AN EXPLANATION AND SOME GOALS

It is time that I made some explanation for notwriting for Searching The Scriptures. Several have asked about it, and some have written to inquire if Icontinued to have health problems, or if there wereother reasons for not writing. Let me assure the readerthat it has not been the fault of brother Connie Adams. He has asked me several times to prepare articles forthe paper, and I told him I would, but circumstancesintervened and I was unable to fulfill my promise atthat time. I have no ill will toward any writer for the paper; I have no problem with the editor, in fact we arebest of friends. I am not opposed to the paper in anysense. The problems have been my own.

In the May, 1973 issue of Searching The Scriptures— the last issue I was to edit before transferring the editorship to Connie W. Adams—I said in the editorial, "I shall continue, the Lord willing, to write regularly for Searching The Scriptures and shall continue both financially and otherwise to help him keep this good work going.''

In the same issue brother Adams wrote of the future of Searching The Scriptures and said, "It should comfort and reassure us all to know that he will have space in this paper to write on any subject he chooseswhenever he wants to do it, even to criticizing the neweditor and his efforts." I have found no cause to write any critical articles of the editor's work thus far, and Iam sure he will continue on the same course.

Soon after this transfer of the paper to brother Connie W. Adams, he asked if I would write regularlyon the front page. To this I agreed and we had a verbalunderstanding that I would write on this page of the

paper under the heading, "Think On These Things." I have not been able to fulfill by obligation because ofhealth problems known to most of the readers of thisjournal. In addition, I have undertaken additional work, when health permitted it, that combined meeting work and preparing some more permanentwork in book form. Within the past year I have donemore meeting work than usual, and have spent aboutone month in Italy, Switzerland and Germany. I amnot complaining, just explaining. I have now put somethings in order that will permit me to do regularwriting for Searching The Scriptures.

Crossroads Church

With some degree of disgust I have read variousviews of the "Crossroads Church of Christ Philosophy" (Gainesville, Florida) over the pastseveral months. Ira Rice, Jr. leveled his big gunsat Crossroads two or three times. The GospelAdvocate had their turn at bat. Yater Tant made a visit to Crossroads and wrote his impressions of theirwork from his point of view. More recently Jimmy Tuten visited with the elders and preacher at Crossroads and examined their program of work, andhe reported his impressions in several articles in Truth Magazine. I have noted in several bulletins that others have had their say about this church and itsphenomenal success (?) in converting people to Christ. My curiosity is aroused: I must make someobservations of the Crossroads Philosophy. I lay noclaim to possess full knowledge of what this sectariangroup is doing, but I know enough about the workingand organizational structure of this church to know itis thoroughly denominational.

I moved to Gainesville, Florida to work with the East University Avenue church in the summer of1953. At that time the institutional issues had not developed to the point of dividing churches, eventhough some very hot battles were going on. I knewthat the elders and several of the members there were of "liberal" persuasion, but they really did not knowwhat the "issues" were all about. In the 1950's I talked to Richard Whitehead and Rogers Bartley, whoare now the "elders" at Crossroads, about some growing problems at the 14th Street church of Christ

(which is now Crossroads Church of Christ), including theproblem of Premillennialism, which the preacher there believed in part at the time. I was well acquainted with these men and most of the members at 14th Street church for the more than seven years I was there. Eventhen the emphasis was upon the appeal to college students via the "social gospel." It was important tothem, long before Crossroads was thought of, to makewhatever compromise they could afford in order to beaccepted by all, both liberal churches of Christ and denominationalism.

Through the years it was inevitable that 14th Streetchurch in Gainesville, Florida should eventually arrive atthe place in departure from the faith where we now findCrossroads. As far as I am concerned, this body of peopleis a "liberal" denomination among denominations. Ihave been disturbed by the reports of visits to Crossroadsand the commendable appraisals that have appeared insome of the religious papers over the past several months.The impression made upon me as I read these approving articles is that these inspectors have been beleaguered bythe smooth denominational operation and the impressivenumber baptized each month, plus the near cultic demands made upon all members. They call this "TotalCommitment"! Other persuasive characteristics includethe emotional appeal that they will "meet with anyone to answer any question about their work." This is not altogether true. I doubt that they would agree to meet with me because I would be considered hostile to their organization, doctrine and work. I have good reason to believe that they will not meet with everyone who wants to examine what they are doing. We shall see whatwe shall see!

In articles to come I intend to speak my personalevaluation of Crossroads Church of Christ, and why I consider it a serious danger to God's people wherever theymay be. I have no desire to hurt anyone, but neither do Iwant to see men and women go to hell for following amultitude to sin. It is far better to me to see Crossroads destroyed, if possible, than to see innocent people, young and old, be lost by the ingathering of the whirlpool offalse teaching and practice that drown men in the destruction of their faith. A series of articles will appearunder this heading in the months to come on the Crossroads Church of Christ.

Brother Adams has also asked me to prepare somearticles on the "Pentecostal, Emotional Devotionalism" that has captured so many young menand women in the last few years. This thing is seldomunderstood when it first appears and is often ignoredin communities around the country. It is pictured asenthusiastic, scriptural work of young people whowant to fulfill their own spiritual needs and help othersbe "strong in the faith." It is in reality adenominational gimmick to hypnotize the young andimpressionable minds of many who want to do something, but lack knowledge of the word of God andthe wisdom to discern between right and wrong. Theybecome easy prey to those who have ambition of"leadership" and the applause of their followers. Thisunguided and unnatural emotional "devotional" is as dangerous to the faith as the doctrine of Calvinism. In

THE WORK OF AN EVANGELIST

"But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry" (2 Tim. 4:5). There is a woeful lack of understanding among brethren as to the work of anevangelist. While all the reasons for this may not beknown, it is certain that, to some extent, denominational concepts have molded the thinking ofsome who have not bothered to search the scriptures tosee what the Lord taught about it. Denominationalismhas its "clergy-laity" distinctions unknown to the NewTestament. This concept has resulted in undue powerfalling into the hands of preachers, and the furtherrobbing of many of the blessings of services which allChristians should perform.

What His Work Is Not

(1) It is not the duty (nor the right) of an evangelist to "take over the work," A few years ago a brotherasked me when I was moving to a certain place to"take over the church." I informed him that I was not going to "take over the church" at all, that the congregation had elders to oversee the flock, to rule,and to watch for souls, including my own, and that Iwas simply going to labor with them in the preachingand teaching of the gospel. Even where there are noelders, preachers are not to rule. A preacher has one voice in business matters, along with other faithfulmen, but no more. It is regrettable that there are somepreachers who are determined to "rule or ruin." (2) It is not his work to help the church "climb thesocial ladder." Some are disposed to put great store bywhat they call being a "good mixer." Preachers, likeother Christians, should be conversant with ordinarysocial amenities (evidently some are not), should showhospitality, and not withdraw themselves into ivorytowers of isolation from the brethren with whom theywork. But there are some who want us to "mix" with the fraternal orders and business clubs of the town, court the favor of the ministerial alliance and in general pursue the course of increasing the prestige ofthe church in the community. All Christians, includingpreachers, should conduct themselves honorably in allthings. When that is done then God is glorified and thechurch will be "in favor" with honest people. But it isnot the work of a preacher to be some sort of socialbutterfly flitting here and there to satisfy all the socialaspirations of some untaught members. (3) It is not his work to be a church coach, planningand executing recreational activities for the young orolder members. (4) It is not the work of an evangelist to be the of

ficial visitor of the sick as the bona fide representativeof the congregation. As a Christian, he shares with allother Christians a responsibility toward the sick, butthat is not his duty because he is a preacher.

What His Work Is

(1) He is to "preach the word" (2 Tim. 4:2). An evangelist is a herald of good news, the word coming from the same root as the word "gospel." "Preacher" means "proclaimer." He is to be an instructor (2 Tim.2:25), and a good minister (servant) of Christ (1 Tim.4:6). His service of proclaiming and instructing is to bedone both publicly and privately as opportunity arises(Acts 20:20). Some men pride themselves on being great pulpiteers, but are deficient in personal teaching.Others develop great skill in "personal work" but givelittle attention to the effectiveness of their publicteaching. Both are deficiencies.

Jesus often taught the individual (Nicodemus, thewoman at the well, Zacchaeus). Philip could reachgreat crowds in Samaria and then go teach and convertone man (Acts 8:5-39).

Notice the restrictive nature of what is to be preached—"the word." There is no place left for opinion ("it seems to me", "probably", "maybe","perhaps"), for book reviews, PTA talks in the pulpit,philosophical disputations and speculative theories. Itis the "engrafted word" which is able to save the soul(Jas. 1:21). The preaching of that word involves reproving error, rebuking ungodliness and exhorting to faithfulness (2 Tim. 4:1-5). This is to be done with"all longsuffering and doctrine."

(2) In order to "preach the word" it is necessary to"give attendance to reading" (1 Tim. 4:13), to "meditate upon these things" (verse 16) that our "profiting may appear to all" (verse 15). Who can teach what he does not know? Who knows what he has not studied? This requires good translations, booksand more books. These are the tools of an evangelist.Carpenters need hammers and saws, mechanics needwrenches, and preachers need books. Then there mustbe a generous portion of time spent in diligent study.Paul had "books, but especially the parchments" (2Tim. 4:13). It is a mistake not to add useful tools ofstudy as finances permit. But it is also a grave mistaketo neglect the study of the actual text of what God said while giving most of our study time to what men have said about what God said.

If a preacher allows himself to become the errandboy for the congregation, or the official arbiter of allmarriage problems so that he has little time to study,it will soon become apparent. He will arise to speak having to say something but having nothing to say.Time will hang heavy on his hands and will impose hislack of preparation on a people whose patience willgradually wear thin. This is commonly known as "running out of soap." Audiences will have much moreconfidence in what a man teaches when it is evident that he has studied the matter through and knowswhereof he speaks.

Most local preachers have five or six public lessonsto present each week (not counting gospel meetings,bulletin and newspaper articles, and sometimes radioprograms which require extra time and preparation), tosay nothing of occasions for private studies. Besides

that, every preacher needs to discipline himself tostudy subjects for his own edification, and not justbecause he has to "get up a lesson." Such diligence willgreatly enrich his teaching and edify his hearers.Having devoted himself to the will of God, he can then"speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority"(Tit. 2:15).

Faulty concepts, unscriptural and unreasonable demands, and malpractice on the part of some preachers have created much ill-will within congregations and have contributed to the seriousshortage of gospel preachers. The work of an evangelist is vital to the well-being of the kingdom ofGod and should neither be retarded by untaughtbrethren nor by lazy and inefficient preachers,

BEGINNING VOLUME 22

We enter our twenty-second year of service with thesame purposes which have marked this work since itbegan. We desire to promote and encourage that whichis good and stand opposed to whatever is contrary tosound doctrine. Issues come and go but truth remainsconstant. We intend to continue searching thescriptures to settle every question or subject for studyin terms of a "thus saith the Lord." That good and worthy men shall differ in judgment and in application of various passages we are certain. Such papers as thisprovide a means by which timely Bible subjects can bestudied. Reason demands that some limits be set as to how much space to allot to any given discussion. Thatis why an editor's job is not always easy to fill. But aslong as this work is in my hands, I will do the best Ican to direct this effort to do the most good possible. Itis comforting to have the help of so many capablewriters and the counsel of trusted friends to help. Wecovet the prayers of devout Christians everywherethat this effort may contribute something worthwhileto the spiritual enrichment of those into whose handsit may fall.

During 1981 the editor is to speak in gospel meetingsin the following places:March—Gonzales, Louisiana and Madison, Indiana April—Wellandport, Ontario, Canada and Tomlinson

Run, Pennsylvania May—Lakeview, Hendersonville, Tennessee and

Sandy Ridge (near Barnesville), Ohio June— Houston, Mississippi and Bruce, Mississippi July— Warner Robins, Georgia and Buckhorn (near

Pontotoc), MississippiAugust—Dade City, Florida and Kansas City, Missouri September—Eastside, Bowling Green, Kentucky and

Wellsburg, West VirginiaOctober—Southeast, Akron, Ohio and Martinez, Georgia November—Paden City, West Virginia and Lake City,

Florida

Watch for specific dates in these areas and attend ifyou can. We meet readers everywhere we go andconsider that a fringe benefit in our work.

I suppose that ever since the Restoration Movementno subject has been discussed more than the "covering" mentioned in 1 Cor. 11. It has been said that most of the material written has been on ONE side of the question namely—by those for the covering.However, I have preached for over forty-five years andhave not found this to be so, in my reading of articleson the subject.

I have also observed that many who say it shouldnot be made a "test of fellowship" are sometimes slowto recommend preachers who believe in the coveringand, especially if they preach on the subject.

I believe it affects only the individual—not thechurch but, I also believe those who believe in thecovering should be allowed to preach on the subject.Personally, I am interested in saving both the churchand the individual.

Some criticize those who believe in the covering, with consulting "scholars" instead of the Holy Spiritand then turn right around and quote "Berry's GreekInterlinear" and give us what "scholars" tell us is themeaning of the Greek word "Sunetha". There is not agospel preacher anywhere that has not resorted towhat "scholars" have had to say on many subjects. Infact, we must rely on "scholars" for our English Bible.

I do not believe anyone, on either side of thequestion, should tear the church up over the issue but,I do believe both sides have the right to teach whatthey believe and, I have no respect for any preacherwho will not preach his convictions; even though themajority of the preachers or, brethren, do not agree with what he says. I do not have to agree with themajority or the minority of the preachers, the brethren, a paper or a school. I must answer to Godalone and for that I am thankful.

It has been said the "covering" is not the subject but"authority". I maintain that if the "covering" is not the subject then why discuss it?

Why did Paul instruct them, on the covering, if itwas not the subject? No, we do not differ on the matterof "authority" in the chapter, but on the "covering". When Paul said, "we have no such custom" was he talking about the "covering" or authority?

A hat, scarf, mantilla, kerchief, veil, shawl orsnood—any of these may cover ones head, and sincethat is the subject under consideration, then it doesn'tseem to me, to be too many answers to this Biblequestion.

Since, as some say, "the K.J.V. and the A.S.V. arebacked by about 150 of the ripest Greek scholars andthe K.J.V. does not call the covering a veil, but acovering, then I believe any of the above mentionedcoverings answers the purpose of "a sign of authority"(I Cor. 11:10). The Greek word for "veil", in 2 Cor. 3:716 (when Moses veiled his face) is not the word givenfor covered in I Cor. 11:6,7. The covering may have been a veil, but the word, according to Vines Expository Dictionary of the New Testament, is simplya "covering" as stated in the K.J.V.

What size should the covering be? The Bible doesn'ttell us the length, color, breadth or material out ofwhich it is to be made. These things matter not, if it does what Paul says, but remember—it doesn't have to cover the face to cover the head—"anoint thy head and wash thy face"... (Matt. 6:17).

I have seen my daddy and older brothers cover awagon of cotton many times. However, the tarpaulinnever covered the end or sides. I think it is obvious a woman's head can be covered without the covering being over her face or ears. I think a bikini covers; thatis, what is intended to be covered. Some may think it isan argument against a woman's head being covered, as in I Cor. 11, but I don't.

The translators of the A.S.V. changed the word "covered" (in the K.J.V.) to "veil". Moreover, if I hitsomeone on the head—must I hit him a dozen different places (ears, nose, mouth, eyes, etc.) before he is hit onthe head? If not, the covering of a woman's head does not have to cover her eyes, ears, mouth, nose, etc. to be acovering for her head.

Did the women of Paul's day cover their heads whenthey prophesied and prayed and take the covering offwhen they gave, sang and observed the Lord's Supper?The Bible doesn't say, and since it doesn't, no one hasthe right to say a woman must do so today. Since shewas told to pray and prophesy covered and she couldhave left it on while giving, singing, etc. then, a womancan do the same today. If not, why not?

When should the woman be covered? The letter,including chapter 11 discusses worship and periods ofinstruction, in the presence of men and women, and theposition they occupy with reference to one another.This being true, when there are assemblies of men andwomen, for these purposes then, we have identified the WHEN!

Notice the contrast between men and Paul: Paul Men

1. Man covered, dishonoreth 1. Only a custom Christ—1 Cor. 11:3,4
2. Woman uncovered, 2. Only a custom dishonoreth man—1 Cor. 11:3,5
1. Woman uncovered, a shame—I 3. Only a custom Cor.
2. 11:6
3. Man not to cover his head 4. Only a custom because he is the glory of God—1 Cor. 11:7
4. Woman to cover her head 5. Only a custom because she is the glory of man—1 Cor. 11:7
1. Woman to cover her head 6. Only a custom because of the angels I Cor.
2. 11:10
5. Woman uncovered, same as if 7. Only a custom she were shorn' not to be shorn because her hair is given herfor her glory. Therefore, she should be covered.
6. Long hair a shame to a man—I 8. Only a custom Cor. 11:14

If, as some say, Paul advised the women (in thechurch at Corinth), to wear a covering because thewomen in general at Corinth (those not Christians)wore one to show the headship of man (and they shouldfollow this custom lest they offend) then, did he advisethe men, in the church, not to wear one because theywould offend (since the men, in general in Corinth, did not wear one lest they should fail to show the headshipof Christ? No, my friends, it was no more a custom forthe women to wear a covering than it was for the mannot to wear one. Who would affirm these heathen men were interested in showing the headship of Christ? Itwas not a matter of CUSTOM with Paul; it was amatter of doing what the Holy Spirit taught, withreference to the women showing the headship of manand the men showing the headship of Christ.

"Brethren had better read such passages as I Cor.4:6; Gal. 1:6-9; Rev. 22: 18, 19; 2 Pet. 3:16 and give uptheir theory for what the word of God says."

A RESPONSE

Elsewhere in this issue is an article entitled "The Covering" by my friend of many years and brother inthe Lord, R. Ervin Driskill. This is a response to anarticle I had in the November, 1979, issue of Searching The Scriptures. It would be well to go backand reread that article before reading either of thetwo in this issue.

What I had to say in my original article, point number 3, under the subhead "Why Discussed" did not apply to brother Driskill and I see nothing in hisarticle that indicates that he thought I had him inmind. I do not consider brother Driskill one who has "extreme views" on the subject or who is "unreasonable" in his treatment of the subject. In hisresponse, brother Driskill said, "I believe it affectsonly the individual—not the church but, I also believethose who believe in the covering, should be allowed topreach on the subject. ... I do not believe anyone, oneither side of the question, should tear the church up over the issue but, I do believe both sides have theright to teach what they believe and, I have no respectfor any preacher who will not preach his convictions; even though the majority of the preachers or,brethren, do not agree with what he says. I do nothave to agree with the majority or the minority of thepreachers, the brethren, a paper or a school. I mustanswer to God alone and for that I am thankful." With these views I am in complete agreement as well as thefine attitude of his article.

My criticism of "scholars" was not of their definition of Greek words, but was a criticism for taking what they say as authority for what a passage taught instead of what the Holy Spirit said.

Basically, my original article set forth these points:

(1) the covering of I Cor. 11 is the "veil," (2) it was to beworn "when praying or prophesying," and (3) it was a"custom" and not divine law for all generations.

Brother Driskill says of point number 1, "a hat,scarf, mantilla, kerchief, veil, shawl or snood—any ofthese may cover ones head, and since that is the subject, under consideration then, it doesn't seem to me, to be too many answers to the Bible question."The text of Scripture still says "covering" (K.J.V.)or "veil" (A.S.V.)—one answer. Grunting, moaning, singing, whistling, talking and whispering are all sounds of the voice, but God specified one, "singing"(Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19). We are told "The Greek wordfor "veil," in 2 Cor. 3:7-16 (when Moses veiled hisface) is not the same word given for covered in ICor. 11:6,7." Check it for yourself; in 2 Cor. 3 it isthe noun form of the word and in I Cor. 11 it is the verb form of the same word.

Concerning point number 2 of when the covering orveil was to be worn, brother Driskill says "when there are assemblies of men and women, for these purposes"and the purposes he gives are "worship and periods ofinstruction." Yet, the text of Scripture still says when"praying or prophesying" and "prayeth or prophesieth" (I Cor. 11:4-5). Where did the Holy Spiritsay a woman could leave the covering on while givingor singing? Since one is to sing, could they continue tosing during preaching, the Lord's Supper and prayer?

Concerning my point number 3 on "custom" brother Driskill mentioned this but did not deal with myargument in my original article.

Ervin Driskill and I have been friends for years andwill continue to be such. If more had the attitude he has, the question of the covering would not be theproblem that it has been in some places. We shouldcontinue to study this question over which brethrendiffer with a good attitude.

HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM

QUESTION: Peter in his rehearsal of the events thattook place at the house of Cornelius states, "And as Ibegan to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, just ashe did at the beginning. And I remembered the word ofthe Lord, how he used to say, 'John baptized withwater, but you shall be baptized with the HolySpirit' " (Acts 11:15,16 NASV).

My questions are:

1. What significance is there in the Spirit fallingupon them "as (Peter) began to speak?"
2. Why were the words of Christ spoken in Acts 1:5called to the remembrance of Peter on this occasion?
3. By "just as He did upon us at the beginning,"does Peter mean in the same way that is recorded in Acts 2:1-4?
4. Why are Acts 2 and Acts 10,11 the only examples of the baptism of the Holy Spirit?
5. Elaborate on these two events in light of theteaching in Ephesians 4:5, which I understand tomean the baptism for the remission of sins asexplained in Romans 6. —J.A.

ANSWER: Answers to the above questions can bestbe appreciated in the light of some observations concerning Holy Spirit baptism.

Joel's prophecy (Joel 2:28-32) should be understoodin the light of Peter's quote on Pentecost (Acts 2:1721):

"And it shall come to pass in the last days, saithGod, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh:and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; andthey shall prophesy:.In Peter's expression, "I will pour out of my Spirit

upon all flesh: . . ," the preposition "of" (Gr. "apo")denotes origin or source, and is often translated"from." This makes Joel's prophecy, in the light of Peter's inspired commentary on it, mean "I will pour out from my Spirit." This is significant. The HolySpirit Himself, the third person in the Godhead wasnot poured out. Persons are not poured out as water,sand, etc. The Holy Spirit Himself remained in heavenwith the other two persons in the Godhead—God theFather and Christ the Son. Then what was poured out?Jesus commanded the apostles to "tarry ye in the cityof Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from onhigh" (Lk. 24:49). He also called this Holy Spirit bap

tism (Acts 1:5). We read of their baptismal reception ofthis power in Acts 2:4. The person of the Holy Spiritwas not fragmented so as to be distributed among the apostles, but the power (influence or energy) from theHoly Spirit was. Understanding this would go a longway in solving the issue of the Personal Indwelling Ofthe Holy Spirit.

It should also be remembered that the expression"Holy Spirit" is often used by metonymy, a goodexample of which is found in Matt. 7:11 and Lk. 11:13.Here "good things" revealed or promised by the HolySpirit is used interchangeably with the "Holy Spirit."A study of this use of the expression "Holy Spirit" is very interesting and enlightening. However, limited space just here forbids such now.

The power received by the apostles on Pentecost wasextended in varying degrees upon "all flesh" (Jews andGentiles) in the form of spiritual gifts received throughthe laying on of the apostles' hands (Acts 18:8). I see in this the full and complete fulfillment of Joel's prophecy—and this, without the baptism of the HolySpirit at the household of Cornelius (Acts 10).

In the light of the meaning of the word "baptize," namely, "to dip, to plunge, immerse," I conclude that Cornelius and his house received Holy Spirit baptism.Their spirits were submerged in the energy, influence,power from the Holy Spirit. This is what happened on Pentecost, and Peter said, "And as I began to speak,the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning" (Acts 11:15).

While the two cases of Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 2and Acts 10) are similar, they are not identical. Themanner of reception was the same, and the outwardmanifestations were alike in some respects. Enough sothat it caused Peter to recall the promise made to theapostles concerning Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 11:16;Acts 1:5). However, there is no evidence that the experience in Acts 10 served the same purpose as thatof Acts 2, as stated by Jesus to the apostles (John 14:26; 16:7-13), nor were those of Acts 10 empoweredto the same extent. Nevertheless, it was indeed a "like gift" (Acts 11:17) or equal in that the experienceconstituted Holy Spirit baptism. Acts 2 and Acts 10are the only instances of Holy Spirit baptism in theinspired record.

What purpose was served by Holy Spirit baptism inActs 10: Obviously, it convinced the six skepticalJewish brethren who went with Peter to the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:23,45; 11:12) and the apostles atJerusalem (Acts 11:1-4, 17-18) that the gospel was forGentiles as well as Jews. Peter's experience on thehousetop (Acts 10:9-20) and the baptism of the HolySpirit in Acts 10 served to convince the Jews, who until now had preached only to Jews (Acts 11:19), ofthe universal nature of the gospel.

Peter had preached its universality on Pentecost(Acts 2:39), but without understanding its full import.It took the miraculous experiences of Acts 10 to convince the Jewish Christians of their duty to fullyapply the gospel they preached—namely, to Jew andGentile alike. Acts 10 demonstrates the power of God to intervene and execute His plan of salvation for allmen in spite of man's failure.

Now, for the answers to the questions submitted:

No. 1. To convince the Jewish brethren with Peter (and later the apostles and others) that he was pursuing the right course. If, as some say, it was to show that therecipients were saved before water baptism (V. 28),then it would follow that they were saved without faith.Why? Because faith comes by hearing the word (Rom.10:17) and they had not yet heard. The Holy Spirit fell atthe point of beginning of Peter's sermon. Remember the account in Acts 11 is a rehearsal of the events in order of occurrence (Acts 11:4).

No. 2. Because of the similarity of the events.

No. 3. Yes, or in the same manner. The power "fell"upon them and their spirits were submerged (baptized)therein.

No. 4. Because other examples would serve no divine purpose.No. 5. The one baptism of Eph. 4:5 is obviously water baptism. The Ephesian letter was written about

A.D. 64. By this time Holy Spirit baptism had served itsdivine purpose which qualified the "holy apostles and prophets" (Eph. 3:5) to reveal "all truth" (John 16:13). We now have "all truth" which is "the faith once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). Water baptism is administered by man and is to continue to the end of theworld (Matt. 28:18-20). Water baptism is indeed a burial(Rom. 6:4) and is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)making possible one's walking in "newness of life" (Rom. 6:4).

"18. 'As Baptists claim to take the Bible as their rule of faith and practice, why do they persist in suchunscriptural teaching and practice as the following: Exhort sinners to the mourners' bench to get religion?' Most of them don't do it. Those who do, do so for thesame reason that Philip joined himself to the chariot ofthe Ethiopian Eunuch, namely, to instruct or teach thesinner how to be saved."

Number 18 has seven questions on the same generalthought, and we shall quote each one of them alongwith the Baptist answer and then our comments.

Baptists may have become so fastidious that theyhave removed the old-time mourners' bench which many of us have seen them use in their revivals, butthey have not changed their doctrine on the sinner'sprayer. We all know that they continue to invite lostsinners to accept Christ by faith alone and "pray theprayer of a sinner." They don't instruct the sinner topray for guidance, but rather for salvation. Therefore,the case of Philip and the Ethiopian is not relevant.Philip never told the Ethiopian to pray. He joinedhimself to the chariot in order to guide the man to anunderstanding of the scriptures and the acceptance ofJesus Christ.

The conversion of the Ethiopian was not like Baptistconversions today. There was no Holy Spirit baptism,no prayer, no voting, no confessing that "God for Christ's sake has pardoned me"—as Baptists teachand practice. The Bible says, "Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper ofGod, and doeth his will, him he heareth" (John 9:31).

" 'Declare feelings to be the evidence of sinsforgiven?' Because God says so. God says we know wehave passed from death unto life because we love. Loveis more than feelings, but love has 'feelings'; and theman who loves, feels it. We believe in a salvation thatis better felt than told, too. The child of God can feel apeace that 'passeth understanding,' but he can't tell the height nor depth nor length nor breadth of any ofthese experiences. We are sure we know some Campbellites, who have the same kind of salvation we have,namely, one they can feel; and we are awfully sorry forthe rest of them who haven't got that kind."

God does not say so! Certainly we believe in heartfelt religion, if one understands the Bible heartand the true function of the feelings or conscience. Butto rely upon the feelings as evidence that one is rightis often deceptive. Saul (the apostle Paul) had a feeling that he was right while persecuting the churchand involved in the killing of Christians. He said, "Ihave lived in all good conscience before God until thisday" (Acts 23:1)

and "I verily thought within myself, that I ought to do

many things contrary to the name of Jesus of

Nazareth" (Acts 26:9). Did his feeling right make him

right? No!

To trust our feelings is to follow subjective authority

and every man becomes a law unto himself. Instead,

we are to seek and follow objective authority—Jesus

Christ—and learn what he would have us do. Only

when we have obeyed his will can we be safe in feeling

that we are saved. Our feelings are based upon our

knowledge or understanding, and if we believe the

wrong thing we can practice the wrong thing with a

good feeling. But that doesn't make it right. The Bible

is right!

" 'Insist that we are justified by faith alone; thatbaptism has nothing to do with remission of sins; that itin nowise concerns our salvation?' Right there ourgood Campbellite friend gets down to the milk in the coconut. Baptists teach that we are saved before andwithout baptism; while Campbellites teach no baptism, no salvation. This man is honest enough toteach old-fashioned Campbellism, which some of themnow try to deny. Baptists don't connect baptism with the procuring or appropriating of the assurance of salvation as do real Campbellites, because to doso would make salvation or the new birth to depend on 'the will of the flesh' (i.e. the will of the man himself) and the 'will of man' (i.e. the will of the baptizer), when in John 1:13 Jesus Christ says plainlythat the new birth is neither of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man. We don't connect baptism withsalvation because the one book in the New Testament written to sinners, the Gospel of John, does not mention baptism in connection with the instructionsgiven by Jesus Christ to any inquirer. It does mentionfaith every time. Baptists do not connect baptismwith salvation because they believe that salvationdepends wholly upon the finished work of Christ, which doesn't need to be plussed by any sacrament of church or priest. As H. T. Anderson well said, 'Baptism for the remission of sins is essentially Romish.' Baptists wear none of the toggery or tinsel of Rome. Campbellites get their church salvation, baptismal regeneration, baptism for (in order to) the remission of sins, their teaching thatbaptism and communion are sacraments that confer grace on those who receive them, their weekly communion and their one-man reception of members from the Roman Catholic Church, not fromthe Bible."

Let us see what the Bible teaches about baptism,and whether or not it connects baptism and salvation.We know that Baptists do not, but what about theBible?

"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel toevery creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned"(Mark 16:15, 16). In order to obey the Lord, what didhis disciples to whom he gave the commission have todo? They had to go AND preach. They could not haveobeyed the Lord by preaching without going, nor bygoing without preaching. The two commands were joined by the conjunction AND which made them ofequal importance. Now, what were the commands forthose to whom they preached? To believe AND be baptized to be saved. This cannot be obeyed by believing

and not being baptized, nor by being baptized withoutbelieving. The word "and" connects the two (faith andbaptism) and makes them of equal importance.

To believing Jews on Pentecost, the inspired apostle

said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the

name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins . . . "

Acts 2:38). Here, repentance and baptism are

joined by AND and are both for (unto, American

Standard) the remission of sins. The word "for"

does not mean "because of" in this verse.

In comparing Noah's salvation by water with the purpose of baptism, Peter said, "The like figurewhereunto even baptism doth also now save us ..." (IPeter 3:21). The New King James Version, which is agood translation and has been endorsed by many prominent Baptists, translates the verse, "There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism.

Is one saved in Christ or out of Christ? The Bible

says salvation is in Christ (2 Tim. 2:10). There are only

two verses in the Bible which tell us how one enters into

Christ, and they say we are baptized into him (Rom. 6:3;

Gal. 3:27).

In view of this teaching (and many other scripturescould be given), who or what is it that connects baptism and salvation—the Bible or the Baptists? Thehonest reader knows the answer!

His use of John 1:13 is a perversion of the passage,and would contradict John 3:5. Certainly baptism isnot of the will of man, but rather the will of God. Did the baptism which Jesus commanded come from heaven or men? From heaven, just as did John's baptism (Matt. 21:25). Obeying the Lord's command to be baptized for remission of sins is no more dependingon "the will of the flesh" than faith or repentance. All ofthese are obeyed by man, according to the will of God.

Where on earth did he get the idea that the Gospel ofJohn was the "one book in the New Testament written to sinners"? I don't know, and it isn't so! What aboutMatthew, Mark and Luke? To whom were they written?

The Gospel of John does connect baptism and salvation. The scholarship of the world justifies theconclusion that the "water" of John 3:5 refers to water baptism, and Jesus made that a part of the new birthwithout which one cannot enter into the kingdom ofGod. He says that faith is mentioned every time. Certainly faith is essential to salvation, but we mightalso observe that baptism is mentioned in every case ofconversion in the Acts of the Apostles, and every placein the New Testament where baptism and salvation arementioned together, salvation follows baptism.

We get down to "the milk of the coconut" of Baptistdoctrine and see some of the Calvinism which theyteach by his statement that they "believe that salvation depends wholly upon the finished work of Christ." The word "wholly" means entirely, totally,completely, solely and exclusively. If they really meanthat, then there is not a thing on earth that a man canor should do for salvation! If that eliminates baptism, italso eliminates faith, repentance, and righteous living.

We do not defend nor practice any sacraments,baptismal regeneration, one-man reception, or tinselof

Rome. If baptism for the remission of sins is

"essentially Romish," then all of the Lord's apostles

were Romish, for that is exactly what they taught.

As for "church salvation" and "weeklycommunion," there is Bible authority for believingin these. The Lord adds the saved to the church (Acts 2:47), therefore the saved are in the church. Thechurch is the body of the saved (Eph. 5:23). His problem is, he doesn't know what the church is. As to the frequency of the Lord's supper, the Bible saysthat the early Christians observed it on "the first dayof the week" (Acts 20:7). True, it doesn't say "every first day," but it doesn't need to. Every week has afirst day, and, therefore, that day is included in acommand concerning "the first day of the week." Thecommand to the Jews to observe the sabbath day did not say "every sabbath" (Exodus 20:8), but theJews had sense enough to know that every week had aseventh day or sabbath, and that it was a weekly observance.

(To be Continued)

FOUR GREAT FOUR-LETTER-WORDS—CARE

The story of the good Samaritan is a story of care. Inverse 34 (Lk. 10), the narrative says, "And he went tohim, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine,and set him on his own beast, and brought him to aninn, and took care of him." This deed by an unlikely,but gentle man was obviously not just an isolated and one-time incident in his life, but rather his habitualmanner of handling day-to-day situations. And helikely did not consider his benevolence to be any morethan his duty to his fellows, his opportunity to be ofbenefit to all. He did what he did because that's the way he lived. He cared.

Care means more than just serious mental attention.And it means more than merely a charged mind orwhat we commonly refer to as anxiety. It also has to dowith concerned mental action with a view toward protection, preservation, guidance, even provision. When we care for someone we want to be of service to them, protect them, provide for them. And so it is saidthat the good Samaritan "took care of him." In I Pet.

5:7 both the definitions are set in one context: "Casting all your care (anxiety, worry perturbations) on him, for he careth (seeks your interests) for you."

We very often care for wrong things. It should be obvious to all of us that "it is appointed unto man onceto die" (Heb. 9:27), and that "we brought nothing intothis world and it is certain that we can take nothingout" (I Tim. 6:7). But somehow the Devil is able todelude us so that we seldom give much attention tothese obvious facts. As a result we tend to overemphasize worldly things, to exhalt temporal status, to earnestly seek after carnal ends. Such activity is foolish. It makes no sense to involve ourselves with that which we know for a certainty isperishable, empty of substance, devoid of longevity.To "sow to the flesh" is to reasonably expectcorruption, for all flesh is bound to deteriorate and diminish (Cf. Gal. 6:7-8). We should be suspiciousabout giving too much thought time to any project orendeavor which does not connect to a spiritual end. Spiritual things last, worldly things do not (Rom. 8:6).

We need to care for family and friends. We have great opportunities as a result of our being a partof a family relationship. In a family there is room forcare, room to show respect and regard for parents,room to appreciate and love brothers and sisters.And the family, by its very nature, is tolerant ofweaknesses, longsuffering to imperfections, slow tocondemn personal idiosyncrasies, all because of carefor one another. The same is true to a large extentregarding

friends. Furthermore, it is true to an even greaterextent as regards Christian associations. Our friendsare more likely to excuse our faults because they carefor us. They care what happens to us. They care aboutour feelings, our failures, even our faults. Care is boundto enhance any relationship, making it durable, resilient, harmonious.

We need to care about the cause of Christ. The apostle Paul said that one of his more exhaustingproblems was "that which cometh upon me daily, thecare of all the churches" (II Cor. 11:28). We should care for the cause of Christ just as did Paul. Far too many ofus are unconcerned that we are failing in our efforts topervade the world's thinking in areas of morality aswell as doctrine. Too many of us show little concernthat we are losing battle after battle in our efforts tostem the tide of immodesty, lasciviousness, filthycommunication. All this, I aver, is caused by our lackof care for the cause of Christ. I greatly fear that we arepassing on far too weak a legacy of care to the nextgeneration of our people.

Jesus cared. When Jesus was being taunted and spatupon, he took it because he cared. When he was reviledand beaten, he endured it because he cared. When theymockingly pushed the crown of thorns onto his sinlessbrow, he meekly bore it because he cared. And when,suspended appropriately between heaven and earth, hebegged his Father, "forgive them, for they know notwhat they do," he showed us how very much he cared."Yes, Jesus, cares, I know he cares ..."

Do you care about the really important things or isyour life absorbed in a futile quest for the perishable?Do you really care for family and friends or is yours at best a rather tentative relationship? Are you involvedin promoting and illustrating the cause of Christ inyour life? Do you really care? Let us "be careful tomaintain good works" (Titus 3:8). And since He caredso much for us, let us care for one another. To care is tobe like Him.

LET US RISE UP AND BUILDThe Characteristics of LeadershipAs Seen In Nehemiah

In Nehemiah 5 we find the value of a consistent example in the life of God's leaders. There was a greatproblem facing Nehemiah and his task of rebuilding the walls, a problem which forms the lesson we need tostudy.

It seems that the problem was a great outcry of thecommon people of Jerusalem against the rich Jewishmerchants. This outcry caused a halt to the rebuildingof the walls and thus had to be dealt with by Nehemiah. There were three groups that came to Nehemiah with three different sets of complaintswhich had to be resolved if the rebuilding was tocontinue. First, came the merchants and the laborers.While they worked on the walls they were not able to earn a living, so their income ceased and their resources dried up. (5:2) Another group, made up offarmers, came to Nehemiah with their complaint.These farmers were vulnerable to two great sources ofdanger: (1) the robbers that would come and steal thecrops, and (2) the forces of nature that could cause cropfailure. If either of these happened, then the farmerswould have to go to the "loan sharks" and borrow money to live on. While they worked on the walls theywere unable to earn the money to pay back the lenders. The result was that the farmers were losing their landsand their families were going to be sold into slavery(5:3). The final group to come to Nehemiah were thosewho were unable to pay their taxes because the richhad set the tax rates so high.

The city of Jerusalem was in a state of economicchaos!

Nehemiah had just withstood the threat of Tobiahand Sanballet to use force to stop the building of thewall. No sooner had he taken a deep breath than thisnew problem cropped up that he must deal with. Nehemiah had two great feelings at this time: (1) a genuine care for the people, and (2) a burning desire tosee the Lord's will done in the rebuilding of the walls.Therefore, Nehemiah will establish for us an abidingprinciple of leadership: LOVING ENOUGH TO CONFRONT. Notice how Nehemiah deals with this problem.

First, he rebukes the nobles' guilt of economic exploitation. The nobles react to his rebuke with stonesilence. The situation seems to be building toward areal power struggle. After all, this condition hadexisted for many years without remedy, and the wall had just caused it to come to a boil. He must have boththe business men and the common people to labortogether to rebuild the walls. Still, he knows thebusiness men and merchants are wrong. What does hedo? After his rebuke that had met with silence, hissecond move was to challenge the nobles to return thefields and houses to the poor Jews of whom they hadtaken advantage. Then finally, in his concludingappeal, he takes his garments, showing himself as anexample, and shakes them out in front of all. It ispossible that he kept his personal finances in the"fronts of his garments." Even today this is true in theMiddle East. The Ayatollahs in Iran keep thousands ofdollars in the front pockets of their garments. Yet, heby the power of his personal example clearlydemonstrates that while he has been acting as theirleader, he had taken nothing from the people (v. 15-16). What brought about a solution in this economic standoff? The power of his sincere and consistent example! What was the result? "We will give it backand require nothing from them; we will do exactly asyou say." Nehemiah set the proper example, "I did notdemand the governor's food allowance because the servitude was heavy on the people."

The setting of an example is one of the most powerful forces for righteousness that any leader has.In a Stanford University study it was remarkablyconcluded that "STUDENTS CAN LEARN AS EFFECTIVELY BY MODELING (example) AS BYDIRECT EXPERIENCE!" The power of modeling isclearly seen in the Old and New Testaments: Joshuahad his Moses; Elisha had his Elijah; "the 12" had the Savior; Paul had Barnabas; and Timothy and Titushad Paul. In each case the work of modeling or settingthe example before the younger by the elder producedgreat men of God!

As leaders we must be ready to set the proper example before those with whom we live. Are youteaching a Bible class? If so, there is no more potentplace for the proper example. Every aspect of our livesas teachers must radiate faithfulness and devotion to God. Have you ever seen the rivers of tears in the eyesof a 4-year-old who wanted to sit by his Bible classteacher on Sunday night, only to find out that shedidn't come? "Why, why wasn't my teacher here?"How do parents answer a sobbing youngster whenthey know it was because of the bowling league? Howcan we as leaders expect to have any influence for good when our lives smack openly of what we condemn?Preachers preach on the home and some of us are theworld's greatest failures. We preach on giving andeveryone knows we give the least. When the eldershipdoes not lead the way by example, the church isdestined to failure. Because of the uniqueresponsibility of the eldership, they MUST LEADTHE WAY IN EVERY ASPECT OF THE LOCAL WORK!

Let us note a panoramic view of the work of the localchurch in regard to the example of the elders. Theymust lead the way in regard to giving of their means.They ought to stretch themselves to give more percentage-wise than any other members. They mustlead the way in Bible class teaching. Paul said "apt toteach and able to convict the gainsayer." They ought to

strive to be the best teachers in the congregation. Arethey oftentimes the poorest? They ought to lead theway in regard to Bible study and knowledge. Whatabout personal evangelism? They ought to lead theway in teaching the lost! They ought to lead the way inreclaiming the weak and spiritually disheartened.Restoring the erring brother ought to be his function.They ought to lead the church in the area of theirfamily and domestic relationships or situations. Theyshould be the type of father from which every youngfather could pattern his life. Their wives should be thetype women that every young woman could look to andfrom which advice could be received.

When the shepherds of the flock stand and say weare moving in this direction: be it a work day to cleanup the building, or be it a withdrawal from a member,they need to lead the way by example. In regard towithdrawal, how many times has an elder led thechurch in withdrawing from someone when there arepeople in his own family that should be withdrawn from but have never even been talked to about it? In the plainest way of all speaking, this is perceived bythose that follow as PHONYISM. If a leader or leaders are perceived as phonies the cause is lost. The sheepwill not respect a phony shepherd! In the Kingdom ofGod a leader leads by holding the respect of those whofollow. God's leaders cannot use force, intimidation, orcoercion to lead because those are the ways of theGentiles. He leads only by virtue of the fact that othersrespect what they see in his life. A Bible class teacherin the auditorium class has one qualification which gives him the privilege of standing while all others sit and listen. He has prepared something to say from theWord of God! He knows his lesson. He knows his Bible, and he can tell others about it. If he has notstudied and prepared, then he has lost his right to leadthat class. If he seeks to teach without that right he isa phony! People allow us to lead because they respectus. Lose that respect, and WE HAVE LOST ALL.

Listen to Paul in Phil. 3:17 as he says "follow myexample." Then in Phil. 4:9 "things you have ... heardand seen in me, practice these things." Even though hewas an Apostle, Paul was just a man. So, here we find aman telling others to follow him. How can this be? Theanswer is in I Cor. 11:1, "Be imitators of me, just as Ialso am of Christ." We follow Paul because he followed Christ. Every one of us has someone following us. Every one of us has an influence on someone else. Theonly question is, who are we following and who has aninfluence upon us? As leaders, if we are not followingChrist, then we are steering the life boat straight out tosea instead of toward the shore.

Dwight D. Eisenhower said, "In order for a man tobe a leader he must have followers. And to have followers, he must have their confidence. Hence, the supreme quality for a leader is unquestionableintegrity. Without it, no real success is possible ... If aman's associates find him guilty of phoniness, if theyfind that he lacks forthright integrity, he will fail!"

On the subject of "setting the example, and leadership," I shall never tire of telling the story Iheard Pap tell so many times about the fellow thatobeyed the Gospel in a morning service after years ofrejecting the invitation. Dad asked him what moved him after all those years. The old boy, who was dressed in over-alls, and had tears in his eyes, answered withhis own story: He said, "I was going to the barn tomilk early this morning without a moment's thoughtto where my youngest child was. That little fellow isthe apple of my eye, because he came after the otherchildren were grown and gone from home. As I rushedfor the barn, I heard him call out, 'Dad, wait for me.I'm hittin' every step.' When I turned around, sureenough the little fellow was jumping from step to stepwhere my boots had brushed away the dew. He knewhis mother would spank him if he got his feet wet.Then, he said, it hit me like a light; 'yes, and if you hit every step I take, I'll lead you to a Devil's Hell.' So,with knuckles white as he gripped the end of the bench, he said, 'I'm gonna fix it this morning where he can hitevery step his dad takes, and I'll lead him to a home inHeaven." He lived the lesson of Nehemiah!

IF ANY WILL NOT WORK

One of them dug a pack of cigarettes from his levipockets and lit up as the two young men retreatedfrom the church parking lot. They had made a brief appearance after the Sunday morning services andasked to see the preacher. I silently wished they hadasked for the pastor as I strolled toward them. Then Icould direct them to one of our elders.

They had gotten laid off a few days earlier, theyrelated. Food stamps were about to run out. They werebroke. Could we help? I don't often turn beggars awaywithout at least checking their stories. But here were acouple of able bodied men. Looked to be in their earlytwenties. There was plenty of work to be found if theywanted to work. Why weren't they knocking on doorsasking for odd jobs instead of standing on the churchsteps begging for a handout? I told them so in as kinda way as possible. It wasn't the easy way out. It wouldhave been much easier to have given them five or tendollars. Other brethren would have probably followedmy noble example, and their venture would have paidoff rather handsomely.

Every evangelist and elder can relate to stories suchas this. Every church is regularly approached bybeggars who could and should be working for a living.I'm not a hardhearted fellow, and I probably wind up spending as much as about anyone in feeding and relieving the needs of folks whom I feel may possiblyhave legitimate needs.

While living and preaching in Louisville for over sixyears, I saw a few of these professional beggars as theymade their rounds for the second and third times. One

Page 13

lady called with a plea for $25.00 to complete her apartment rental. She had just moved from Philadelphia where she had cared for her invalid husband for the past twelve years. She had a job in arestaurant, but would not be paid for another week, etc. etc. Finally upon her persistence I agreed to meether at the church building at a given hour the nextafternoon. J. T. Smith, who also lived in Louisvilleat that time, was present with me when this elderlylady arrived. Hers was a heartbreaking story, Shecried, J. T. cried. I almost broke down.

I asked her if she had any references who couldvouch for her and she did not. In that case, I advised, Icannot help you. I just couldn't believe that a personwith her alleged background (her late father a medicaldoctor, her late employer a medical doctor) would beunable to provide a couple of character references backin Philadelphia.

Two or three weeks later, a front page article in theLouisville Times reported the beginning of a new organization among Baptist churches in that city. Acentral agency was being formed and staffed to whichall requests for aid were to be reported along withpertinent details. Our little lady from Philadelphiawas described right down to her invalid husband andthe comment was made that she had taken almost every Baptist church in town for $25.00 to $50.00apiece!

While in a meeting in Illinois earlier this year, afamily that some of the brethren were housing in alocal motel attended services. They got a free night's lodging, some free meals, some free fuel, and perhapssome extra cash and were on their way with prayersand blessing the next day to Canada. A month or solater in Indiana I learned that the very same troop hadbeen served by the brethren there just a few daysbefore they hit Illinois. They were not traveling toward Canada.

Such tales could be multiplied almost endlessly. While most preachers soon learn by experience,perhaps a few words to younger men would be helpful.

1. Always check before you give aid to a transient.We are told to feed the hungry and clothe the naked,but we are also told to be good stewards. If one claimsto be a member of the church, it shouldn't be difficultto check that out. A long distance phone call isn't thatexpensive. If one does not claim to be a Christian, hischaracter and story should still be checked. It has beenmy experience that most transient beggars become indignant when asked for references. Often they exclaimsomething like: "Well, just forget it, if you don't trustme!"
2. Never give money. If the story checks out as faras you can ascertain, provide the needs. Buy somegroceries. Put some gas in the car. Provide a lodging place. Don't give cash that can be spent at the nearest tavern.
3. Don't feel guilty for following the Biblical admonition: "If any would not work, neither should heeat" (2 Thess. 3:10). We do not help chronic beggarswhen we give them the handouts they seek. We merelyassist them to evade their responsibility of properlycaring for themselves and their families.

THE GOOD LORD'S WILL

"If the good Lord didn't want it to happen, she

wouldn't have gotten pregnant," That's a quotationfrom Tom who is 16. His wife, Susan, is also 16. Theirdaughter, Laura Sue, is five months old. The names arefictitious as reported in "The Huntsville Times," Oct. 26, 1980 in an article on teen pregnancy. One wouldalmost surmise that Susan's premarital pregnancywas another case of miraculous conception. Tom andSusan were in no way responsible. The good Lordclearly wanted her pregnant. Now doesn't that take the prize? But, you know, Tom's thinking is no fuzzier than most people's when it comes to this matter of the will of God. Think of a situation in which a fellow gets drunk, drives in that condition, and hitsand kills a child. The grieving parents will likely betold several times that such was God's will. But was it really?

Was it God's will that the fellow get drunk? No, thatwas contrary to God's will (Gal. 5:19-21). Was it God's will that he drive his car in such a condition? No, thatwas against His will (Rom. 13:1-4). Then how could ithave been God's will that he hit and kill a child while driving drunk?

No, Tom, it wasn't the good Lord's will that your young wife become pregnant before marriage. It wasclearly against His will: "Flee fornication" (1 Cor.6:18). Chances are, Tom will never learn that. We're told that for teens who marry, nine out of ten suchmarriages end within one to five years. Tom will probably think that it just wasn't the good Lord's willthat it work out, if worst comes to worst.

MODERN-DAY NUMEROLOGY

Those of us who have enjoyed studying the book ofRevelation have necessarily taken notice of the use of the numerals therein. I have read many times thatnumbers are of far greater significance from a symbolicstandpoint to orientals than they are to us of theWestern hemisphere.

An article which was published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, March 27, 1980, underscored thepreoccupation that those in the East have with numbers.

According to the UPI release (datelined Hong Kong),"Waves of 'oohs' and 'aahs' from the well-heeled bidders rippled through the city hall auction.

"The merchandise was so valuable it was kept underwraps. Each piece's number, written on a blackboard,had the audience squirming in dark business suits andfur jackets.

"At stake was a $2.00 black and white Hong Konglicense plate.

"Chinese who believe 'lucky numbers add years totheir lives and produce fat bank accounts eagerly doleout tens of thousands of dollars for the right licensedigits.

"To facilitate demand, the government conductsauctions of prized license plates. Anyone can reserve anumber and bid on it at one of the auctions held everyfive to six weeks.

"I've been assured that this is a very luckynumber. It means an easy life for someone," said anauctioneer, pointing at CC 323 written on a blackboard.

"The Chinese audience chuckled and the number was quickly disposed of for $3,367.

"CA 88 (double prosperity) brought much more $12,449.

"CC 1, however, proved that being No. 1 is even better. After an offer of $10,2000, bidding proceeded toend in minutes at $32,653.

"The record price for a lucky license number is$70,000 reportedly paid by Hong Kong movie mogulSir Run Run Shaw for a lone 6. The digit connotes longevity..."

While the word of God gives no credence to a superstitious adherence to numbers, it does make use ofthe symbolic significance of certain numbers which weregenerally recognized in the first century.

At the end of the month of February, 61 A.D., theapostle Paul landed at Puteoli. He was directed to Rome after having been in chains for more than twoyears in Caesarea. He had been allowed to appeal toCaesar and to be judged by an imperial court becausehe was a Roman citizen. There were with him other prisoners who had to be judged for common crimes.Officer of the troop of escort was a centurion of theAugustan cohort. Paul was accompanied by Luke andAristarcus, a Macedonian from Thessalonica (Acts27:2). After a compelled stop of three months in Maltaisland, after the stormy shipwreck they had with theboat of Adramittium, they set sail in a ship which hadwintered in the island, a ship of Alexandria whose sign was Castor and Pollux, generally frumentarious shipssupplying Rome needs. After a stop of three days atSyracuse, they made a circuit and arrived at Rhegiumand after two days they sailed in the Neapolitan bay inthe sight of Puteoli. This city could boast the firstlarge and great harbour of all Italy. The Neapolitanpoet Titus Statius wrote : "litora mundi hospita" (Silv. III, 75 s.), "an open window on the world".

In the city of Puteoli products and goods of everysort poured in from everywhere, but men of every country and language too. There were represented allsocial ranks which introduced new ideas and new customs. There were various artistic, literary and philosophic trends. In the year 64 there landed the Jewish historian Joseph Flavious, who wrote that hefound there a Jewish settlement in prosperous economical conditions. According to a legend therewould have landed the master Apollonius of Thianeand the would be Messiah Bar-Kockeba. The Jews practised banking businesses and the industry of thepurple, cloths and carpets. The cults that there flourished were the more different and dissimilar. The Macellum (Market) was consecrated to the Egyptiandivinities, Phoenician people pleaded for the worship ofthe Syrian god Atargatis, Arabs for that of Dusares.There were also worshippers of Baal, Mitra, Jupiter Dolichenus and of Magna Mater Cybele (The great Mother Cybele). Indigenous divinities were already toomany and foreign cults adding themselves to the local ones provoked an unpleasant feeling of void and bewilderment, but a continuous opposition remarkable in aproselytism having no way out, which offered all andnothing.

For this reason perhaps philosophical currents flourished among the elite of culture, amongintellectuals, to offer to the exhausted minds a purifyingand a raising mean. Here came to fashion stoicism, but itproposed a passive subjection to the fate, a raw and cruelfatalism without hope and certainty of eternal life. Thesyncretism of Hellenism and of Judaism tried by Philonremained only among a little circle of learned and intellectual men. The neopythagerism had even the charm of thaumaturgy in the person of the half-legendaryApollonius of Thiane, who proselyted among humbleenvironments, but it attracted before all the elite ofaristocracy and intellectuals. Many religious beliefs and observances were quite immoral and reveal in those times the common tendency of a religiositywhich consists in the mere and simple delight in thematerial things and in sensual satisfaction. The Gospel word came to collide against this high wall andmight seem to the least cultured, to the barbarians, arisk for their demand of carnal and earthly pleasures.This was the ground on which apostles and primitive Christians worked. The word was accepted,but not easily, among humble and poor classes, among uncultured slaves and freedmen who were imbued with the most various and strange religiousbeliefs, but who were eager for liberty and social equality.

The Historical Context in the Italic Cities

The only opened door for the Gospel's word spreading remained the Judaism of diaspora, which inPuteoli was well represented. The Jews of dispersion,disseminated everywhere in the Empire Lands,enjoyed a favourable treatment on the part of Romanlaw which allowed them to practise freely their religionand to make proselytes too. For this reason the Lord's word, started from Palestine, found Judaism like a spreading vehicle in every side of the Empire.Indeed in the day of Pentecost the large assemblywhich listened to Peter's preaching was of the mostassorted origin. "Parthians and Medes and Elamitesand residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging toCyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we hear them telling in our tongues the mighty works of God" (Acts2:9-11). Here was a cosmopolitan assembly which brought, on their way back to their original places andwhere long since they emigrated, the word of Christ.Certainly visitors from Rome were Roman citizens,not necessarily of exclusive residence of Rome city.Paul was a Jew and a citizen of Tarsus in Cilicia, but aRoman citizen too (Acts 21:39, 16:37; 22:25). It is likely that Jews from Puteoli, as from Rome and different Italian cities, would have been in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost of the year 33 and that on their return they might have brought to Puteoli, or Pompei, or Nuceria Alfaterna, or

Page 15

Capua, or Herculaneum, or Liternum, or Neapolis, theword of faith in Jesus Christ as Savior. In Rome the word's seed penetrated into praetorian militia andamong the freedmen of the Imperial Palace andaristocratic families. Paul writing from Rome to thePhilippian brethren made himself a mouthpiece ofsalutes of the brethren "especially those of Caesar's household" (Phil. 4:22). Already before his arrest, inthe spring of the year 59, writing the letter to theRomans, he seems to know many brethren to whom hesends his greetings; some of them Christians beforehim (Rom. 16:7,11).

In those times it wasn't difficult to confuse Christianity with the cultural, esoteric and mysticcults, which were at that time in a full expansion anddevelopment. And this was explicable with the doctrine of Arcanum at that time existing amongmystic religions and in the suspicion of the initiates.There was with all a sequel of accusations causing infamies against Christians. Sometimes they were charged with atheism, other times with being cross ordonkey worshippers. They were accused of sullying themselves by horrible crimes like incest and the Thiestean suppers. (Atreus had lost the kingdom onaccount of his brother Thiestis who incestuously had sexual intercourses with his own mother. For this reason his mother gave him the kingdom. Atreus feigned to become reconciled with his brother and offered him a sumptuous supper with the cooked meatof his own sons, whom he ate unknown to him. Thisis the mythological story on which pagans embroidered to charge Christians with things like these).

Tertullien (220 A.D.) in his book "Ad Nationes" (1,14) and "Apologeticum" (VII, 1, 16; XVI, 12) drawsup a list of a long series of calumnies and tells thedisgusting incident of the apostate Jew who exhibitedto the people's jests in the Carthage amphitheatre the"Deus Christianorum onocoetes" (The donkey's son, God of Christians) in a painting representing amonster dressed in toga (gown) having kevels, a footprovided of a hoof and the Bible in hand with a blasphemous inscription. A sacrilegious allusion to the Lord's supper could be seen in one of the last episodesof the book "Satyricon", whose characters would have acted in a city of the Neapolitan area. The authorimagines that Eumolpus makes one's will giving his goods to his various friends and aspirants, on condition that after his death they would tear in peaceshis corpse and publicly devour it.

Notwithstanding these horrible calumnies the preachers of the new message acted with intrepidboldness, drawing advantage from political structuresinstituted by the Empire in the Mediterranean basin.Above all the good news sank its roots into the largecoastal cities, large centers of traffic and trade, whichwere afterwards strategic centers of great lines ofcommunication. On the arch of Naples gulf this rolecould be rightly boasted by Cuma and Puteoli at thewest, by Herculaneum, Oplonti, Pompei and Stabiae atthe east, all connected by an efficient system of roads.

The young genius Virgilius had been a disciple atSyron's school, who was on Pausylipon promontory(the greek word Pausylipon means "place where troubles cease"), in the flourishing otiosa (idle) Neapolis (Naples), ideal place to escape from grief,fundamental epicurean canon. I wonder whether Paulcould see, during those seven days of stay at Puteoliamong brethren, the charming nature of Pausyliponwith a light slope, covered with prosperous vineyardssloping down to the sea. Perhaps he rejoiced in thesmoking Vesuvius' view and could see Sorrento peninsula and gulf's isles of Capri and Ischia. Here the "villa" of Syron, teacher of Virgilius, with annexedkitchen garden which could give in miniature the ideaof the garden of Epicurus at Athens. Probably hereVirgilius vaticinated "the new progeny":

"The last time of Cuman poem has come A

great series of centuries is born anew Even

the virgin comes back, Saturn's

kingdom returns

and a new progeny descends from heaven.

(Translation from latin) (This material appeared in Italian in Sentieri Diritti in Vol. 5, No. 8, August, 1980 and appears here withconsent of its editor, Sandro Corazzo).

(to be continued)

A SECOND "PUTTING AWAY"

One can receive a variety of answers from brethrenwhen the subject of divorce and remarriage arises. Noone, to my knowledge, has all the answers to all thequestions that can be raised on this subject. It is a difficult one indeed. There seem to be as many, if notmore, problems on the "second putting away, than anyother aspect of this subject.

Before we begin a discussion of the subject, I want tostate the case as it is usually stated to me.

As you observe the above diagram, husband # 1 ismarried to wife # 1. They are bound in the sight of God.They decide that they are incompatible, and thus atthe advise of friends or lawyers, there may be, bymutual consent or by one being the aggressor in the matter, a "putting away" resulting in a civil declaration of the same as the situation ends in a divorce. The Scriptures are very clear on what shouldbe done in the situation. They should " . . . remain unmarried or be reconciled" (1 Cor. 7:10-11). Now, let's weave the web a little wider in our next diagram.

I believe it will be obvious to all from the above

diagram that wife # 1 has taken a second husband. I

believe all will agree, that according to every passage

in the Bible that discusses this subject (Matt. 5:32;

19:9; Mk. 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; Rom. 7:2-3; I Cor. 7:10

11), both the wife and her new husband are not bound

in the sight of God but are committing adultery.

Now comes the difficult part. Do the Scripturesauthorize husband # 1 to NOW "put away" his wife foradultery and be in a position to remarry withoutcommitting sin? Many will immediately say "yes" because the husband is the "innocent one," and according to Matt. 19:9 the "innocent party" mayput away the one guilty of fornication (adultery) andhave the right to remarry without committing sin.My question is, "innocent of what?" He is guilty of putting away his wife. He is held responsible by Godfor "causing her to commit adultery" (Matt. 5:32). And,at the time of the 1st "putting away" both were "innocent" in the sense that the word "innocent" is being used to describe the one who has remainedunmarried—that is neither were put away "for fornication," hence no guilty or innocent party fromthat standpoint.

Let's look at it from another angle. Since we aresupposing (and we are going to see that all of this isjust human reasoning and sympathy pleas), let's just suppose that husband # 1 was a cruel, ruthlessdrunkard who, while his wife begged and pleaded withhim not to put her away and divorce her, did it anywayand vowed never to have anything to do with womenagain. The wife, according to our diagram, now meetsand falls in love with a nice, loving, gentle man andmarries him. All have already agreed that they areliving in adultery, and many have concluded that thefirst husband, that scoundrel, now has the right toremarry without committing sin. However, I believemany have reached their conclusion on what theywould LIKE the Scriptures to teach (human reasoning) rather than what the Scriptures actually teach.

Jesus was very plain in His teaching on the subjectof those who did the "putting away" and those whowere "put away" when no fornication (adultery) was involved. Let's look at Luke 16:18. Jesus said that the one who put away his wife and marries anothercommits adultery. However, at this point in the situation as we have already observed, many wouldsay that when one remarries that the other may THENput the one away who has remarried and is now living in adultery. But notice what Jesus said about the "so called" innocent one. "And whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery" (Luke 16:18b). Jesus obviously did not knowanything about a "second putting away" and the onewho is left being able to remarry without sin. He saysshe COMMITS ADULTERY.

Jesus said, when two people divorce, where no fornication is involved, both the one who DOES THEPUTTING AWAY and the one WHO IS PUT AWAY are living in adultery if they remarry. In view of whatJesus said, I say they are both living in adultery. Whatdo you say?

James 5:16, "Confess your sins one to another and pray one for another that ye may be healed." Deduction: This wording in the King James andAmerican Standard versions might lead us to "deduct" the following: It says, "one to another".That means one-to-one, indicating a pair. We coulddecide that in order to do this we should each have a confession-partner and prayer-partner. "After all, one-to-another and one-for-another does not mean a whole group." After we get entrenched in this notion, thereading of other translations saying "one another" and"each other" does not quickly shake us from theconcept of "by two's."Another: We learn that these conclusions are not correct by considering other verses in the same translation which have the wording the same as here(and from the exact same Greek form). Luke 7:32 relates that Jesus spoke of "children that sit in themarketplace, and call one to another." The followingsentence ("We piped unto you—) shows that some werecalling to others. Did any of us ever decide that thesechildren paired off and each set of two partners called back and forth to each other?

How about "pray one for another" demandingprayer-partners? We turn in the same translation to averse in which "one for another" is the same as here. (Both are from the same Greek word, letter-for-letter.) That verse is 1 Cor. 12:25. "The members should have the same care one for another." Who would claim that we must pair off for this? If James 5:16 demands"prayer-partners", then 1 Cor. 12:25 certainlydemands "care-partners." Obviously the care "for oneanother, or "for each other" (other translations) is toextend to every one among those who are addressed.Translations—A version which uses "each other" is the New International. Some which have the ren

Page 17

derings, "to one another", and "for one another" areRobert Young's "Literal Translation", The RevisedStandard Version, and The New American StandardBible.

The partner-couple concept can not stand up againstthis wording in our language. The reciprocal andmutual application throughout the group addressedcannot be denied. Greek—Anyone studying the original language canlearn about the reciprocal pronoun used. Its letterscorrespond to ALLELON (pronounced, al-LAY-lone).It has only plural forms in the oblique cases, notnominative (We can not have "each other" as the subject of a sentence.) The genitive form is the same inall genders. But the endings vary for other cases. InEnglish only singular forms can properly (understandably) translate this pronoun.

In His New Testament God used this word no less than 78 times. It means and is translated, "one another". It was sometimes used when only two peoplewere discussed or addressed. Paul and Barnabas once separated from one another (Acts 15:39). The two on the way to Emmaus talked with one another (Luke24:27; also verse 32). An exhortation to a marriedcouple says "one another" (1 Cor. 7:5). Group But whena larger group is mentioned or addressed the action described or commanded applies throughout the group. Shepherds, women, disciples, Jews, talked"one to another." It did not mean, "in pairs." Wholechurches were discussed. Romans 12:5 states that "we,who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another." No one would claim that this is "by two's." "Be devoted to one another in brotherly love." Beyond any question thedevotion is to be to every member, and not just "in bunches of two each.''

By this word many actions and attitudes are urged on a reciprocal and mutual basis. These include: peace,honoring, saluting, preferring, edifying, comforting, considering, exhorting, esteeming, bearing burdens,hospitality, subjection, and fellowship.

The "one for another" teaching appears often. But itdoes not mean that the duties taught and urged are tobe done in pairs of partners.

Send all News Items to: Wilson Adams, 317Trinkle Ave., N.E., Roanoke, VA 24012

PREACHERS NEEDED ORANGE, CA — The church in Orange, CA (30 miles S.E. of Los Angeles) desires a preacher to work with them. We are acongregation of 70 members, self-supporting, with an averageattendance of 90. For more information contact: Andy Anderson

(714) 581-3523, Bill Fix (714) 633-3950, or Dale Jackson (714) 9971161. Or write the church at 1838 N. Shaffer Ave., Orange, CA92665.

MINERAL SPRINGS, NC — The church in Mineral Springs islooking for a full-time preacher. We have about 40 in attendance.Outside support would be needed. The church is located in a rural community that has a need for much personal work. Contact: Michael A. Helms (704) 843-3715. Or write to P.O. Box 263, MineralSprings, NC 28108.

MUSKOGEE, OK — The Southside church of Christ which meets at 2001 South Cherokee is in need of a preacher. We are the only sound congregation in Muskogee standing for the truth. We have about 20 members and so outside support would be needed. Billy Moore ofButler, MO and Jimmy Tuten of Mobile, AL have held gospel meetings with us recently. For more information contact: WilmothCrossland at 1410 Summit, Muskogee, OK 74401.

ADDRESS CHANGES OSBY WEAVER— Old Address: P.O. Box 387 Raymondville, TX78580. New Address: 2224 Jeanne Dr., Las Vegas, NV 89108.

H. BROWNLEE REAVES— Please note my new address: 93 Hartland Way, Shirley, Croydon, Surrey ENGLAND CR08RJ. Ournew phone number is 01-777-1065.

ALBERTA, CANADA ELDEN GIVENS, 2108 — 2nd Ave. N.W., Calgary, Alberta T2N 0G7 CANADA. The Lord's work here in Alberta continues to prosper. The church here in Calgary now has about 45 members.Twenty-four people have been baptized in the last four years. Sincethe first of the year, a new congregation has been meeting inAirdrie, just north of Calgary. They are presently looking for apreacher to work with them. If interested, write: Allan Michaud,Box 254, Airdrie, Alberta. In the spring, one of the young menfrom here moved to Medicine Hat to work with Larry Boswell andthe church there. In June, Marvin Nerland, with whom I worked the past four years, moved to Lethbridge.We have a good program of classes and studies going here inCalgary. Just recently we had 10,700 invitations to enroll in ourBible Correspondence Course distributed in the area. We are

Page 18

hopeful for a good response. Three young men are presentlypreparing themselves to preach. It has been the desire of all theAmerican preachers that I have known who have been here inWestern Canada, to have as many native Canadians preaching aspossible. If Brian Clarke (one of the young men here) could receiveenough support, he would like to devote his full time to preaching.He has made an appeal to several churches, but has not yet beensuccessful in obtaining support. If anyone can help support Brian,please contact us.

Calgary is a growing city of 600,000. With rapid growth and soonto be the financial capital of Western Canada, it is a booming city.Last August marked the beginning of our 7th year here in WesternCanada. If ever in our area please stop in and visit with us.

CHARLES DEGENHART, Rt. 1, Box 284R, Berkeley Springs,WV 25411. My wife and I recently moved here to begin work withthese brethren. They are about 22-25 in number and have come outof another congregation because of ungodliness that prevailed.They have rented a storeroom as a place for worship. They are notconversant with the present issues confronting the church, butwhen I preached on it they were receptive saying, "We want to goby the Book!" This is a challenging work as there are no othersound congregations in the area. Berkeley Springs is in the northeast tip of West Virginia about 25 miles south of the Maryland line. Presently I have $450 outside support. I will need toraise around a thousand dollars additional support. Will you joinwith us in building a strong, sound church in this area?

EDGAR E. HOLCOMB, 263 Massachusetts Ave., Elyria, OH44035. The North Ridgeville church closed a weeks meeting withConnie W. Adams proclaiming Christ in a superb manner. Therewere 5 restorations, 2 baptisms, and good attendance with severalnon-members at each service. Our spring meeting was verycapably conducted by brother Morris Norman and special classeswere held daily. I began working with this fine church March 1of this year. We are optimistic about the congregation's future progress. We have as fine a group of young people as I have seenanywhere. When in our area look us up. You will be greeted warmly.

GARY FISHER, Box 97, Greenville, IN 47124. I have recentlymoved to preach in Galena, IN. This area, just across the river fromLouisville, is very fast-growing and there are undoubtedly manybackslidden Christians and potential converts here. Do you havefriends, relatives or acquaintances in this area (including Galena,Greenville, Palmyra, Floyds Knobs, Georgetown and Corydon) thatyou would like for me to contact? If so, please write me at the aboveaddress. We are anxious to see the gospel spread in this area.

JIM WHIDDEN, Merritt Island, FL. Since June of this year when Ibegan the work here with the Merritt Island church on Plumosa St.,our average attendance has increased to 61. Through the work ofseveral families, there have been four baptized and six have beenrestored. Home Bible studies are being held weekly.

EARL MORRIS, Polk City, FL. The Polk City church of Christrecently hosted Frank Whidden preaching his first gospel meeting.Frank is a young man who preaches for the County Line church inOpp, AL. Good crowds were present each night in what were recordnumbers for this small congregation. Many Christians from neighboring congregations and non-members from the communityattended throughout.

WORK IN HAITI

Jerry Blount, Rt. 27, Box 390-A, Parkville, MO 64152. I am writing to request support for a preaching journey to Haiti. I have made thetrip to Haiti twice in the past year and a half and the trips have beenfruitful. Through our efforts, several local preachers have been converted and there now are several congregations scatteredthroughout the countryside. The growth and zeal of these churchesreminds me of those recorded in the book of Acts. In our last trip wevisited three congregations, preached to over 800 people and baptized 52. These people have the general mood that existed in thiscountry in the 1800's. They are fed up with denominationalism andare thirsting for the truth. We have preached in congregations fromPentecostals to Baptists, and have seen entire congregationsturned around. For the present trip I need $1,350. That will cover air fair, motel, etc. We are planning on spending two weeks in Haiti. A complete account of the results and record of the moneyspent will be sent back to the congregations communicating in thiseffort. Feel free to contact me for further information. References are: Norman Fultz, Raymore, MO, Glen Redmond, Savannah, GA and Jerry Eubanks, St. Petersburg, FL.

ALSO...

We have received some news items recently that have been verydifficult to read. Please take special care in writing so that mistakescan be kept to a minimum.

IN THE NEWS THIS MONTH

BAPTISMS 301

RESTORATIONS 126

(Taken from bulletins and papers received by the editor)