shepardsville, Kentucky. AMOS DAVENPORT will become the new preacher for the work in Shepardsville in September . . . L. L. DUKES well known elder of the Taylor Boulevard Church in Louisville suffered a heart attack several months ago but is better and able to resume his activities . . . FRANK PUCKETT of Akron, Ohio will begin a meeting with the Preston Highway church in Louisville August 4. The meeting will continue for 10 days . . . JAMES P. NEEDHAM of St. Petersburg, Florida will work with the Valley Station church in a meeting August 19-28 . . . WARREN RAINWATER preached in a meeting with the church in Madison, Ind. last month . . . KENNETH BLANE has just started working with the church in Drakesboro, Kentucky . . . GENE WARMAN is the faithful preacher for the church in Vincinnes, Ind. . . . JULIAN SNELL will be preaching at Mt. Moriah in Muhlenburg County, Kentucky August 15-24 . . . WILLIAM D. BURGESS preaching a month at Seminole in Tampa, Florida in place of JAMES P. MILLER . . . FERRELL JENKINS of St. Louis has held meetings in the following places: Emyrna nearIberia, Mo., Owen Sound, Ontario, Canada, Appleton, Wis., and on the edge of the Ozarks at Alder Springs. He will hold meetings with the Northside congregation in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., Ferguson, Mo. and Covington, Ga. before the end of the year.

W. C. HINTON, JR., Perry, Florida— September I will mark the close of over 3 1/2 years work with the brethren in Perry. We are moving to Decatur, Ga. to work with the brethren starting a new work "to plant the cause of Christ" in that area. The new group meets in the Terry Mill School house, 1975 Fayetteville Rd. SE, Decatur, Ga. Due to our leaving Perry, they will be in need of a preacher. If interested write to church of Christ, 714 N. Calhoun St., Perry, Florida.

Earl Fly, Tampa, Fla.— James P. Needham will conduct a meeting at Belmont Heights congregation in Tampa, Florida, September 11-18. I am now working with this congregation.

HARRY PICKUP of Tampa, Florida was the speaker in a meeting at 12th Street church in Bowling Green, Kentucky August 7-14. B. G. HOPE is the preacher for this congregation . . . HOMER HAILEY of Tampa, Florida will preach in a meeting at Franklin Road church in Nashville, Tennessee October 2-9 .. . J. W. EVANS of Orlando, Florida preachedin a series of meetings in July in Bainbridge, Georgia . . . CURTIS FLATT of Florence, Alabama began a meeting at Nebraska Avenue church in Tampa, Florida July 17 ... HARRY PAYNE of Tampa, Florida was in a meeting in Como, Tennessee and then in Beaumount, Texas beginning July 24.

Paul Himes of Elkhart, Ind. was the speaker in a series of meetings in Anthony, Florida August 14-24 . . . EARL FLY of Tampa, Florida was in a meeting in July in Newbern, Tennessee where CONNIE ADAMS preaches . . . LESLIE

E. SLOAN has moved from Belle Glade, Florida to work with the church in Palmetto, Florida.

FRED LIGGIN, JR. TO AFRICA

Brother and sister O. Fred Liggin, Jr., and their three sons, Freddy, Rickey and Ben are planning to leave for the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Africa, the first week in October. They will go to replace the James D. Judds who returned to the United States in July. At this time brother Andrew Connally and family are earring on the work there but they plan to return to the States in November. At the writing of this article, brother Connally has no replacement. Should the Liggin's not be able to leave in October, there would be no one over there to carry on the work after November. Brother Liggin still lacks a little on his support and needs quite a bit on his travel fund. Should you desire to help please send your contribution to: Mr. O. Fred Liggin, Jr., 138 E. College Street, Americus, Georgia. After September 12, I960 his address will be 1905 Keystone, Avenue, Albany, Georgia.

Let us rally to the cause of Christ in this area. So muchhas been accomplished by the brethren who pioneered the work, now it must be watered.

NEW PUBLICATION

EVIDENCE QUARTERLY is the name of a new quarterly, edited and published by Ferrell Jenkins. This journal appears quarterly and deals with material related to evidence of the Divinity of Christianity. The first two issues include such articles as follows: Archaeology— Its Meaning and Value, Introduction to Biblical Criticism, Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences, Debate on Bible Contradictions, Arguments For God's Existence, Certain Cliches, Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul, and several other outstanding articles. All subscriptions are for the four issues of the calendar year. Those subscribing now will receive the first two issues and also the two not yet published. The price is only $1.00 per year. Send your subscription to EVIDENCE QUARTERLY, P. O. Box 8182, St. Louis 3, Mo. We are happy to have this fine publication added to the good papers published by faithful brethren.

J. P. M.

AUTHORITY IN RELIGION

No. III

Thomas G. O'Neal, Jasper, Ala.

(In the first of this series of articles on Authority, July issue, page 9, a footnote should have appeared at the end of paragraph 7 giving the source of the material used. That

—

footnote should have read: "Roy E. Cogdill, Jesus, Gospel Guardian, Vol. XX, page 101." — Ed.)

This month our study will be on how to establish Bibleauthority or how to find religious authority. Two examples will be given to illustrate how Bible authority may be established. Let it be pointed out that Bible authority may be established in one of three ways,- by direct statement or precept, by necessary inference or conclusion, and by approved example. If what is done religiously is not backed by at least one of the above, there can be no Bible authority for the practice.

Our first example is taken from Acts 15. When the early church was troubled concerning the matter of circumcision, Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about the matter. The question was a matter ofwhether the gospel was for the Gentiles. This question is settled by a precept, necessary inference, and approved example. First, we have the approved example in Acts 15:7, "And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe." Here Peter refers to the conversion of Cornelius in Acts 10 and 11. Thus we have a Gentile hearing the gospel and obeying it, without circumcision. This is established by approved example. Peter's necessary conclusion is found in verse 9, "And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." The conclusion was God's plan of salvation was the same for both Jews and Gentiles. Lastly, we have the precept or citation from the Scriptures. "And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name." Now watch it. "And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, said the Lord, who doeth all these things." After Peter gave the conclusion and the example, James gives the Scripture to prove the things said. His quotation is from Amos 9:11-12. Thus, in settling the great question as whether circumcision was binding on the Gentiles, we have illustrated for us the use of an approved example, necessary inference, and precept orScripture.

Secondly, I copy this chart by brother Roy Cogdill, Cogdill-Woods Debate, page 14, and give it without any comment. As brother Cogdill presented the chart in the debate, the lesson is clear from just a reading of the chart.

HOW TO ESTABLISH SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY THE LORD'S SUPPER

(1) Express Command — This do in remembrance (Observance) of Me." I Cor. 11:23-24. (2) Approved Example — "And upon the first day(Time of of the week, When the

Observance) disciples came together to break bread." Acts 20:7.

(3)— Necessary Inference "The first day of the week(Frequency of .. . to break bread." (Means Observance) as regularly as the day comes.) (COMPARE. .“The Sabbath day to keep it

Holy.") HOW OFTEN?

EXPEDIENCY: Any hour within the First Day of week.

It would be well to here mention that in the Bible there are two kinds of authority — generic and specific. We illustrate with the great commission. "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mk. 16:15-16.) Notice there is acommand to "Go." This command is generic. When one rides in an automobile, boat, flies in an airplane, rides a mule, etc., he is obeying the divine command to "Go." However, when the person arrives at the place he was going, we have specific authority. James said, "preach the gospel." Thus, Christ specified what was to be done. This would eliminate putting on some form of recreation, etc., because one is told specifically to preach. Also, politics, social reform, and other things are not to be preached. God declared the gospel was the message. (Cf. I Cor. 15 and the preaching done by the Apostles in the book of Acts.) We, therefore, have in the great commission both generic and specific authority.

All authority at one time belonged to God. (Gen. 1:1, 2 Cor. 5:18, I Cor. 15:24-28, Mt. 28:18.) God delegated authority to His Son. (Mt. 28:18, Col. 3:11-17, Eph. 1:1923, Phil. 2:9-11, Acts 3:22-23, I Tim. 6:15, Col. 1:18-19.) Before Christ went back to heaven, He promised the Apostles that He would send them the Holy Spirit. (Jno. 14:26; 16:13.) The Apostles as they were guided by the Spirit weregiven binding and loosing power on earth. (Mt. 18:18, 2 Cor. 5:20, Jno. 17:7-8, 14, Acts 2:1-4.) The things the Apostles spoke through the Spirit were written in a book, the Bible, so we might read their knowledge of the mystery of Christ and the Church. (Lk. 1:3-4, Eph. 3:1-4, Jas. 1:22-25, 2 Tim. 3:16-17, 2 Pet. 1:3, I Cor. 14:37, 2 Th. 3:14, I Jno. 4:6, Gal. 1:8-9, I Pet. 4:11, 2 Jno. 9-11.)

Today authority does not reside in an inspired man for there are none. Rather divine authority is found in the New Testament written by inspired men. The word has been given. (Jno. 17:7-8, 14.) If a practice is pleasing to God today, we must find the WORD either in the form of approved example, necessary conclusion, or precept, whereChrist has given the Word that authorizes the action or practice. To fail to do so and to continue in the practice means that one is working iniquity. (Mt. 7:21-23.)

There are individuals who seek to put forth the "theoryof organic evolution" as a proven law or truth. In an effort to do this some turn to the science of embryology. Some contend that in development man develops organs similar to the gills of lower water animals so, therefore, man and these lower water animals must be related. This is often taught to the novice in science, since it is unlikely that he would question a textbook or an "authority" on the subject.

There are two kinds of respiratory organs, one adapted to aquatic existence and the other to land and aerial life.In the development of water animals the pharyngeal region (the upper portion of the digestive tract) will develop gill slits. These are openings which connect the inside of the pharynx to the outside of the body. The region between two successive gill slits is called the branchial arch. Each is subdivided into two parts which are modified further and richly supplied with blood vessels. The water enters the mouth, goes into the pharynx, out the gill slits to the outside of the body. As the water leaves by the gill slits it flows over the branchial arches which have been modified to form gills. This is how respiration is made possible.

In the human embryo branchial arches as such do notdevelop. Since "branchia" means gill, the human embryo does not develop gills, hence does not possess branchial arches. The human embryo develops pharyngeal arches. The inner layer of the pharynx and the outer layer of the body fuse. Between two successive fusion point there is a pharyngeal arch developed. If pharyngeal clefts (a break between two successive pharyngeal arches) do occur this is rare and a departure from normal development. Pharyngeal arches and pharyngeal furrows (these are called clefts if they break through to form an opening) have nothing whatsoever to do with the formation of the respiratory system of the human embryo.

To say that the human embryo develops branchial arches is misleading and to say that the embryo develops gills is a violation of truth. There are individuals who seek to make a point and will "stretch the truth" to do so. Beware lest you be lead beyond truth by those who are over-anxious to have you accept theory as law.

RELIGIOUS UNITY

Wilbur Hunt

John seventeen records a prayer of Christ to His Father, in which He prays for religious unity among His followers. Christ evidently believed that religious unity is possible, or else the statements regarding it are meaningless and impossible to achieve. What things are needful among Christ's followers before religious unity can become a reality? The foundation or starting point is the acceptance of the authority of Christ, knowing God and Christ, and the acceptance of the word of God as the Truth and the Standard in religious faith and practice. Second, on the part of each Christian, there are these things: (1) the desire to glorify God; (2) being sanctified or set apart in service to God via the Truth; (3) a sense of responsibility; (4) determination to accomplish what God wants done; (5) being separated from the world in thought, word, and deed; (6) love; (7) joy-fullness; (8) the realization that one belongs to God; (9) being perfect or complete or matured or grown-up; and

(10) declaring God to others by word and deed. The aim of it all is "that the world may believe that thou hast sent me," and "that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." In view of these things, let us work for unity in the Body of Christ so that souls may be saved and edified and God may be glorified.

THE "TENDER" HEARTED

I am not using the word "tender" to mean compassion for the needs of others, but to refer to those whose "feelings" are touchy. Poor little things! Someone is always "offending" them about something.

Have you not met the grown man or woman who reacts to every situation just like a spoiled child? One of the best places to find such is in the church. Many go around most of their time complaining about how they have been hurt by some act or statement of someone in the church. The slightest thing will throw them into a fit.

The usual setting for such reaction is: A special invitation was not given them to attend a public gathering; their names were not mentioned publicly; one did not speak to them; someone told them the truth about themselves; they are not called on to do public work, and such like. The cause of conduct of this kind is IMMATURITY. When one grows up to learn that he is no special dignitary in the church, this childish play will cease.

The disgraceful conduct of these babies causes many never to enter the church. Sulking, pouting, backbiting, insulting, blaspheming, seeking revenge and criticizing the church generally is the behavior of these religious babies. Let us be men and women and behave as the Bible teaches us.