Volume 8 September, 1967 Number 9

This generation boasts of accomplishments above and beyond all preceding generations of man. Weread in papers and see on television the great feats scientists, doctors, educators and engineers have and are accomplishing. All this is acclaimed as indication of a great forward movement in the development of the human race. But does this really indicate thatwe have made progress? Human wisdom alone and its results are foolishness to God when men do not respect the divine wisdom of God. "But God hathchosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; the base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that noflesh should glory in his presence" (I Cor. 1:27-29). Human wisdom can never bring man closer to God.

There is a wisdom that cannot be found in the test tube or in the text book; it can be found only in the revelation of God to man. This wisdom is the onlything that will really make man what he ought tobe. Without it man becomes as savage as the beast and as depraved as Satan himself. Real and lasting progress can only be found by learning and doing this wisdom which is revealed in the book of God.

While we fire rockets to the moon and invent weapons of war that can wipe out entire nations, while we develop medical science and engineering methods that can exceed anything humanity has ever known, the moral and spiritual conditions of this world are about as low as they have ever been. Money, military power, scientific achievement and all other developments of human wisdom will never lift man from the pit of moral decay. Only the knowledge of God's word and the practice of it will make us prosperous and happy.

The signs of our failure appear in the same papers in which we read of the great accomplishments of our age and on the same television we watch day after day. The rebellion against law and order bymany of those little more than children is now acommon occurrence. What is wrong that the coming generation generally rejects law and order? Whathas happened to the young people of our time? The answer is obvious: parents have totally failed inbringing up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). There has been noteaching of the word of the Lord nor of the principles therein contained. Instead of providing goodreading material for their children — and for themselves — parents have allowed pornography and such trash to be read by their children. They read it themselves !

Parents give little thought to the company their children keep and the places where they spend most of their time. These children grow up with no feeling of love or concern for parental authority. As a result of this they soon have no regard for the civil authorities and certainly none for God and His word! With this condition existing, can we claim any success at all with the coming generation in general?

I recently heard a United States congressman read a report on television that stated the population of this generation in the United States was up 9% and crime during the same period of time was up 62 %. This is the bitter fruit we must reap for the lack of teaching and not giving attention to our childr en. I wonder what the next twenty-five years will bring. Unless the money-mad, power-craze, lustful-centered thinking that seems to dominate the average person today is replaced by an industrious, spiritual minded, law abiding citizen, this world is headed for eternal ruin.

Parents must set good examples for their children. They must provide good reading matter for them and wholesome entertainment that exercises the body and mind. They must teach them good habits and proper respect for the laws of God and man. The first step in getting this job done is to set the example for them! Be a good citizen yourself! Before and above all, learn and obey the will of God in heaven and obey it. You will be happier here and in eternity!

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall ofthe Spirit reap life everlasting" (Gal. 6:7,8).

"May the good Lord of us all continue to give yothe will and health to continue your work, whicdoes so much good, in ever y honest heart, wher ever the paper goes." — Harry B. Thetford, Orlando, Fla

"I enjoy ver y much Searching The Scriptures. Ithink it is one of the best I have ever read. If more people would read it and think on the things discussed, and compar e them with the Bible, we woulbe more united and good would result." — J. G. Jones, Cr estview, Fla

"I count your paper one of the best." — Joe D. Scarborough, Dickinson, T exas.

"It is encouraging to know that there are brethren who will stand for the truth in these troubled times. It seems that the church of Christ is fast becoming another denomination. May God help usto stem the tide. God bless you, Mr. Inside and Mr. Outside." — E.F. O'Neal, Doniphan, Mo

"I continue to enjoy Searching The Scriptures."

— Horace Huggins, Meridian, Miss.

"Searching The Scriptures continues to be a ble ing: look forward to receiving it each month." — Sam W. Garrison, Nashville, Tenn.

"I have profited much by reading this paper . . .

God bless you in this great work." — Sarah E. Pat

ton, Bellair e, T exas.

"I continue to appr eciate the good wor k you ar e doing through the paper. Keep it up." — James Hahn, Scottsville. Ky.

"I continue to enjoy the paper very much and passit on to others." — Mrs. J. B. Shull, Louisville, Ky"I am eternally grateful for your paper SearchingThe Scriptures." — Charles F. House, San Luis, Ariz.

"We receive each issue of Searching The Scriptures with pleasure and think it to be among thbest of papers." — Gilbert Pugh, Pine Apple, Ala

"I enjoy your paper very much and pass it on toothers who are enjoying it also." — Mrs. A. A. Cook,Fort Smith, Ark.

"We enjoy the publication very much ..." — Paul Rogers, Miami, Fla

"Searching The Scriptures is one of the finest papers I receive and I thank God for the good it has done and continues to do." — Dudley Ross Spears,Oklahoma City, Okla.

"Someone sent me a copy (Searching The Scrip

tures) and I'm glad to know there are some that

stand for the truth." — Harvey Y. Taylor, Carpen

ter, Miss.

"We read and enjoy Searching The Scriptures

very much." — Tom Hendricks, Evansville, Ind.

"We enjoy reading Searching The Scriptures and

wish to continue r eceiving it." — J. O. Adams, Nash

ville, T enn.

'I have received Searching The Scriptures since its early days. I consider it an outstanding paper. The articles are timely and well written. I commendthe editors and staff for a laborious but worthy work. May your labors bear immeasurable fruit in theMaster's Vineyard. I pray for you and brother Miller good health and continuous opportunities to spread the precious word." — Paul Branch,Woodville, T exas.

MORE LETTERS TO EDITORS

Last month I reproduced two letters from readers and made some remarks regarding them. I wouldlike to copy two more and review something thatis evident to me from them. I have no desir e to take advantage of anyone, hence, I offer space to any of these to r eply to anything said.

June 11, 1967Gentlemen:

Please remove my name from your mailing list immediately since we ar e moving to another city. I do not wish to continue or renew the subscriptionsomeone anonymously provided. Some of the expository articles have been helpful but there is too much division among Christians now and your paper's preoccupation with fighting error has missed the mark of reaching the lost and strengthening thsaved. A lack of love, Phariseeism and intolerance are as unscriptural as any of the "issues" you press.

George Edwards

834 Ransom Rd.

Winston-Salem, N. C.

I appr eciate the frank and dir ect manner in whichthis gentleman speaks his mind. I have no doubt buthat he is sincer e in what he says. However, two or three things are obvious from this letter. He makes"fighting error " opposed to "r eaching the lost andstrengthening the saved." Fighting error misses the mark of saving the lost. Paul said, "fight the goofight of faith, lay hold on eternal life" (I Tim. 6:12).Also, "I have fought a good fight. . ." (II Tim. 4:7).

Does this mean that Paul missed the mar k of r eaching the lost? One is lost because he is in error. How are you going to save that lost soul without fighting his error?

Paul "withstood" Peter to the face, "because hewas to be blamed" (Gal. 2:11). T hat meant that he"walked not uprightly accor ding to the truth of thegospel" (Gal. 2:14). Did Paul do wr ong because hewas "fighting error" in the life of another apostle?

A lack of love is charged against us. How should one act when he has love? Does this mean that love forbids exposing error? If not, how does one know I lack love? I affirm that one who loves God, Christ, the truth, and the lost souls of men will expose theerror that binds the souls of men and speak boldlythe word of God. In Ephesus Paul "kept back nothing that was profitable" and I must do the same if I love the truth (Acts 20:20).

We are charged with Phariseeism and intolerance. One of the sins of the Pharisees was that they wouldnot listen to anything that opposed their traditions. When Stephen was stoned to death for preaching the truth, Saul "consented unto his death" (Acts 8:1).Saul (Paul) was "an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Phar isee" (Phil. 3:5). Ar e we to understand that intolerance is wrong where truth is involved? Can a child of God tolerate sin and please God? I doubt that anyone who knows the Bible would so admit. Earnestly contending for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints (Jude 3) does not indicate a lack of love for those in error, or Phariseeism or intolerance in a bad sense. One is intolerant of divine truth when he will not expose error by the word of God.

July 10, 1967 Dear Br o. in Chr ist:

Please discontinue this subscription. I believe the

scriptures to teach brotherly love and long suffering

and also a togetherness of Christians regardless of

the location of their building. Evidently you believe

the location separates us as far as having one cause

in mind, and that is saving souls. Her e in this ar ea

where our family is the only Christian family within

a 45 mile radius we would certainly welcome a radio

program or any effort to r each souls as the commis

sion was only to teach not (how) or what method.

In this area we don't need to spread "division propa

ganda" but show the "denominational world" that

we ar e Chr istians because as Chr ist said "love one

another that the world may know you are of me."

I pray that you consider your articles and stop

spr eading division and ill will between br ethr en.

Sincerely,

Freda Wall

139 Greaton Rd.

New Richmond, Wise.

This letter shows a lack of understanding of boththe word of God and what I believe and teach. I, too, believe the scriptures teach brotherly love and longsuffering and a "togetherness of Christians." But what does that have to do with the location of their building? Wher e did I ever indicate in any way thatthe location of a building had anything to do withbrotherly love, long suffering or unity among Christians ? I do not believe that location (geographically) has anything to do with having the same cause inmind or saving souls.

This person says that no Christians live within a45 mile radius of this family and they would welcome any radio program or any effort to r each souls. Does the author of this letter really believe that someone is opposed to preaching the gospel over the radio? I certainly am not! But it is said that any effort to reach souls was welcomed. What about the Missionar y Society? No, I had better not ask that question because I have found dozens who claim to have been in the church for years who now say it is all right to use the Missionary Society. What about getting aBilly Graham Campaign in that area to reach souls ? No, I guess that question would not prove the pointeither. I have heard some who professed to be gospel preachers claim that Billy Graham is doing a goodwork. Any effort to reach lost souls would include all and exclude none. T her e can be no wr ong way according to this view.

It is also said that they do not need to spread "division pr opaganda" but show the "denominational world" that we are Christians by loving one another. Christ said: "Think not that I am come to send peace but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household" (Matt. 10:34,35). Is this not "divisionpropaganda" which the Lord taught? I suppose Christ would not be welcomed in this area.

Paul withstood Peter to the face before them all because he and Bar nabas walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:11-14). Iguess Paul had not learned that he should not spread "division propaganda" and show a lack of love byexposing the sin of Peter and Barnabas before them all.

T his idea that exposing sin among br ethr en is the lack of brotherly love is contrary to everything taught in the New Testament. The truth is that onewho will not tell another of his sin lacks love for that person, for the truth and for God. Love rejoiceth not in iniquity (lawlessness), but rejoiceth in the truth (I Cor. 13:6). I would like for someone to tell me how I can preach the whole counsel of God and notcondemn error both among brethren and in theworld.

The great address of the apostle Paul in the cityof Athens, recorded in the seventeenth chapter of the Acts of the apostles, has been the object of study for decades. It is monumental because it is one of the only recorded sermons to the Gentiles. Other major addresses in the book of Acts are for the Jews such as the great sermon on the day of Pentecost by Peter and the wonderful sermon by Paul in Antioch of Pisidia. The difference in the approach to the gospelas the Holy Spirit directed is worthy of long study. In the sermons to the Jews it was not necessary togo back to the cr eation of the world and identify Jehovah as the maker of the worlds and all thingstherein, but simply to start with the fulfillment ofthe law and the prophets. In this great sermon inthe midst of Mars Hill the apostle starts with theunknown God and declar es that, "God that made theworld and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples madewith hands; neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he giveth toall lif e, and br eath, and all things . . ."

T his appr oach to the Gentiles is explained in his gr eat statement about them as a nation in E phesians 2:11,12 wher e he declar es that they wer e "without God in the world." This is a lesson for the preacher of any age. We should study the audience and pr each to the needs of the people. Of course we are no longer directly guided by the Holy Spirit but should beguided by these gr eat examples in his wor d. T her e are other powerful lessons in this great sermon. The scientific truth that we are all made of one blood, vs. 26, the nature of the true God vs. 27, and our dependence on Him in vs. 28.

At the conclusion of this great lesson Paul makesthe following profound statements as found in verses 30, 31:

"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to r epent: because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteous-ness bythat man whom he hath or dained; wher eof hehath given assurance unto all men, in that he hathraised him from the dead." The word appointedin the passage means "to make to stand." (See Vines E xpositor y Dictionar y, page 67.)

THE APPOINTED DAY

Paul declar es that God has appointed a day. Hehas made a day to stand. T hink dear r eader s what a great day this will be. John in the book of the Revelation in Rev. 20:11,12 had this r evelation, "And I saw a great white throne, and Him that sat upon it, from whose face the earth and the heavensfled away; and there was no place found for them, and I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God . . ." All of earth will be there. Small and great, black and white, good and bad, will be present before the thr one of Christ. Jesus called this appointed daythe "last day." In John 6:40 he said, "And this is the will of Him that sent me, that every one whichseeth the Son and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise Him up in the last day." Job in the long ago cries out in Job 14:14, "If a man die shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come." Yes, ther e is an appointed day.

THE APPOINTED DEED

Just as ther e is an appointed day ther e is an appointed deed to be done. Paul says, "... in the which he will judge the world . . ." The activity appointed for that day is judgment. T he appointed audienceis the world and all will be judged. E ver y man thatlives or has lived will appear before the judgment seat of Christ. How sobering a fact it should be that none will escape judgment. In Romans 14:10, "for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ."

THE APPOINTED STANDARD

Just as ther e is an appointed day and an appointedjudge there is an appointed standard. Hear Paul again in the same ver se when he says .. . he will judge the world in righteousness . . ." The standard appointed is righteousness. Little does the student of the Bible need to be reminded in regard to righteousness. Some of the most familiar passages in theBible deal with this theme. In Romans 1:16,17 theapostle tells us of righteousness. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to ever y one that believeth;to the Jews first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith tofaith: as it is written, the just shall live by faith." Again this passage in Romans 10:3 where Paul tells of the plight of his fellow countrymen. "For theybeing ignorant of God's righteousness and goingabout to establish their own righteousness have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God." God's righteousness was the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Mankind will be judged according to the words of Christ. In John 12:48 the master has this to say, "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the wor ds that I havespoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."John calls this "the books" that will be opened. In Revelation 20:12... "the books wer e opened andanother book was opened which was the book of life: and the dead wer e judged out of the things whichwer e wr itten in the books, according to their wor ks." Think, dear reader, we know what the appointedstandard will be, we know the examination before we ever sit down to take the test. The standard will be the word of God. How wonderful it is to know how we will be judged. If we f ail to meet the test it can be no one's fault but our own for from the first days of accountability our standard is before us. T hink of a man who will fail as simple a test as the statement of Christ, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." If we fail in that day wewill be truly without excuse.

THE APPOINTED JUDGE

I heard brother Byron Conley say in a meeting several years ago at Seminole where I preach, thatthe first time it was, "Chr ist before Pilate but thenext time it will be Pilate before Christ." I am sure that this was not original with brother Conley butit was the first time I had heard it stated just that way. Chr ist will be the judge. Paul says he wiljudge, "by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given a urance unto all men, in that hhath raised him from the dead." Jesus explains it in this manner in John 5:22-27, "For the Father judgeth no man, but hathcommitted all judgment to the Son; that allmen should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father: He that honoureth not the Son,honoureth not the Father which sent Him, Ver-ily, ver ily, I say unto you, T he hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of theSon of God: and they that hear shall live. Foras the Father hath life in himself; so hath he givento the Son to have life in himself; and he hath given him author ity to execute judgment also,because he is the Son of God." What a wonderful Judge he will be. A Judge who loved us and diedfor us. How thankful we should be for such a Judge but dear reader never be mis-led, he will bea Judge who will demand obedience to his law. Paul states it in this way in these great passages from II Thes. 1:7,8, "And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus will be r evealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flamingfire taking vengeance on them that know not God,and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." Christ will judge and bring "mightAngels" to enforce his vengeance on those who would not obey.

In the April, 1967, i ue of "Searching The Scriptures", pages 3 and 4, is an article by Bro. Marshall Patton on I Cor. 11:2-16, in which he takes the position that what Paul taught in that passage is not binding on us today. With this I disagree.

First, let me say this "review" is not a "personal attack" on Bro. Patton. He is one of the finest Chrisian gentlemen that I know among my preachingbrethren. I wish it were so that I did not have to disagree with those of my brethren "of like precious faith." However, it has been my policy since I started preaching to place "conviction" above friendship,popularity, and advantage. I believe that I have just as much r ight to teach what I believe the Bibleteaches on this subject as have those with whom Idisagree. (I appreciate so very much the "editorial policy" of this paper. Bro. Phillips wrote me: "Mpolicy is to publish both (or all three, four, etc.) sides of every i ue. I like for writers to speak boldly,plainly, kindly and scr ipturally." I will try to dthis.

I join with Bro. Patton in saying: "I am persuaded that tolerance should be exercised among brethren while we all continue to study the i ues objectively ... It is an individual matter AND OUGHT NOT TO BE MADE A TEST OF FELLOWSHIP." I am sure that such will not be made a test of fellowship unless someone begins to have "preaching appointments" canceled, or, in anyway tries to hurt the influence of those with whom they disagree on the matter !

Bro. Patton says: "T he primar y i ue involves whether or not what Paul bound on the saints at Corinth in these verses relative to covering the head,was bound on saints everywhere and for all time." I say it WAS "bound on saints everywhere and for all time," and for the same reason it was bound on the saints at Corinth ! Now WHY was the "covering the head bound on saints" at Corinth ? When we find the answer to this question, and, also, find that the same "relationship" prevails today, then, the only answer that can be logically reached is: WHAT PAUL BOUND ON THE CORINTHIANS IN THESE VERSES IS "BOUND UPON SAINTS EVERYWHERE, AND FOR ALL TIMES !"

BRO. PATTON OBSERVES THE PASSOVER!

Bro. Patton says: "For the sake of brevity anthe unanimity that already prevails we may passover some things, namely, the divine order of God over Christ over man over woman. This order of authority has been ordained of God and prevails for all men for all time and, therefore, must be respectedby all." No, Bro. Patton, WE WILL NOT "Pass over" this relationship of God, Christ, man and woman ! THAT IS THE VERY FOUNDATION OF PAUL'S ARGUMENT ON WHY MAN MUST NOT "COVER HIS HEAD" when he 'prays or prophesies", and WHY a WOMAN SHOULD! In I Cor. 11:3, Paulstates that the divine order of this relationship iGod over Christ, Christ over man, and man over woman. Bro. Patton says that this relationship still exists. I agree with him. IF Paul commanded theMAN to "pray or prophesy" in Corinth with UNCOVERED head BECAUSE OF THIS RELATIONSHIP, and the WOMAN to "pray or prophesy" with COVERED head for the same reason, AND THIS RELATIONSHIP STILL EXISTS, WHY IS NOT THE MAN TO LEAVE HIS "HEAD UNCOVERED" AND THE WOMAN TO "COVER HER HEAD" WHEN THEY PRAY TODAY? IF this relationshipdemanded some kind of manifestation on the part ofman and woman "in Corinth" by the wearing, or the refusal to wear, an artificial covering, WHY is not the "covering" needed today, and for the same reason that it was needed "In Paul's day"? There are anumber of reasons in this passage WHY a womashould cover her head, and WHY the man SHOULD NOT, when they "pray." They are because of: (1The divine order of God, Christ, man, and woman

(V.3) (2) the order of creation, (vs. 7-9) (3) thangels, (V.10) (4) the judgement of the "wise",(V.13, See also I Cor. 10:15,16) (5) nature's proof of "long hair," (V.14) (6) the UNIVERSAL PRACTICE OF PAUL'S TEACHING IN ALL OF THE CHURCHES. (V.16) THESE ARE THE "REASONS" WHY THE WOMEN AT CORINTH WERE TO COVER THEIR HEADS WHEN THEY "PRAYED OR PROPHESIED." THESE ARE THE REASONS WHY THE WOMAN SHOULD "COVER HER HEAD" WHEN SHE PRAYS TODAY!

In verse 7, Paul said that a man ought NOT to cover his head "because he is the image and glor yof God. Nothing is said about "custom" in this verse. Since man is STILL, TODAY, "in the image anglory of God," WHY would not the same hold true today — he OUGHT NOT to cover his head.

PRAYING AND PROPHESYING

Even though Bro. Patton does not go into th"argument" that a woman would have to be "inspired" before I Cor. 11:2-16, would be binding on us today, he does say: "I affirm that it (the covering,WHL) was because of local usage and custom." One does not have to be "inspired" today for I Cor. 11:216, to be binding on us today

CAN a woman pray today? Does she have to be

"inspired" to pray? Certainly not. Verse 13 does not

mention "prophesying." It mentions ONLY PRAY

ER ! To illustrate:

MK. 16:16— ... believeth AND is baptized . .. (Two acts necessary to obey this passage.) OR is baptized ... (Only one act necessary to obey this passage).

I Cor. 11:4— . .. praying AND prophesying . . . (Two acts necessary to obey this passage.) OR prophesying.. . (Only one act necessary to obey this passage.)

"You CAN have ONE WITHOUT the other"! OneCAN "pray" without "prophesying," and one can"pray" without being "inspired". Hence, the passagapplies today! I know of no gospel preacher that says that a woman can "prophesy" today. If she can "pray" today, then she should have on her head a

"sign of subjection" to the man. (V. 10).

GENERIC AND SPECIFIC

Bro. Patton takes the position that the "covering" worn by the MAN is "generic," when he said: "... the veil is included it also admits other headgear,thus, making it generic. It forbids man wearing anything on his head while 'praying or prophesying.' " He then said that the "covering" to be worn by thwoman is "specific." He quotes Thayer as saying idefining "kata kalupto" to cover up ... to veil OR cover one's self: I Cor. 11:6" (Emp. mine, WHL)"To veil" IS ONE THING, "or to cover one's self" IS ANOTHER! Even Thayer does not say that thwoman's "covering" has to be "specific."

I just wonder why all of the translators of theNew Testament didn't know about Paul's "generic" and "specific" terms? Listen to a few of them: (1King James— "uncovered," (2) A.S.V.— "unveiled,"

(3) Amplified New Testament— "bareheaded," (4)Williams— "bareheaded," and Wuessat uses the term "shawl," and "mantle" with regard to the 'covering."

What is required to meet the demands of this passage? For the woman's head to be "covered", or,that she be not "bareheaded." Anything that can bused to "cover" a woman's head, or, place her in a position where she will not be "bareheaded," wil"fill the bill". If not, why not? This passage does not mention the word "HAT." It does mention two coverings— the NATURAL (the hair), and the ARTIFICIAL covering. (It COULD be a cap, veil, turban, scarf, shawl, mantle, or, it COULD BE A "HAT"! I know of no preacher who says: "A WOMAN MUST WEAR A HAT WHEN SHE PRAYS IN THE ASSEMBLY." If I were to be that "specific" I would fall into the same error as has Bro. Patton when he said that "the woman wore only the veil to signify submi ion." I would have no more right to say that awoman's "covering" must be a certain TYPE, as I would say it must be a certain COLOR! Neither does Bro. Patton.

BRO. PATTON ON I COR. 11:16

Bro. Patton seemed to think that Paul told the Corinthians to observe his teaching, (v.2) on "covered and uncovered heads," but did not teach peopl"elsewhere" to do so. He said: "The sign whicexisted by custom in Corinth did not prevail everywhere else and conformity to it would not signifythe same thing everywhere." I suppose that Bro.Patton expects us to accept that statement "at facevalue" BECAUSE HE SAID IT! It is purely a umption to say that Paul taught the Corinthians to "observe the custom" ( ?) of "covered and uncovered heads," and leave the impression that no one else,anywhere, was commanded thus to do! Bro. Patton missed Paul's point altogether in verse 16. Chas B. Williams renders this verse:" But if anyone is inclined to be contentious about it, I for my part prescribe NO OTHER PRACTICE THAN THIS, AND NEITHER DO THE CHURCHES OF GOD." (Caps mine, WHL) Moffatt says "... I acknowledge noother MODE OF WORSHIP, AND NEITHER DOCHURCHES OF GOD." (Caps mine, WHL) Adam Clarke said: "BUT IF ANY MAN SEEM TO BE CONTENTIOUS— If any person sets himself up as

a wrangler— puts himself forward as a defender of such points, that a WOMAN MAY PRAY WITH HER HEAD UNCOVERED, AND THAT A MAN MAY, WITHOUT REPROACH, HAVE LONG HAIR: let him know that we have no such custom as either, NOR ARE THEY SANCTIONED BY ANY OF THE CHURCHES OF GOD, WHETHER AMONG THE JEWS OR THE GENTILES." (Caps mine, WHL).

It seems strange that Paul "built an argument" in verses 2-15, saying that a man should NOT "cover" his head when he "pr ays or pr ophesies", and have"short hair," and that a woman MUST 'cover" her head, and have "long hair ", when she does the same thing, and then Bro. Patton says, "It, therefore, admits the possibility of his being elsewher e," andwhile "elsewher e" HE WAS NOT TEACHING THE SAME THING THAT HE TAUGHT THE CORINT HI ANS. Had Paul done that, other should have called him "a crank or unreasonable man."

Much more needs to be said on this matter, but I am limited to the space that I can use in this "r e-view". I hope that I will be permitted to go into amore detailed study of this passage sometimes in the future. I have prepared mimeographed lesson on this subject which is more in detail than was this article. If you would like one FREE wr ite me: William H. Lewis, 2986 So. Roena St., Indianapolis, Indiana—46241.

Each of the fourteen volumes of New Testament Commentaries is clear and nontechnical, easy to understand and easy to use. Each volumeprovides detailed verse-by-verse explanation of the Biblical book or books it covers.

Matthew, by H. L eo Boles ......................... $3.75Mark, by C. E . W. Dorris ........................... 3.75Luke, by H. Leo Boles .................................. 3.75John, by C. E. W. Dorris ........................... 3.75Acts, by H. L eo Boles ............................... 3.75Romans, by David L ipscomb

& J. W. Shepherd .................................... 3.75 I Corinthians, by David Lipscomb & J. W. Shepherd .................................... 3.75 !l Corinthians and Galatians, by David Lipscomb & J. W. Shepherd .................. 3.75

Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, by J. W. Shepherd ................................ 3.75 I & II Thessalonians, I & II Timothy, Titus,

Philemon, by J. W. Shepherd ............. 3.75 Hebrews, by Robert Milligan .................... 3.75 James, by Guy N. Woods............................ 3.75 I & II Peter; I, II & II I John; Jude,

by Guy N. Woods ................................ 3.75 Revelation, by John T . Hinds .................... 3.75 The set of 14 volumes — $49.50

BROTHER LEWIS' REVIEW

Elsewhere in this issue will be found a review bybrother William H. Lewis of my article on I Cor. 11:1-16 which appeared in the April 1967 issue of Searching The Scriptures.

I sincerely appreciate his spirit, and from his statements and mine (in my former article) it should beobvious that we share mutual feelings toward the work of discussing issues and reviewing what is said. Furthermore, we have mutual appreciation and esteem for each other. It was not my purpose, however, to become this involved when I wrote first on the subject. I thought it best to leave such to those writing the exchange articles referred to in the former article. However, brother Phillips explains that further delay has been encountered, so I ampleased to extend the discussion.

In reviewing another, one must be careful to understand clearly what is reviewed and deal fairly with what is said. T his sometimes r equir es close, careful, reading and study. Brother Lewis' review leaves much to be desir ed in this r espect as thefollowing obser vations will show.

In paragraph one he makes a statement which asit appears hardly represents me clearly. I believethat Paul taught in I Cor. 11:2 -16 (1) that the use of the covering was in conformity to custom, (2)that the "custom" signified submission to the divineorder of authority established in these verses, and

(3) that wherever this custom prevailed the covering should be used as directed. I, therefore, believe thatwhat Paul taught in I Cor. 11:2-16, as outlined above,is as binding today as then.

THE PASSOVER

In paragraph five brother Lewis tries to makecapital out of my use of the words "pass over." I ask, Why not "pass over" that on which we already agree? My use of the expression applies to nothing else— and to make any other application of it is to pervert my statement. I even named what was to be passed over, namely, the relationships set forth inthese verses which as I said, still exist," and withwhich brother Lewis says, "I agree."

I realize that some make an argument based uponthe relationship set forth. Concerning this argument, which brother Lewis makes in his article, I am not disposed to pass over. We shall deal with it presently. There is a difference, however, in passing over an ar gument based upon this r elationship and in passing over the relationship itself and the line of ar gument establishing it. T hus, the accusation of

observing the "pa over" is an unfair treatment of the matter. Formerly I sought to show why I believed what Paul bound on the Corinthians was a "custom." Other arguments were left for the exchange articles planned by brother Phillips. Brother Lewis' "Review" deals largely with matters not in my article, and, therefore, is hardly a review of whatI wrote. The reader will notice that he "observed the pass over" himself so far as my arguments are concerned.

PERTINENT QUESTION

My article posed a pertinent question to the i ue,namely, Why did the covering signify respect forthe divine order set forth ? Furthermore, I said, "The real i ue cannot be decided until this question is answered in the light of truth." There followed comments showing the importance of this question. Brother Lewis passed over all this.

PRAYING AND PROPHESYING

Brother Lewis' section under the above caption is not a review of anything I said or implied. I afully aware that one does not have to be inspired for these verses to apply. Whether or not a woman today must have on her head a "sign of submission"to the man (v. 10) when she prays ,depends uponthe answer to the "pertinent question" referred toabove which brother Lewis conveniently passed over.

GENERIC AND SPECIFIC

Brother Lewis' attempt to answer my argumenton the generic and specific coverings of verses four and six fails of its objective. Whether one is "veiled" OR "covers one's self" with something else is of little import so far as the meaning of the original words are concerned. My argument involved thmeaning of "kata kalupto" which excludes a hat, cap, turban, and anything that does not "fully cover" the head. Thus, a specific type of covering is authorized for the woman. Again, the argument I madewhich involved the meaning of the word was passed over.

None of the translators quoted by brother Lewis are at variance with anything I said concerning thmeaning of the original words. No, not just anythingthat keeps a woman from being "bareheaded" will"fill the bill." Why? Because verse six shows the sense in which she is not to be "bareheaded." Paul said "let her be covered"— "kata kalupto"— which means "fully covered."

MISSING LINK

Now, to the argument based upon the relationships set forth in these verses. Brother Lewis affirms that the use of this "covering" is bound today as in Corinth, "and for the same reason." This reason he explains to be the relationship of man over womanwhich relationship still exist. Brother Lewis is wrongabout this because his chain of logic has a missinglink. Without this missing link his conclusion is an assumption. The mi ing link is proof of the universal signification of the covering. Even he admits that the covering is a "sign of submi ion to the man(v.10)." The use of the covering according to Paul's directions to the Corinthians was a sign of the relationship set forth and which must always be respected. Therefore, while the relationship is the foundation for all that is taught, the reason for the covering was that it signified the relationship— it was a sign of it. The i ue, then, is not, Do these relationships exist today? T hey do! It is not, Musthese relationships be respected now? They must! The i ue is, Are they signified with the same thing everywhere? I affirm the sign changes according ttime, place, and circumstances. This brings us back to the issue set forth in my former article whichshows this sign to be given in the first place because of local usage and custom. I submitted a threefold argument in proof of this position. While brother Lewis made brief reference to some things in thearguments, he passed over the argument itself inevery instance. Until these arguments are met andset aside (shown to be in error) the position stands! In connection with th3 above argument brotheLewis submitted five more reasons for the woman wearing the covering today. Reasons one throughthree involve the same missing link identified above. The answer to one is the answer to the other. Reasons four and five are related and depend upon thmeaning of the word "nature." My answer to this appears in my former article in an argument on the word "nature." This, too, brother Lewis passed over. Reason number six is only an assertion. I offered proof to the contrary in my former article whichproof (involving the absence of the word "other" in the original text )was also passed over. While Paul did not call the covering a "custom" in verse seven,he did in verse sixteen. When Paul said man ought to cover his head "because he is in the image and gloryof God," it was because of what the covering signified. Again, brother Lewis' logic is in error because of the mi ing link identified above.

VERSE SIXTEEN

My answer to further comments on verse sixteen,

especially the various translations, will be found i

my former article which point was passed over in

the "Review."

However, if it be granted that some of the trans

lators are right in supplying the word "other," little

is lost so far as the position I affirm is concerned. We

would then conclude that it was a universal custom

in Paul's day. We would still have to reckon with the

meaning of the word "custom" as pointed out in m

former article. This shows the "covering" to be ac

cording to customary usage and not that prescribed

by law. Hence, the "covering" is to be used where

the custom prevails and where it is a sign of th

divine order set forth in these verses. Such sign does

not prevail either in our day or our country.

Please check the date on this i ue and if it is due or over due, send your check for renewal today. We do not want to take your name from our mailing list, but we will have to do so unless we receive your renewal soon if it is due. Wethank you for your immediate consideration ofthis matter.

H. E. Phillips

THE POWER OF APOSTOLIC EXAMPLES

It was about fourteen years ago in a little towcalled Clarksville, Arkansas that I began to get meducation on what some preachers in the church ofChrist really believed. It was during a meeting, iwhich I was preaching, that a conversation came upbetween the local preacher, whose initials were, I believe, Billy Hale and me. It has been a long time ago so I can't be too sure about his last name. Billy sat in a swivel chair as we discussed the "i ues" of the day. He had just graduated from Harding Collegeand was filled with zeal, which was very good if it had been directed into proper channels. I pointed out to Billy that authority was established three ways—direct command, apostolic examples and necessaryinference. I went on to show that Acts 20:7, gives us the TIME of the Lord's Supper by apostolic examplejust as II Cor. 11:8 and Phil. 4:15,16 give us an approved example for sending DIRECTLY to the evangelist. I went on to emphasize that it would be wrongto eat the Lord's Supper any other time, just as it would be wrong for a church to support a preacher any other way; thus making Herald of Truth andsponsoring churches unscriptural. He got the message but turned quickly in his swivel chair and said,"Ward, I want to tell you something; I don't believe apostolic examples establish authority for us today."I got my breath and said, "Well, Billy, do you believe we must eat the Lord's Supper on Sunday only ?" He replied, "No sir, I don't. I feel that we could eat theLord's Supper every day if we wanted to, as long as we observe it on Sunday. ' I said, "Billy, do your elders know you feel this way about the Lord's Supper?" He replied, "No, they sure don't, because there are many things I believe they do not knoabout."

Thus, it was in this little town at the foot of theOzarks that I really learned where we were headed.Since that time many preachers, like Custer's men,have "Bit the dust" in regard to apostolic examples. Gentle reader, do you know that every major apostasy since the inception of the church has come as a result of men denying APOSTOLIC EXAMPLES?

The first major apostasy was the one Paul talkedabove when he said, "Now the spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, andoctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received withthanksgiving of them which believe and know thtruth" (I Tim.4:l-3). How did this apostasy start? Brethren ignored the APOSTOLIC EXAMPLES of a plurality of elders in every congregation. They said the approved examples were not binding and that oneelder in a congregation was as good as a half dozen. This led to the great Roman Catholic apostasy anthe appointment of a POPE a few years later. Did you know that we have no direct command for a plurality of elders in every church? All we have isAPOSTOLIC EXAMPLES! Who among us would like to ignore these approved examples and go backto ONE MAN RULE? Some of the scriptures which emphasize this fact are I Pet. 5:1 Acts 20:17. At one time I was rebuked for the above affirmation. A preacher told me that Titus 1:5 was a direct command for a plurality of elders in every church. I denied this assertion and here is why— Paul said to Titus, "Ordain elders in every city." Notice he didnot say in every church but every city. If there is anyone who thinks there was only one church in acity he needs to read Rom. 16:5. If Titus had ordained one elder in a church on the south side of town and one elder in a church on the north side of town he would have EL DE RS (plural) in the citbut not in every church! So we go right back twhere we started— APOSTOLIC EXAMPLES.

The second major apostasy was over the mi ionary society which came to pass about 1849. What was the argument for its justification ? The brethren said the Lord had authorized the churches to cooperate but had not told them how; therefore the mi ionary society was set up as a means of church cooperation. When brethren began to point out that churches in Bible times sent DIRECT to the evangelist (II Cor. 1:8; Phil. 4:15), and not through a society, the innovators ignored their plea, and let it be known that they did not feel that APOSTOLIC EXAMPLES were binding. Thus, one can easily see what happens when brethren cross the Rubicon (as Leroy Garrett would say) of denying approved examples. There was no turning back but a continued march intoapostasy.

The third major apostasy happened the same wayMany of us tried to tell our liberal brethren that the sponsoring churches and benevolent societies were unscriptural because they violated the APOSTOLIC EXAMPLES of the Bible. They would not listen. Although many of them have not been as frank and fair as Billy, when he said we didn't have to eat the Lord's Supper on Sunday only, they are still fishingout of the same boat! One must deny the power ofApostolic examples in order to endorse the Herald of Truth, Sponsoring churches or the Orphan home.In my public and private discu ions with brethren on these matters they all sing the same song. They say, "The Lord authorized churches to cooperate but he did not tell them how, therefore we can use the sponsoring church if we so desire." Robert Gordon Clements, with whom I debated several years agosaid, "Ward, I don't deny that they sent DIRECTLY to Paul, and you can do it that way if you desire, butdon't tell us we can't do it some other way." Yes indeed ! A First Christian Church preacher said to me,"Hogland, go ahead and sing if you desire, I don't

". . . THEY REHEARSED ALL THAT GOD HAD DOSE WITH THEM . . ."— Acts 14:27

object but don't tell us we can't have our instrument if we want to."

Remember, gentle friends, if you deny APOSTOLIC EXAMPLES you must admit that one elder could ser ve a congr egation. You must also agr ee that Christians could observe the Lord's Supper anytime; and that a Missionar y Society is a scriptural way for churches to cooperate. Are you ready for this ? If not, for salvation of your soul and the glor y of God, giveup the innovations of the day and let us join handsand hearts across the Bible as it teaches us by direct command, approved examples and necessary inference.

RUFUS ALTON ELLIOTT John A. Thurman, Lake City, Fla.

On Saturday afternoon, August 12, 1967, AltonElliott and a brother -in-law were playing golf inMacon, Geor gia, when Alton became dizzy and hadto return to the car. When he was found about 3:45

p.m. he lay slumped over in the front seat and unconscious. After being rushed to a Macon hospital, it was found that he had a cerebral hemorrhage. Heremained in serious condition and unconscious until his death early on Sunday. Br other Conway Skinner of Buford, South Carolina, conducted the funeral services Tuesday afternoon, August 15th, at Hart's Mortuary in downtown Macon. Brother Elliott hadbeen an evangelist for several years working withcongregations in Florida and Georgia. At the timeof his death he was ser ving the chur ch in Jesup,Georgia. Previously he had served the Trilacooche church in Trilby, Florida; the Spring Warrior church near Perr y, Florida. Alton attended Florida Collegein Tampa. He is survived by his wife, Doris Elliott, a devoted and faithful Christian. Sister Elliott will reside with r elatives in Macon. Br other E lliott died while on his first vacation in several years.

Harold Tabor moves to Nacogdoches. After three years in Indianapolis, Harold Tabor is moving toNacogdoches, Texas where he will succeed Yater Tant in teaching Bible to students from Stephen

F. Austin State College. While in Indianapolis he completed his work on a Master of Arts in Old Testament. He worked part-time with the Belmontcongregation for one year, assisting in the singing and teaching programs. For the past two years, hehas been working with the West Washington Street congregation. Bill G. Echols will begin work with this congregation the first of September.

Ward Hogland, Box 166, Greenville, Texas— Meetings this year include Union Heights, Eldorado, Ar k.; Myrtle Grove, Pensacola, Fla.; Jackson Heights, Columbia, Tenn.; Martinville, Ark.; Rienzi, Miss.; Cash, Texas; Riverside Drive, Nashville, Tenn.; Bagdad, Pensacola, Fla.; Northside, Conway, Ark. It was good to have Keith Sharp, C. R. McRay and Jim Beach to pr each while I was away. We ar e helpingin the support of these fine men.

Max Ray, Greensburg, Ky.— After almost two years with the Greensburg, Kentucky church, I am interested in moving to work with another congregation. I am 30 years of age, married and have twochildren. I have been preaching 10 years. If inter ested, please contact me at 513 Columbia Highway,Greensburg, Ky. 42743. My phone is 932-4193.

Ray Smith, P.O. Box 87, Chiefland, Fla.— T he chur ch in Chiefland, Florida desires to contact apreacher of the gospel to labor with them. If interested, please contact me at the above address.

Larry A. Bunch, Palmetto, Fla. — The church of Christ meeting at 420 9th Ave. will conduct a Gospel Meeting October 1-8 with Edwin Hayes doing thepreaching. We will meet at 7:30 each week-nightand on Sunday at 9:30 a.m. for Bible Study, 10:30

a.m. and 6:30 p.m. for Worship services. To our winter visitors in this area we extend an invitation to worship with us during your stay here. The church in Palmetto and the one in Cortez presents a half-hour radio program each Sunday at 8:00 a.m. over WTRL 1490 Bradenton.

DEBATE IN AKRON, OHIO

Connie W. Adams, Akron, Ohio 44301

Ferrell Jenkins of the Brown St. congregation and Bill Heinselman of the Westside congr egation, bothin Akron, will meet in public discussion Dec. 4th,5th, 7th and 8th. On Dec. 4th and 7th the debatewill be held in the Brown St. building at 1835 Brown St. On Dec. 5th and 8th it will be held in the West-side building at 645 Revere Rd. Sessions will begin at 7:30 each evening. Propositions the first twonights involve the scripturality of chur ches contributing to such benevolent institutions as Midwestern Children's Home, Cincinnati, Ohio; andPotter Orphan Home and School, Inc., Bowling Gr een, Ky. Heinselman will def end such pr actice while Jenkins will deny that it is scriptural.

T he last two nights pr opositions concer n the Her ald of Tr uth with Heinselman def ending it andJenkins opposing it.

These men are able representatives of the viewsthey hold. We urge all who can to avail themselves of this opportunity to study these issues in this manner.

— 303 Selden Ave.

Charles E. Murray, Lake Wales, Fla. — I preached in a meeting at Montrose, Arkansas, August 6-13. T wo wer e baptized and one r estor ed. T he congr egation at Montrose is only a little over two years old, but has made a remarkable growth in that time.

They own the property and the meeting house where they worship. The meeting was well attended eachnight. Jimmy Lane is the preacher there.

James P. Miller, 2523 West Diana, Tampa, Fla.—T he summer months have not found me idle. I have preached in several meetings. In July I was with the Jor don Par k congr egation in Huntsville, Alabama and enjoyed the stay with Leonard Tylerand this fine congregation of the Lord's people. Jordon Park is a strong congregation of over 300 members. During the meeting we broke all records in recent years for attendance at all services. I also enjoyed the fellowship and support of brethren Patton, question and answer man for the paper, and Jackson who preach for other fine congregations in the city. Brother Granville Tyler from Decatur and many other preachers were in attendance . . . From Huntsville I went to Bear Wallow, Kentucky. This fine rural congregation is about four miles from Horse Cave and is in the beautiful cave section of Kentucky. It was a joy to be with brother Max Ogden who is much loved by the people in southern Kentucky. The cause of truth is strong in Northern Alabama and is making fine progress in Kentucky. A score of preachers, mostly young men, attended themeeting at Bear Wallow. It was encour aging to meto see them standing for truth ... At this writing Iam in a meeting with the Blue Ash congr egation inCincinnati, Ohio. Br other Fred Stacey has justmoved to take up the wor k of an evangelist her e. Brother Stacey is a young man of fine ability. BlueAsh is the oldest of the congregations in the citystanding for the all-sufficiency of the church. There ar e sever al other s, all medium in size, standing f or the old paths. By medium I mean fr om 135 to 175members. The Blue Ash congregation meets at 4667 Cooper Road . . . The church in Covington with John Welch meets at 2630 James Avenue . . . E vendale with John Clark at 3759 Glendale-Milfird Road . . . Lockland with Wayne Chaooell at 419 West Wyoming ... Pisgah with Leo Plyer on Route 42 and Dimmick Rd. . . . L oveland Heights with H. A. Mobleyat 1556 West L oveland Avenue.

MEETING AT SEMINOLE, TAMPA, FLA.

Brother Don Bassett of Sacramento, California will do the preaching in a meeting with the Seminole church in October. The dates for the series are October 15-25. Brother Bassett formerly worked withthe chur ch her e and all ar e looking for war d to his return. Services will be at 7:30 each evening.

RODNEY MILLER TO FT. WORTH

My son Rodney M. Miller is now working with theHaltom City congr egation in Haltom City, T exas. This is a part of greater Ft. Worth on the east side of the city. The church meets at 6101 Linton andalthough small in number is strong in faith and making good progress. If you are in Ft. Worth visitwith them.

WORD STUDIES IN NEW TESTAMENT BENEVOLENCE: No. 6

ELEEMOSUNE

T he wor d eleemosune occurs thirteen times in the Greek Testament, and in fifty-nine passages in theSeptuagint. In classical Greek the term means "pity," "mercy" in the primary sense, and "charity," "alms" in the secondary sense. Moulton observes that theterm is used frequently in Tobit for alms-giving,(Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, p. 203.) Thekoine Greek lexicons define the word "kind deed,""alms," "charitable giving," in the primary sense,and Acts 24:17 is given as a case in point.

PROSPHORA

Prosphora, which occurs in fourteen passages inthe LXX, is used in the papyri for dowry in marriage, and for gifts of various sorts.

The primary meaning of prosphora in classical Greek is "bringing to," "applying," "offering," (from prosphero, "I bring to"). Secondary meanings are "bounty," "benefit," "food," etc.

Prosphora, occurring in nine passages in the Greek T estament, is usually, in the New T estament use, "sacrifice," offering," with the secondary sense of "gift."

"GIFTS AND OFFERINGS"

The expression elemosunas kai prosphoras ("gifts and offerings") is cited particularly because of its relation to the contribution for the saints in Judea. T he major ity of Bible students connect both of these terms to the contribution, but some assert that theformer term only, refers to the collection. It will ber emember ed that Paul said, as he closed his thir d mission tour in Jerusalem, "... I come to bring alms and offerings," Acts 24:17. This apparently refers to the collection taken from the churches for the saints in Jerusalem. As it has been stated, however, some students assert that the "offerings" refer tothe sacrifices that Paul made in the Temple in connection with the vow he took, Acts 21:26.

DIAKONEO

Diakoneo occurs thirty-four times in the Greek T estament, and denotes "to minister to one," "to offer food and drink to guests at table." But the koine Greek lexicons give the meaning "supply food andthe necessaries of life" as the word is used in Rom.

15:25. This is, therefore, what Paul had in mindwhen he said that he was going to "minister" to the poor saints in Jerusalem.

"FORCED BAPTISM" AND ROMAN CATHOLIC HOSPITALS

In the past few weeks, a report has been circulated to the effect that a Catholic hospital in theState of Indiana, was the scene of the "forced baptism" of a little four-year-old girl whose parents are not Catholics. This report has been more recently denied by the hospital authorities, and the non-Catholic minister who wrote the initial report of the alleged instance, has "retracted" the report, according to the ST. LOUIS REVIEW, a Roman Catholicpublication.

However, inasmuch as this writer knows nothing of the actual happenings in Indiana, we consider it to be of value for us to present some excerpts from authentic Roman Catholic publications, explainingthe Catholic practice of administering "baptism" topatients in hospitals, etc.

"In the case of children who are in some danger but who may live until the use of reason, Baptism should be withheld unless at least one of the parents consents, and there is reason tobelieve that the child will be brought up as aCatholic. In the case of children who are in immediate danger of death, or actually dying, however, Baptism should be administered at once,secretly if necessary." (The Catholic Nurse, byBrian D. Johnson, page 155, Second Edition, Published 1952.)

Please note that the above quotation indicates that baptism may be withheld IF THERE IS REA-SON TO BELIEVE THAT THE CHILD WILL BE BROUGHT UP AS A CATHOLIC. Also, please note that if the child is in danger of death, or actually dying, BAPTISM SHOULD BE ADMINISTERED AT ONCE, SECRETLY IF NECESSARY! This instruction is contained in a book of instructions for the nurse who is a Roman Catholic, and is contained in a chapter entitled: "When Should One Baptise?" Here is another quotation from an authenticCatholic publication:

"In the case of the new-born child, baptism is to be administered as soon as there is danger of death. This favor is to be accorded even to children of non-Catholic parents unless there is a certainty that the parents will be displeased

Living Bible Lessons Workbooks

by such action, and hatred or persecution of the Church will be the result, even though the baptism be secret." (Moral Problems In HospitalPractice, by Finney & O'Brien, Copyrighted1956, page 282.)

This second quotation admits that baptism "IS TO BE ACCORDED EVEN TO CHILDREN OF NON-CATHOLIC PARENTS" unless it is CERTAIN that the parents would be displeased by the action or secondly, that hatred and persecution of the Catholic Church would result. . . "EVEN THOUGH THE BAPTISM BE SECRET."

Concerning ADULTS who are UNCONSCIOUS . . . the same book instructs:

"If a person is unconscious and would have no means of learning that he was baptized, so that there is no danger of resultant hatred or persecution of the Church, such an adult ought

to be baptized. This is true even if the patient

has been heard to express apparently contradic

tory intentions." (Moral Problems, etc., Pag

280.) In the above quotation, the Catholic idea seems to be ... "If He Has No Means of Learning" about what we've done, then go to it, even though the Catholic hospital personnel have heard the patient express opposite intentions! It is no wonder that MartinLuther rebelled at the almost apparent Catholic practice of "salvation by works alone" . . . because certainly the unconscious adult who had previously expressed contradictory intentions would not havemet the terms of BELIEF and REPENTANCE, prior to immersion. Of course, Martin Luther went to theopposite extreme and asserted that salvation is by"faith only". . . and by so doing, he and his followers were and are equally in error as is Rome.As a final quotation on this subject, we copy from page 279, of "Moral ProblemsIn Hospital Practice":"If the person is more than seven years old,and has normal powers, baptism should not beconferred upon him unless he agrees to it, fothe reception of baptism means the acceptanceof certain beliefs and responsibilities. If the person is not yet seven years old, or does not havenormal mental powers, he may be baptized in an emergency for the good of his soul. His later rejection of the beliefs or responsibilities, should he survive, will not remove the effects of the baptism."The above paragraph scarcely needs any explanation from this writer. Po ibly one suggestion mightbe in order . . . and that is put in the form of a question: "When a patient has been given a sedative (sleeping medicine), can it be said that the patient no longer has "normal powers" and is therefore asuitable subject for Catholic hospital baptism byforce?"