QUERIES 1/ AND 5/ ANSWERS LIPSCOMB "»SEWEU. M.C.KURFEES Class Book Copyright^ . C0FXRIGHT DEPOSIT. DAVID LIPSCOMB. -^ 05^ E. G. SEWELL. QUERIES AND ANSWERS BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL BEING A Compilation of Queries with Answers by D. Lipscomb and E. G. Sewell, covering a period of forty years of their joint editorial labors on the Gospel Advocate EDITED BY M. C. KURFEES Editor of the Gospel Advocate; Author of " Walking by Faith, " Instrumental Music in Christian Worship," etc. Nashville, Tenn. McQUIDDY PRINTING COMPANY 1921 ... Copyright, 1921, by McQUIDDY PRINTINCx COMPANY, Nashville, Term. FEB 26 1921 CU608503 'VYfc PREFACE. The editor of this work submits a word of explanation touching its general plan and purpose. It consists of queries propounded by numerous persons at different times on a multiplicity and variety of subjects, with answers by Elder David Lipscomb and Elder E. G. Sewell, and cover- ing a period of forty years of their joint editorial labors on the Gospel Advocate. If there be merit in a great va- riety of themes, this work has it in large measure, there being more than six hundred subjects and phases of sub- jects treated in its pages, making the work a veritable store- house of information imparted by two men not only well informed in the Bible, but thoroughly conscientious in their uniform effort to teach it unmixed with the devices of hu- man wisdom. The collation, selection, and arrangement of the material was a Herculean task, involving much painstaking and te- dious labor. It was the original plan of the editor to clas- sify and arrange the material in the form of chapters, with suitable headings, but the great number and variety of themes discussed made this plan less desirable; and hence it was decided to place over each query a suitable heading indicating the subject of the query and answer, and then to arrange the subject-matter of the whole book in the form of an encyclopedia, the subjects treated being arranged in alphabetical order. Without a topical index, this will en- able the reader to find without difficulty any subject treated in the book. To save space, both the names signed to queries and some- times accompanying remarks by the querists, which are not essential to the query, are eliminated. But the signatures of D. L. and E. G. S., wherever found appended to the an- swers, are allowed to remain, so that, in all such cases, the reader can know which of the two editors is the author of the answer in a given case. Sometimes the name of neither was appended to the answer; and in such cases, while the reader can know that the answer is by either Lipscomb or Sewell, he probably will not know which, although persons familiar with the different styles of the two men will read- ily recognize which author they are reading. At some points the careful reader will observe slight rep- etition, but it is not of a nature to mar the work. On the contrary, the material being selected from that produced by the joint labors of the two men, it was found, in some 4 PREFACE. instances, that both of them at different times had an- swered the same question ; and, to give the reader the ben- efit of the wisdom of both, the answer of each is allowed to appear, the one usually following immediately after the other. The variety of treatment thus gained is ample com- pensation for slight repetition. The reader, in such cases, not only has the advantage of hearing both men on the same subject, but the one often supplements the other. In some instances the same editor is allowed to appear twice on the same subject, because the same query was propounded at different times, and the answer at one time supplements that at another. The very excellent work entitled "Queries and Answers" and edited by Brother J. W. Shepherd consists of selections from David Lipscomb alone. The editor of that volume not only maintained in its preparation his reputation for thorough and accurate work, but the material he collected is of a high order, making, in the judgment of the present editor, one of the most valuable books published in recent years. But it did not exhaust the material left by Brother Lipscomb ; and the additional material from him given in this volume, together with that from Brother Sewell, not only makes another valuable book, but the present editor entertains the hope that the two works may be used as com- panion volumes, and that they may find a welcome place in many libraries. In a few instances, in order to make the discussion com- plete at a given point, the same item, or substantially the same, will be found in both volumes; but here, again, the repetition is of a nature not to harm, but to help in the effort to elicit truth, which, in all their labors as teachers of the Bible, was the uniform object of these two eminent servants of God. Side by side they lived, and loved, and labored together. Truly a noble team they were, and right well did they pull together. Thus, in the present volume, the reader has the rare privilege of journeying with these two godly men and sit- ting as a student at their feet for forty years' of the most active period of their lives. They were noble yokefellows in a noble cause, and I doubt if two men ever worked to- gether more successfully or more harmoniously for so long a time. Their joint labors are a monument of fidelity to God and to his church. M. C. Kurfees. Louisville, Ky., September 1, 1920. QUERIES AND ANSWERS BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL ABEL, WHY ACCEPTED, AND NOT CAIN. Please explain why Abel's offering was accepted and Cain's rejected. In general terms, it was because Abel's offering pleased the Lord and Cain's did not. Abel's pleased him because it was according to his will and Cain's was not. Did they know this will — that is, had God given commandment con- cerning these offerings ? It is nowhere said he had ; yet it is hardly reasonable that God placed a penalty on a course without giving man warning of the evil he would incur. We think it not probable that man would have brought an offering without a command from God. If he commanded the offering, he doubtless gave commands as to the kind of offering that would please him. The reason the lamb was pleasing to God was because without the shedding of blood there was no remission. ABRAHAM, THE PROMISE TO. Please give us an article in the Gospel Advocate on the promises made to Abraham — whether they have been fulfilled or not; or do we, as Christians, look for those promises yet to be fulfilled? In Gen. 13 : 14, 15, God said to Abraham: "Look from the place where thou art north- ward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it." Then in Acts 7 : 5 it is said that he did not inherit it. Why I want your views on this is that the Adventists are creating great excitement in this country among the brethren. When people will not know and practice the word of God, they will be carried off by some delusion or other. God will send a delusion upon those who stubbornly reject his word. The people of this country and age do not know what the Bible teaches ; hence they cannot believe or prac- tice it. We think likely Adventism is as harmless a delu- sion of a religious character as can afflict them. The promise to Abraham was: "In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore ; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in 6 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; be- cause thou hast obeyed my voice." It is an indefinite ques- tion to ask if that promise has been fulfilled. There are so many items in the blessing that were not all to be accom- plished at one time that the same answer will not answer for all. The first promise, "I will bless thee," certainly was ful- filled; the second, "In multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore," was fulfilled. Their numbers increased be- yond computation almost. They were given the mastery over their enemies, or possessed the gates of their enemies, until by disobedience they forfeited this power. Through Abraham the promised seed has come — Christ Jesus, our Lord. In him the blessing for all nations is provided. All nations who have received him have received the promised blessing, but the enjoyment of it depends upon our accept- ing that blessing and appropriating it through compliance with the conditions connected with the giving of it. The condition of enjoying the blessing through Christ is trust in him that leads to a full acceptance of Christ as the Ruler and Lord of all. No nation, as a whole, has accepted him thus. Some have wholly rejected him. They wholly fail of the blessing through this rejection. Only individuals of other nations and families accept him. To the extent that they receive and obey him, to that extent they have received the blessing. The blessings through Abraham have been provided and given to the world. The enjoyment of those blessings is only partial. The Jews have forfeited the bless- ings they once enjoyed. The Gentiles have only partially accepted the blessings, so to a very limited extent enjoy them. The blessings through Abraham have all been pro- vided by God and placed in reach of man. Man enjoys them just to the extent that he receives and obeys Christ. D. L. ABRAHAM, THE TWO SONS OF. Brother Sewell: Please write up the two sons of Abraham — one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. The passage is this : "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh ; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two cove- nants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 7 bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." (Gal. 4: 21-26.) This is the history of the wife of Abraham — Sarah, or "Sa- rai" until the Lord ordered it changed to "Sarah." Sarah had no child till she was quite old, far beyond the natural age of becoming a mother. When she had apparently de- spaired of ever being a mother, she gave her maid to Abra- ham to wife, and she became the mother of Ishmael. It was foretold by an angel to his mother before he was born that he would be a wild man, that his hand would be against every man and every man's hand would be against him. This prediction turned out to be literally true after he grew to manhood. He and his mother remained in the house of Abraham till Isaac was born and the time for his weaning had come. They had some sort of feast on that occasion, and Sarah saw Ishmael mocking at her son Isaac ; and she at once decreed that he and his mother must leave at once, and so they did. From this time we have but few items of history of Ishmael. He married an Egyptian woman, had twelve sons, and the family drifted into Arabia and led a roving, wild sort of life. The Ishmaelites bob up occasion- ally in Bible history for a long time, but they never ac- complish much in the world's history. But this family, Hagar and her offspring, became a sort of type — Hagar, a type of the Jewish covenant, the law of Moses ; and her pos- terity, a sort of type of the Jewish people under that cove- nant. This is what Paul means in the passage as part of his allegory : That Hagar represents the covenant that was es- tablished at Mount Sinai, "which gendereth to bondage, . . . and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children." Her children represent in fig- ure the Jewish people, which were under the law of Moses, which Paul calls a "yoke of bondage," and the Jewish peo- ple are trying to hold on to that same yoke of bondage to this day. This is the typical meaning of the bondmaid and her son. But there is much greater importance attached to the other side of the allegory. Sarah lived on till she was quite old, when, in fulfillment of the promise of God through an angel, she bore a son in her old age. This is what is meant by Isaac's being a child of promise, while Ishmael was born after the flesh — simply a natural, ordi- nary birth. Sarah was a type, or representative, of the new covenant of Christianity, and her posterity through Isaac were typical of Christians, Abraham's spiritual pos- terity. So Sarah represents the church of God, the "Jeru- salem which is above," which "is free," and "which is the mother of us all." This is a beautiful figure, and in reality 8 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, represents in figure most of the history of the whole Bible and of the whole world to the end of time, when run out to its full meaning ; for the spiritual seed of Abraham includes all Christians, both Jewish and Gentile, till the end of time. Paul used this figure in an effort to impress the Jewish Christians of Galatia with the folly and awful danger of turning back to the law of Moses, which had been set aside and which could save no one. He showed that if they un- dertook to keep the law they would lose all interest, all the benefits that belong to the new and everlasting covenant through Jesus Christ our Lord. ACCURSED FROM CHRIST, PAUL WISHES HIMSELF. Brethren Lipscomb and Setvell: As I want all the information I can get on the Bible, please explain the following passage of scrip- ture: "For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh." (Rom. 9: 3.) As an exposition of this passage, we will insert the first three verses of this chapter as rendered in "The Living Or- acles," which we regard as the plainest rendering we have ever met with : "I speak the truth in Christ, I do not speak falsely, my conscience bearing me witness, in the Holy Spirit, that I have great grief, and unceasing anguish in my heart, for my brethren ; my kinsmen, according to the flesh ; (for I also was, myself, wishing to be accursed from Christ)." Paul had reference to his past course of life, before he became a Christian, while he was persecuting the church. ADAM, CONDITION OF, BEFORE THE FALL. Please give in the Gospel Advocate your understanding of the con- dition of Adam before his fall. In other words, was he immortal be- fore he violated his Maker? Did he lose both temporal and spiritual life? If so, did not the Savior die, not only a temporal, but a spirit- ual, death, to consummate the at-one-ment for the human family? I have my ideas of this question, resulting from a careful study of the Bible. A brother and myself, differing to some extent about it, agreed to refer to you for the sum of your investigations, thinking you might assist us and perhaps others occupying similar positions. My position is, in short, that he was subject to mortality even in Eden; but the fruit of the tree of life could, and did, perpetuate his life, counteracting his tendency to mortality. What say you? These questions are so near the border line of specula- tions that have a tendency to draw men's minds from the more practical requirements of religion that we answer them cautiously. Some things, we think, are revealed about the death of Adam. These we try to answer. The death that Adam died clearly was that he became mortal. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 9 Mortality is death. Death is suffering, decay, corruption. What we call "death" is the final result of a state of death that we are undergoing here. The biblical use of the term immortality is not eternal existence merely, but the oppo- site of mortality — freedom from suffering, decay, corrup- tion. This corruptible must put on incorruption ; this mortal, immortality; so death (our present state) will be swallowed up in victory. Man was without corruption, or mortality, before he sinned. Whether he was kept so by eating the fruit of the tree of life or whether it was inher- ent in him, we have no means of determining. The cutting off from the tree of life corresponded in time with his be- coming mortal, or entering into the state of death. It is probably a legitimate inference that the continuance to par- take of the tree of life would have perpetuated existence. Man became physically a dying being. He sinned. To sin is to separate from God, is to unite with the devil. This is to breathe the atmosphere of death, is to drink in the life of the evil one. His life becomes our life. The life of the evil one is a living death. Deliverance from the service of the evil one is life, is union with God. Whether it required the spiritual death of Christ or how far he suffered or died spiritualty or in his divine nature, we have no means of determining; so anything we might say would be unprofit- able speculation in things not revealed. We only know he did not die as a spiritual being, in the sense of sinning against God, and being united to the evil one. How a being can spiritually die without separation from God and union with the evil one, we know not. Christ's death opened the way for our escape from union with the evil one for a re- union with God. The devil is the ruler of this world. Its atmosphere is impregnated with a spirit of rebellion against God. We imbibe the spirit of rebellion. Christ died to de- liver men from this evil influence. He calls him into his church, in which a different atmosphere prevails, so man may breathe a different spirit. Finally this church will re- possess this world. The atmosphere will be purged of the spirit of sin, with which it is surcharged, and men will cease to breathe the rebellious spirit and will be less in love with sin. ADDED, WHAT "THINGS" SHALL BE? Brother Lipscomb: "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." (Matt. 6: 33.) What are the things to be added? If earthly good, will it be added without effort on our part to gain the good? Earthly goods and comforts are embraced in the promise. In order to appropriate this promise, men are to seek, first, 10 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, the kingdom of God — seek his kingdom that we may enter into it; second, they are to seek the righteousness of God. God's righteousness embraces all the conditions and provi- sions God has ordained to make men righteous. God has provided a man should live industriously, maintain good works for necessary purposes, live plainly and economically. "Let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful. " (Tit. 3: 14.) Chris- tians are required to live industriously, follow good callings, be economical and saving in the use of what they possess, and give freely to those in need. To seek the righteousness of God is to live as God directs. Living thus, a man will abound in earthly as well as in spiritual blessings. It is to reach and enjoy the temporal blessings through spiritual ones. It is God blessing man through directing him in the channels in which God's blessings flow, that man may gather them as he goes. In the ordinary affairs of life, in nonmiraculous ages, God's blessings are bestowed through compliance with the laws of God. The blessings come through working in harmony with God's law ; so such serv- ices in their operations bestow the blessings on man. Man may bless himself by complying with God's laws. ADDING TO AND TAKING FROM THE BIBLE. In verse 18 of the last chapter of Revelation, was the adding to and taking away from "this book" the book of Revelation or the entire word of God? It is barely possible that the writer intended it to apply specifically to the book of Revelation ; but it is a principle that applies to all the inspired writings, and I believe it was written in these last verses of the book that naturally closes the revelation of God, that as a two-edged sword it might guard from change or modification the whole revealed will of God. Moses says: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." (Deut. 4: 2.) It is repeated in Deut. 12: 32; Josh. 1: 7. Prov. 30: 5, 6 expresses it thus : "Every word of God is pure : he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." It is re- peated a hundred times in one form or another in the Old Testament. If the Old Testament law — temporal in its rule, sealed by the blood of animals — was thus sacred and guarded from sacrilegious touch by the hand of man, how much more sacred the perfect and everlasting law of God, given through the word that was with God and sealed by BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 11 the blood of his only begotten Son ! The mission of Jesus, as announced by John, was to thoroughly purge his floor, separate what had been added by human tradition and burn it as chaff, so he could fulfill only the perfect will of God. He condemned all the traditions of the elders and all human traditions in religion, showing that even washing the hands as religious service when not commanded by God was sin. (Matt. 15.) To displace God's order under the Jewish dispensation with an order of men was to despise the law of Moses ; to turn from the law sealed by the blood of Christ, to take from it or add to it, is to trample underfoot the blood of the Son of God and do despite to the Spirit of grace. To change the word of God by adding to or taking from it as God has given it is to assume the prerogative of God and claim to be wiser than he and to be possessed of more than his authority. I believe God intended that warning to ap- ply to the whole of his written will ; and if that specific com- mand did not, the same principle and warning is stamped upon almost every page of revelation. ADVENTISTS AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. Brother Sewell: As one of our sisters has turned Adventist and has some of the members bothered, I would like a full explanation of the following passages of scripture: Ex. 31: 16, 17; Matt. 5: 19; Rom. 14 : 5, 6. Who are meant by the "children of Israel" in the pas- sage first named? What "commandments" is Jesus speaking of in the second passage? The children of Israel were the Jewish people, the poster- ity of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. In this particu- lar passage it meant the children of Israel that had come out of Egypt under Moses as their leader. The Sabbath day, as one of the Ten Commandments, had but recently been given to the Jewish people. The verses you mention show that the Sabbath day was given to the Jews only. The Gentile world never had any share in it. In the first of Genesis, where the seventh day is first mentioned, it says that God rested that day. He had finished the work of cre- ation in six days and rested on the seventh. But he did not require men to rest on that day then. To show that the Sabbath belonged to the Jews only, the passage you name uses this language: "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever." These verses show beyond a peradventure that the Sabbath day was given to the Jews, and to them only ; and when it says it would be a sign between Jehovah and the children of Is- 12 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, rael forever, the "forever" means to the end of the Jewish covenant, the law of Moses, which really did end. Hence, when Jesus died on the cross, the law of Moses, the Jewish covenant, was taken out of the way, and with it the Sab- bath day. This is shown in the following passage: "Blot- ting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." (Col. 2: 14.) The word handwriting es- pecially takes in the Ten Commandments, as they were the handwriting of God, and the Sabbath day was the fourth command of the ten. Therefore the Sabbath day was, without any doubt, done away. In verse 16 of the same chapter Paul says: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days." This shows that the whole affair of the law was done away, Sabbath day and all. Hence the seventh-day claim is without foundation. The seventh-day Sabbath never did belong to the Gentiles, and it was taken from the Jews when Jesus died ; and so it is out of date entirely now, as is the whole of the law of Moses. Matt. 5 : 19 simply has reference to the commands of the law of Moses, which law was still in force when Christ used that language; but when he died on the cross, some three years later, the law was taken away. The other passage (Rom. 14: 5, 6) has reference either to the Jewish Chris- tians, who wanted to keep up the holy days of the law, such as the Sabbath day, or it refers to some sort of superstition among Gentile Christians there, either one of which would cause confusion and division without profit, and they better not have divisions over the opinions of men. All ideas of holy days, then, except the first day of the week, were merely the opinions of men not involving any divine author- ity. There is not a particle of divine authority to keep the seventh-day Sabbath since the abolition of the old covenant and the establishment of the new. AGENT, HOW IS MAN A FREE? Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: We are challenged to take in de- bate the affirmative of the following question: "Resolved, That man is a free agent." Please write us if we have the right side of the question; and, if so, will you be so kind as to give us your arguments on that side, and oblige? In the ordinary acceptation of the expression, it is true, though not a Bible sentence. Men usually mean by this expression that man, as he is, can accept the gospel and be saved at any time that he will, or he can reject it and die. The language of the Bible is: "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." "Enter ye in at the strait gate." BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 13 "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." These passages show that man can serve God and live, or refuse and be lost ; and if that is what is meant by the expression that "man is a free agent," then it is true. But in discuss- ing religious subjects we think it would be best to use Bible language in stating what we affirm, and in this way all might soon be one. E. G. S. "ALL THINGS TO ALL MEN." Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Please explain in the Gospel Ad- vocate 1 Cor. 9: 22. What is meant by the expression: "I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some?" Paul in this passage was not speaking of anything that involved the law of God under Christianity. He only had reference to outside matters that were only matters of in- difference. Paul never willingly disobeyed any requirement of God under Christianity to please any one. But in the customs of the people that involved no principle of Chris- tianity, he submitted. When among the Jews, he acted as the Jews in all their customs that did not compromise any law of Christ; and the same also among the Gentiles, or heathen. In matters of indifference, in which if people par- take they are nothing worse and from which if they refrain they are nothing better, Christians can be perfectly indif- ferent. If a Christian is where the custom is to invariably wash the hands before eating, he can submit to that ; and so of any other custom of like character. But if a Christian is called upon to turn away from the laws of Christ or do anything that is contrary to them, he cannot yield, even if a refusal should imperil his life. E. G. S. ALTAR, PLACE OF THE GOLDEN. Brother Lipscomb: Where was the God-appointed place for the golden altar of incense — in the holy place or the most holy? Breth- ren are on both sides. Please give reasons for apparent discrepancies in the Bible on this. The place appointed for the altar of incense, or the golden altar, was in the holy place, beside the veil that leads into the most holy. The most holy was the dwelling place of God. The incense arising from the altar without the most holy passed through the veil and entered the most holy as incense to God. In Ex. 30: 6, 7 the order is given: "And thou shalt put it before the veil that is by the ark of the tes- timony, before the mercy seat that is over the testimony, where I will meet with thee. And Aaron shall burn thereon incense of sweet spices: every morning, when he dresseth the lamps, he shall burn it." In Ex. 40 : 26, 27 he repeats 14 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, the statement that he placed them as he was commanded: "And he put the golden altar in the tent of meeting before the veil: and he burnt thereon incense of sweet spices; as Jehovah commanded Moses." Because the incense arising from this altar reached God in the most holy place, it is sometimes spoken of as though it belonged to the most holy place. It was placed in the holy place beside the veil that enters the most holy, that the incense might, like the prayers of the saints, pass through the veil to the presence of God. A perversion of one of these figures is seen in the pictures intended to represent the cherubim — a couple of winged women squatting with their faces opposite each other. If one will read the description of the cherubim as given in 1 Kings 6 : 23-28 and 2 Chron. 3 : 10-14, he will find that they were images ten feet high, reaching the ceiling above, the wings extended, touching each other in the cen- ter and the walls on each side. They looked toward each other. I used to know a Methodist preacher who insisted that Methodists should keep up the primitive and approved style of kneeling in prayer. In kneeling, many of them squatted to keep their knees out of the dirt. This preacher got to see who kneeled and who squatted, and reproved the latter as following a custom nowhere approved by God. AMBASSADORS, ARE THERE ANY NOW? Brother Sewell: Has Christ any ambassadors on earth? If so, who are they? I understand the apostles to be the last ambassadors. Am I right? You are certainly right about the apostles being the last ambassadors from God to men, and there will certainly be no more. The apostles gave fully the conditions of pardon, upon compliance with which we can have peace with God, and the conditions upon which eternal life can be obtained. We have all these conditions on record, and do not need any more ambassadors now. What we need now is for men to repeat the conditions of salvation the apostles gave. But the trouble with the religious world now is that there are men who think they are ambassadors, and they give differ- ent conditions from those the apostles gave, and thus turn the ears of the people away from the conditions the true ambassadors gave and turn them to the doctrines and com- mandments of men. There are no conditions of salvation now from God to men except those given and left on record by the apostles. All others are conditions given by unin- spired men to men, and all of these combined cannot save one sinner. Let all those, therefore, that propose to labor for the conversion and salvation of men see to it that they repeat the terms of peace and redemption that the apostles BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 15 gave under guidance of the Holy Spirit. Then all will preach alike, and all can be saved if they will comply with the terms. ANGELS, OFFICE OF. Do all believing Christians have a guardian angel? This came up in our Sunday-school lesson on Matt. 18: 10, and Mr. Wesley was quoted as believing that all Christians had a guardian angel. I am not after Mr. Wesley's theory, but I am after the plain truth as taught in the word of God by our Lord Jesus Christ and the holy apostles. Please give me the best information you can. There are plenty of places in the New Testament where the angel of the Lord spoke and said things, and the angel of the Lord smote Peter on the side when he was in the prison. Also please tell me what is meant in Heb. 1: 14. Are they not all ministering spirits? Was Paul alluding to the prophets and to Jesus and himself and the rest of the apostles? "That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven." "What was meant by "their angels?" Please give me the best information you can on the question, and oblige me. I am a subscriber to your paper, and am well pleased with it. I am a member of the Methodist Church, but am not satisfied. Brother Joiner, of Morgan County, a Christian minister, preached for us about two months ago, and promised he would preach more for us when the weather got better. I have not been baptized; was sprin- kled when a boy. I hope I may get settled as to which is the nearest after the teaching of Jesus and the apostles. We have no church near here, except Methodist; but 1 am hopeful of Brother Joiner's promise to me. I am reading the Bible daily, and find I am learning something every day, and feel the help I have already derived from your good Gospel Advocate. I am going to order some of your Sab- bath-school helps; and if they teach as plain and simply the truths of the word of God as the Advocate does, I will try to get our good Meth- odist brethren to introduce them into the school. I do not find any clear indication in the Bible that each person has a guardian angel. Angels came to men during the miraculous ages of the world, but always with a clear and distinct form and with a clear, well-delivered message from God. They never influenced men in a mysterious way, nor is there any evidence that they sought to lead them or influence them otherwise than through the message they delivered to them. None of us believe they come in visible form or with an audible message now. If not, I can- not see how they can affect men or their courses. The Bi- ble says, "The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him;" but this was from the Psalms, when angels did come to reveal God's word, and means the same thing as the expression : 'Tor the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers : but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil." (1 Pet 3: 12.) The passage in Heb. 1 : 14 clearly refers to the ministry of angels in giving the Jewish law and their visitations to men under that law. The whole connection is a contrast 16 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, between the ministry of angels in the Jewish law and the ministry of Christ under the Christian dispensation. Read from the beginning of the first chapter, and see the superi- ority of the ministry of Christ over the ministry of angels is continually kept up. Paul says : "To which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spir- its, sent forth to minister for them [under their ministra- tion] who shall be heirs of salvation ? Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels [this shows how and when the an- gels were ministering spirits] was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward ; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation ; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him, God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, ac- cording to his own will?" (Heb. 1 : 13 to 2 : 4.) The con- nection clearly shows that the angels ministered to them by giving the law and revealing the will of God. It was the ministration of angels in contrast with the ministration of Christ. The only trouble is, the expression, "ministering spirits," is in the present tense. This we think not strong enough to break the force of the whole connection. Be- sides, they do minister just as the law and the prophets tes- tify of Jesus as the Christ. The passage, "their angels do always behold the face of my Father," means when they are transformed into the angelic state, they will then always behold the face of the Father in heaven. We do not think there is any evidence of what is called "angelic guardianship" here, nor can we see what possible office they perform. The will of God is revealed and completed in the Bible. Their office was to minister to the heirs of salvation by making the will of God known to them. When that perfect will was made known, we can see no more room for their office. It is well always to speak of Bible things in Bible terms. It is common to call the Lord's day the "Sabbath," but it is never so called in the Bible. Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath. Saturday is always referred to when "Sabbath" is used. To call the Lord's day "Sabbath" is to confuse terms and ideas that ought to be kept distinct. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 17 ANGELS REJOICING AND FUTURE RECOGNITION. Please explain through the Gospel Advocate the following verse: "I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth." (Luke 15: 7.) In 1 Cor. 13: 12, does Paul mean that we shall see each other face to face and know each other? The passage in Luke, we think, means just what it says. There is, doubtless, joy in heaven over a sinner that truly repents, truly turns from sin into the service of God. The angels of heaven, doubtless, know what is going on in earth, as angels are ministers for those who shall be heirs of sal- vation. This passage shows the interest that is felt and manifested in behalf of men by those in heaven. As to the passage in Corinthians, we cannot speak defi- nitely. Some think that Paul in this passage had reference to the perfected state of the church and to the completeness of the revelation of all matters pertaining to the new insti- tution, so that they could comprehend at once the whole scheme of human redemption. In the days of the apostles these things were only given in parts — just so much at a time as was needed at a certain place or time or occasion ; but finally, little by little, the whole was fully given, until they could comprehend the whole matter, as a friend knows his friend when face to face with him. Others, however, think Paul had reference to heaven, when all the fullness of God's mercy and love will be fully and clearly disclosed be- fore our eyes, and that then we shall know all things per- taining to eternity. And if this idea is correct, then the passage certainly includes the idea that we shall know each other there. We do not think that either interpretation would do violence to other passages on the subject; and we, therefore, will not say definitely, but have generally inclined to the first-named interpretation. ANOINTED, WHEN WAS CHRIST? When was Christ anointed Prophet, Priest, and King? Christ says: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor,'' etc. (Luke 4: 18.) The Lord was anointed as a preacher and teacher when the Holy Spirit was given him after his bap- tism, as is indicated in this passage. But he was not con- stituted high priest while he was on this earth. Paul says : "For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law." (Heb. 8:4.) This is equivalent to saying that he was not a priest while he was on earth. But the last verse of Heb. 7 tells when he was made high priest, and how: "For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity ; but the 18 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. ,, "The word of the oath, which was since the law." The law did not die till the death of Christ. It is, therefore, certain that Christ was not made high priest till after his death ; and after his death and up to the ascension he was not made high priest. Hence he was made high priest when he ascended, and was made "King of kings, and Lord of lords," at the right hand of God in heaven. He is there now as our high priest, to appear in the presence of God for us. ANOINTING WITH OIL AND PRAYER. Brother Sewell: Please give us your views on James 5: 13-15. Is not that portion of his letter as applicable to us in this age as any- other portion of it? If not, how can we know where to draw the line? In verse 17 he refers to Elijah's being a man subject to like passions as we are, and then speaks of the efficacy of his prayer. Is not the want of faith and works on our part the reason why our prayers are not efficacious in cases like those mentioned in the verses referred to above? Verse 13 is plainly applicable to Christians at the pres- ent time. All Christians suffering afflictions should pray- to God for help in these afflictions — in fact, all Christians should pray to God at all times, and then when afflictions come their special prayers will be regarded. People that are merry should always sing psalms rather than go into frivolity. But as to the matter of praying for the sick, with the full assurance that they will be restored, there are differences of judgment regarding this. Some think this pertained to the miraculous age of the church, and that the raising up of the sick had special reference to miraculous healing; and to this idea I am inclined. But, at the same time, anointing with oil is a good remedy in many things, and would be no bad thing to do in any case where oil could be beneficial. Calling the elders together and praying for the recovery of the sick, praying that the efforts made to cure the sick may be made effectual, is also a good thing to do at any time. And in all such prayers there should be the meek and humble expression: "Thy will, not mine, be done." Then after all these things are done, if our sick do not recover, we should confidingly submit, Joblike, and still praise the name of the Lord. And while these prayers are going on for the recovery of the sick, if the sick member has committed sins, he should sincerely repent of and con- fess his sins to God and all pray together for their forgive- ness. All this, I think, would be proper and right. But to expect speedy and certain cure of the disease of the sick, I think, belonged to the age of miracles. Prayers for heal- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 19 ing, through the general laws of healing, for the success of our efforts to heal, I think, are in order all the time. Brother Lipscomb : Please explain James 5 : 14, 15. It seems that James was writing to Christians. Of course they were Jewish Chris- tions; but are not all Christians entitled to the same privilege? And if the elders should pray faithfully, anointing with oil as instructed, does it not seem that the Lord has promised to raise the sick, not only then, but through all coming ages? If not, why not? With the meaning our brother attaches to this passage, how could any Christian have died in reach of the elders with oil ? If the elders could have cured every one that got sick, certainly none would have died or lingered in sickness ; and if that order had become perpetual, a Christian in reach of elders and oil would never die. The scripture, whether applicable now or not, was in some sense true in the early days. Was there ever a time when Christians did not sicken and die? If God had ordained all that the elders anointed with oil and prayed over should recover, why did they not cure all? Why would any die? Why would Epaphroditus come nigh unto death ministering to Paul? (Phil. 2: 27.) Many sickened and died during the days of the apostles and of the miraculously endowed. So I take it James did not mean to say that all were or would be cured in this way at any time. Because this is so, I hardly think it was a miraculous cure. I think he only meant to say that if the sick would send for the elders and they would pray for them and anoint them with oil, those who could be cured at all would be cured in this way. That means that this was the best system of treating diseases and would cure all that could be cured. This may be true now. It may mean that anointing with oil was a remedial system very common at that day, and probably better than any in vogue. The practice of medicine then was a crude mixture of superstition and conjuration; so with the use of oil as a remedial agent the prayers of the elders should be con- nected. That would teach us that with any remedial agent we should connect the prayers of the elders. I think that just what was taught by James is applicable now, but I do not think he taught all would be cured at any time. That was not an antidote to mortality and would not stop the work of death. ANTICHRIST, THE SPIRIT OF. Please explain, through the Gospel Advocate, 1 John 4 : 2,3. This scripture seems to recognize that there is a spirit peculiar to every system of teaching. A class of teachers had arisen in the church, claiming to be inspired or sent of 20 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, God, who denied that Christ had come in the flesh. He says: "They went out from us, but they were not of us." It is probable that these teachers exhibited some ability to work wonders, as evil spirits in the days of the Savior pos- sessed such power. John's letters were written to warn against these false teachers who were guided by these spir- its. He urged them to try the spirits. Paul to the Corin- thians, warning against the same class, said : "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual [inspired], let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." This is a command to test those claiming inspiration by the word of God. This shows that obedience to the word of God even in the days of the apostles was regarded as a higher evidence of accept- ance with God than the power to prophesy or do wonders. John tells them that those denying in his day that Christ had come in the flesh were of antichrist. Antichrist was to come "with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that per- ish." These spirits which worked wonders were all to be tested — proved by the word of God — and one who did not conform to the word of God, even though he should work wonders and signs, was to be rejected. Conforming to the word of God is the only test of acceptance with God. Then the spirit in those persons led them to confess that Christ had come in the flesh. To do this was to recognize him by obeying him as Christ the Lord. "No man can call Jesus Lord, save by the Holy Ghost." The spirit that prompted others to deny that he was come in the flesh was of anti- christ. Antichrist was a spiritual power, but a wicked spirit. These verses recognize there were many spirits gone out into the world. These spirits worked wonders. All were to be tried by the word of God. Only those who acknowledged that Christ had come in the flesh, which is the same as to acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ, were of God. All who denied this, which was a denial that Christ is the Son of God, were of antichrist. ANTICHRIST, WHO IS HE? Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: If it would not intrude on your patience, I would like for you to give me some light on the subject of antichrist. 1 John 2: 22 says: "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." But as I never heard any person say he did not be- lieve in Christ, I am at a loss to ascertain who the liar is. "So that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." (2 Thess. 2:4.) "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteous- ness." (Verses 11, 12.) BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 21 The word antichrist means against Christ, opposed to him. A man that in any way opposes Christ is an anti- christ. Denying that Christ is divine, denying the exist- ence of such a being, is one way of opposing him. But there are people all over the land that do deny Christ, that utterly refuse to believe on him. Then many who are the pretended friends of Christ are in their teaching and prac- tice opposed to him and are among the very worst enemies he has. They pervert and hide the truth and put the doc- trines and commandments of men in the front. Whenever you see any of these things, you see antichrist. The power spoken of in 2 Thess. is the great apostasy from the truth that is foretold in many places in the Bible. It is the "mystery, Babylon the great," spoken of in Rev- elation. It is generally understood that Roman Catholi- cism is the largest development of the man of sin known in our land ; but any movement among religious people in the way of creed making or councils, or any other thing that sets aside the word of God, is that much of the man of sin. Any man that says the word of God is insufficient and puts something else in its place exalts himself above God, and his wisdom is greater than the wisdom of God. When men resist the plain truth of God, will not receive and act upon it, God then sends strong delusion upon such, that they may believe a lie and be damned, because they would not receive the truth in the love of it that they might be saved. But these delusions are only sent to those that will not receive the truth. Those who are satisfied with the plain truth of the word of God can always learn enough of it to be saved by it, and such need not be uneasy. But when men see the truth and then will not receive it, they are in danger of the delusion spoken of. E. G. S. APOSTLES, WERE THEY BAPTIZED? I am requested to ask Brother E. G. Sewell to write a piece in re- gard to the proof of the baptism of the apostles. Regarding John the Baptist it was said: "And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a peo- ple prepared for the Lord." (Luke 1: 16, 17.) John was to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. How did he do this? Answer: "And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." (Luke 3: 3.) Every man that heard and believed the preaching of John, repented, and was bap- 22 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, tized by him, received remission of sins, and in this way- was made ready, prepared for the Lord. But those that refused to be baptized of John, rejected the counsel of God against themselves. (Luke 7: 30.) When Christ came and selected his apostles, they were from among his disci- ples, and his first disciples were assuredly of those baptized by John, and were thus made ready for him. Therefore, the apostles were baptized by John in Jordan. To suppose that the Savior would select his apostles from among men that rejected the baptism of John, when John's mission was to make ready a people prepared for the Lord, is preposterous, especially so when those that re- jected John's baptism rejected the counsel of God. And would Jesus have selected his apostles from those that re- jected his Father? Impossible, because Christ says of the apostles in his prayer to his Father: "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition ; that the scripture might be fulfilled." (John 17: 12.) God gave the apostles to Christ ; and can any one believe that God, after sending John the Baptist before Christ to prepare his way, to make his paths straight, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord, would then give him the apostles from among those that refused John's baptism, which means they had refused God himself? The man that could believe that is not to be reasoned with. More- over, God required Christ, his own Son, to be baptized of John before he had showed himself to Israel and before he owned him as his Son in the presence of the people; and Christ recognized the authority and will of the Father in the matter of baptism when he said to John : "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteous- ness." Thus it was the will of God that Christ should be bap- tized. Now, will any one say that God, after requiring Je- sus to be baptized, having also sent John before him to make ready a people for him, would then select the apostles out of a lot of men that had already rejected him in refusing John's baptism and give them to his Son as rebels against himself, when he did not own his own Son in the presence of the people till he was baptized ? A man that can believe this could very easily believe any error that has ever been taught by man, even down to the effusions of Robert Ingersoll. But surely these reasons are sufficient to convince any one that believes the Bible that the apostles were baptized by John. E. G. S. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 23 APOSTLES, WHEN INSPIRED. Brother Lipscomb: I want you to explain when the twelve apos- tles were inspired — on the day of Pentecost or before? I think they were before, for Matt. 10: 7, 8 says: "And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." Mark 6: 13 also says: "And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them." Luke 9: 1 also says: "Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases." There can be no doubt but that the apostles were en- dowed with the power of working miracles and possessed a measure of the Spirit of inspiration previous to the day of Pentecost. But the Holy Spirit came in the fullness of his power on Pentecost, and they were then fully endued with the knowledge which the Spirit revealed and were plenarily inspired. There are different degrees of inspiration, cor- responding to the measure of the Spirit received. The full apostolic measure was received on Pentecost. D. L. ARK, HOW LONG IN BUILDING. Will you please answer through the Gospel Advocate how long Noah was in building the ark? We cannot tell. He may have been ten, twenty, or one hundred and twenty years. The Bible does not settle the time. He built the ark, as the Bible plainly declares, but it does not tell how long it took him. E. G. S. ARTICLE, THE DEFINITE, IN GREEK. Brother Lipscomb: I see an article in the Baptist, Volume XI., No. 11, page 327, headed "The," in which it is said that Rom. 3 : 1 should read "the circumcision." On Rom. 3 : 4 it says that "our trans- lators have inserted 'the' before 'law,' making the passage refer to some particular law, moral or ceremonial, when it is not in the origi- nal text." Further on it says: "It is by works of law, any law — moral, ceremonial, or ecclesiastical — and, therefore, not by baptism, as the law of pardon." Now, I want to know if this champion, who fears none and debates with all (except Brethren Brents and Swee- ney), is correct in his rendering, or does he not make void the truth of the gospel by trying to establish a human-made plan of salvation? The writer in the Baptist is not the first to discover a wonderful "mare's-nest" in the use of the Greek article with the term law. Several of our learned brethren about Lexington, Ky., some years ago advanced the same idea in reference to its use. They only made a different application of it. It is likely the editor of the Baptist bor- rowed the mistake from them, as he has but little originality of thought. There is nothing in it. Mr. Griffin presented the same idea in a discussion we held with him. The use 24 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, of the article in Greek is a very indefinite matter, and is oftener used or not used for the sake of euphony than on any other grounds. Take, for instance, this sentence. The article is attached in Greek to the word circumcision, but it does not necessarily mean the Jews. The article is attached to the word God in the next verse. Does this mean some particular god among many gods? The term God is frequently used in the same sense without the arti- cle attached. In verse 5 the word God is twice used. It refers to the same great Jehovah in both instances. In the first instance it has no article; in the second the article is attached. It is simply a matter of sound. Following some words, the term God would be harsh and difficult of calling. Then the article is used to give a soft and flowing style, easily pronounced. This use or nonuse of the article is common in the New Testament with reference to the term God, the term law, and various other terms. Our brother evidently misquotes his reference to the use of the article with law; but we give an example to show that the article is used or absented even when the Mosaic law is referred to : "The law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise : but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law?" (Gal. 3 : 17- 19.) Now, there is a distinct reference to the law of Moses given four hundred and thirty years after the prom- ise made to Abraham ; but there is no article connected with it, either in verses 17 or 18. In verse 19 the article is con- nected with it. In verse 21 it is used again with the arti- cle first, afterwards in the same verse without the article. No sane man can doubt that all these refer to one and the same law. It shows conclusively that the article is used for other purposes than distinguishing between a specific law and law in general. The article did not occupy pre- cisely the same office in Greek that it does in English. The pronominal adjective fills this office. D. L. ASCENSION, CHRIST'S. Brother Lipscomb: Did Jesus Christ ascend with his fleshly body into heaven? If so, please harmonize the scripture that no flesh nor blood shall enter heaven. Jesus arose with the same body, with the same wounds with which he died. We have no account of any change in this body. But Paul says: "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump." (1 Cor. 15: 51, 52.) As Christ was not changed in the grave, because he wished to appear BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 25 to man in his mortal flesh, he was, no doubt, changed, as those who are not in their graves will be changed, in a twinkling as he ascended. ASKING, SEEKING, KNOCKING. What is meant by saying: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you?" (Matt. 7: 7.) Who is he talking to? Also please explain verse 11 and Acts 2: 41. It seems to me three plainer sentences cannot be found in the Bible. They mean exactly what they say, meaning al- ways, as Christ so often declares, that we shall ask accord- ing to God's will, seek where he has directed, and knock at his appointed door, and the blessings asked, sought, and knocked for shall be obtained. There is nothing mysterious or singular or difficult to understand that we can see. This is laid down as a general principle. Many specific direc- tions involving this same principle, with the modifications, are presented in the Bible. "If we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us." (1 John 4: 14.) "Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss." (James 4: 3.) "Strive to enter in at the strait gate : for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. When once the mas- ter of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us ; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are." (Luke 13: 24, 25.) These show that the asking, seeking, knocking must be done according to the will of God, else they cannot meet the prom- ise. Verse 11 cannot be made plainer. It says God is more ready to give good things to his children than we are to ours. Acts 2 : 41 says those who received the words spoken by Peter were baptized as he directed, and three thousand were added to them (the disciples) . "AT HAND," MEANING OF. A Baptist brother, preaching on "The Establishment of the King- dom," quoted Matt. 11: 12; Luke 16: 16-21. In explaining Matt. 3: 2, "the kingdom of heaven is at hand," he says it means "already there." He gave for an example that having received a letter, to which we were going to reply, we would say: "Yours of is at hand." Please give us your views on the same. The Greek verb rendered by the phrase "is at hand" in our Common Version literally signifies to approach, to draw near. The perfect tense is used in this passage in the Greek, and would be correctly rendered has come near, has approached. To draw near is one thing, and to be actually present, set up, is another. We have the very same Greek 26 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, word, in the same tense, differently rendered, in Luke 10, where the Savior, in giving instructions to the seventy, tells them if they entered a house or city that would not receive them, to shake the dust from their feet against them, and tells them to say : "Notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you." This shows exactly what is meant in Matt. 3 — that the kingdom was nigh unto them. The kingdom of God was near when John began his preaching, and this is just what is said in the pas- sage. John began the preparatory state of the kingdom, and this preparatory state continued till the crucifixion of Jesus, and the church was fully set up when the Spirit came upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost. The king- dom was present in its preparatory state when John began his preaching, and this explains the passages that speak of the kingdom as present while Christ was still on earth, such as when Jesus says: "And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force." (Matt. 11: 12.) The kingdom was present in its preparatory state and suffered violence before Jesus died ; but after this Jesus said : "Upon this rock I will build my church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt. 16: 18.) The words will build signify something to be done in the future, as every one knows; and as this was said after the other passage which speaks of the kingdom as already suffering violence, the first one must refer to the preparatory state, in which it was then present, while the other refers to the full estab- lishment of the church, which was then in the future, but was fully established on the day of Pentecost, when three thousand entered by a law that was never preached to men on this earth till that day. E. G. S. BALAAM, THE CASE OF. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In Num. 22: 20-22 we read: "And God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men come to call thee, rise up, and go with them ; but yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do. And Balaam rose up in the morn- ing, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary against him." Now, if the above is true, what assurance have we of being blessed in doing what God tells us to do? You may say that he did something that God did not tell him to do, but it seems that God's anger was kindled for the sim- ple act of his going. Please answer in the Gospel Advocate. This case of Balaam is precisely a similar one to that of the Israelites desiring a king to rule over them in the days of Samuel, the prophet, as recorded in 1 Sam. 8. Here they wished something contrary to the provisions he had made. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 27 He decreed they should have it as a punishment for dissatis- faction with his will; He gave the king, accompanied with the warning as to the evils that should follow. Balaam gave a sort of obedience to God, but would not accept God's decree as a finality, and showed his anxiety to go contrary to God's will by coming to God to see if he would not change this decision. God, provoked at the dis- position to rebel and the seeking God to change his mind and decree, did change it, and gave the command — or, rather, permission — for him to go. He did it under cir- cumstances that Balaam ought to have understood that it was left him to rebel against God if he desired. And the going now against the refusal of God was an indication of his anxiety to go contrary to the word of God. When he did this, God's anger was kindled against him. It is a principle clearly laid down in the Bible that when men do not wish to obey God's commands out of pure rever- ence for his authority, God permits them to go the way they love. They usually satisfy their consciences and think they do God's service; yet the course they follow only leads to their destruction as a punishment for dissatisfaction with his will. Here he told Balaam not to go. Balaam returned to him, asking if he might not go, or to see if he would not change his mind. God, provoked at this dissatisfaction, told him to go ; but when he went, God's anger was kindled against him to his destruction. The only difference between this case and that in 1 Sam. 8 is, here the permission to go, contrary to the expressed will of God, is given without the warning of the results, as was in that case. The reason of this difference may be found in the fact that Balaam was a prophet and less ex- cusable in his course than these uninspired people. It is an admonition to us that we should take God at his word with- out preferences of our own. If we desire other ways, he will let us follow them to our ruin. D. L. BALL PLAYING, IS IT CONFORMING TO THE WORLD? Paul says (Rom. 12: 2), "Be not conformed to this world;" and John says (1 John 2: 15) : "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Fa- ther is not in him." Now, I am well aware that there is a line of dis- tinction between the world and disciples of Christ; but just where, in all cases, I do not know. For instance, there is here in Midway a baseball club, and they meet Saturday evenings to play. I do not belong to the club, though I have played a few times, and I find it excellent to develop one's muscles. For no other purpose would I participate. It has its evil associations; but they play here in town, so there is very little ungentlemanly behavior. Now, do I cross the bounds of a Christian life when I share the sport with them? Am I "conformed to this world" in so doing? 28 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, We were never in a baseball club, and know but little about them, but suppose the right or the wrong would de- pend largely upon the sort of people that compose them and the manner in which they are carried on. If decent, well-behaved young men that are most of their time con- fined to indoor work, as clerks, get together occasionally and in a gentlemanly manner, so that nothing improper shall be said or done while the game is going on, we do not see that there would be any more harm in that than in the jo- vial running on, extravagant talking and laughing, and slang style that is usually indulged in by young people when they are together. But where wicked, profane, and ob- scene young men get together in such plays, we think Chris- tians should keep out of them ; and not only out of such plays with young men of that character, but Christians ought as .far as possible to keep out of the society of such men at all times, except to endeavor to teach and influence them to better things. Just simply as a matter of pastime, Christians should not associate with such people. Their own morals will be corrupted by such association. Every child of God should be striving every day not only to grow better himself, but to make others better, to exert an influ- ence over all around for good. But there is a lack among the members of the church in these matters when with the wicked, the vulgar, and the rude. Instead of exerting an influence over them for good, they are too apt to partake with them in their wild ways, rather than so act as to win others from their folly. We think whether a young man who is a member of the church should play in a baseball club, or others of a similar character, or not, should depend upon his own character as much almost as theirs. If he can go among them and improve them by his association with them, he might without impropriety go among them, and might even do good in so doing. But if a Christian is disposed to love wild company him- self and to fall into the habits of the low and vicious, then for his own sake he had better stay entirely away from evil influences. A Christian should be careful never to go into any societies unless he can either receive good from them or impart good to them. If no good is to result either way, then make that a reason for staying away. Nothing is more blighting to a Christian's character than evil associ- ation, unless he has strength enough in himself, derived from God's divine appointments, to overcome the evil. If he is weak enough for the worldly influence to overcome him, he had better always keep away from them. Before a young Christian goes into a baseball club, or any other sort of club, he should consider first whether he be able to BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 29 resist any bad influence any association with them might bring upon him and come out unscathed. In the next place, he should consider whether he is able to exert any good in- fluence upon them that will have any tendency to elevate them and turn their attention in any wise to the religion of Christ or not. If he decides that the character of those persons is such that they are beyond the reach of good in- fluences, he should keep away from them. E. G. S. BAND, JOINING A BRASS, ETC. Some of the brethren who desire to take a leading part in the church work joined a brass band. They would engage in band prac- tice during our protracted meeting, at the same hour of service. They would also practice instead of attending prayer meeting. We ad- monished them not to let the band interfere with their church work. They would reject the admonition, and, besides, have given a concert in which they burlesqued the church and an elder, and one feature of the program was a dance, with banjo music. (Inclosed find their program.) The church has withdrawn from the brethren, charging them with reveling and such like, which Paul condemns in Gal. 5 : 21. They ignore the action of the church, and claim they will take part in our services, and we cannot keep them from it. Have we acted on scriptural grounds, and how shall we protect ourselves from imposi- tion by them? We desire to do only what the Book teaches. Joining a brass band or performing in it is not necessa- rily sinful. The habits and practices of it may lead into sin that Christians ought not to countenance and that a church ought not to tolerate in its members. It is just as lawful to cultivate music in a brass band as in any other way, if no sinful practices are encouraged or participated in. I think the custom of the bands in small towns is to lead out into things that are wrong. The program of this minstrel concert seems to me to indicate that no Christian should participate in it. "Comic songs," a "negro sermon," a "dance," and a "breakdown" constitute items of it. Cer- tainly no Christian could engage in or encourage these. Then it leads to other associations that are evil, to com- pany that lowers the standard of morality, and to the ridi- cule of religion, and does not obey the admonition of the Spirit, which says: "Let no corrupt communication pro- ceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers." (Eph. 4: 29.) Then this seems to me very manifest revelry. Revel is defined: "To feast with loose and clamorous merriment; to carouse; to wanton." This is condemned as unworthy of Christians. It is especially sinful, and shows a low reli- gious feeling that will cause Christians to neglect church services and Christian worship and instruction to engage 30 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, in such things. Persons following this course ought to be remonstrated with, and, if possible, saved from such courses. If not, spiritual ruin must be their portion. A man of any self-respect or Christian feeling cannot force himself on a church or claim its privileges which has ex- cluded him. If a man has been, by the customary way, ex- cluded from a church, he has no more right to participate in the privileges of the church than if he had never belonged to it — no more right to force himself upon it than he has to force himself upon the privileges of a private family. The civil courts would protect the church from such intru- sion as readily as they would protect a private family. We mention this for the benefit of those who attempt such things. A church had better bear patiently with such in- trusions than to appeal to the courts. D. L. BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF CHRIST. Brother Lipscomb: There is a people among us who deny the au- thority in Matt. 28: 19, where Jesus says: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." They say this baptism is not in the name of Christ, and they claim all the authority we have to baptize was given by Peter on the day of Pentecost; that that was in the name of Jesus Christ, and not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. They say Christ is head, and we must be baptized in his name only; and in so doing we honor Christ first, and in honoring him we honor God and the Holy Ghost. They further say that Peter had power to bind and loose whatsoever he would on earth and it should be bound in heaven ; and he nowhere bound baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Please give us your views through the Gospel Advocate. Please state if the baptism in Matt. 28: 19 is in the name of Christ. Did Peter have power to bind or loose anything that Christ did not bind or loose? Either our brother misunderstands the people of whom he speaks or they fail to understand very plain and simple matters. To do a thing in the name of a person is to do it by the authority of that person. To baptize in the name or by the authority of Jesus, one must have his authority. He must authorize them to do it. The apostles, as well as others, must baptize in the name of Jesus Christ. He must give that authority. In Matt. 28: 19 there is no account of any baptism being performed. It only tells that Jesus authorized his disciples to go and baptize. They did this first at Pentecost. "All power [all authority] is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore [by my au- thority] , and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : teach- ing them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- manded you." (Matt. 28: 18-20.) In this Jesus author- izes the apostles to teach and baptize by his authority, or in BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 31 his name. On Pentecost, about ten days after his ascen- sion, the Holy Spirit came, and the apostles did what Christ authorized them to do in Matt. 28: 19. They, in his name, or by his authority, preached and baptized. The authority was Matt. 28 : 19. They acted on this authority at Pente- cost ; they preached in the name of Jesus Christ. The two scriptures stand related to each other as the giving of a command and the obeying it. Jesus, in Matt. 28 : 19, com- mands the disciples; on Pentecost they obeyed this com- mand. What Jesus commanded, the apostles did. One is doing what the other commanded to be done. Whatever is done in the name of Jesus Christ is done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; for these three are one. Jesus commanded what he had heard of his Father, and the Holy Spirit was sent in the name of Jesus Christ, to call to their remembrance all things they had heard of Christ. (John 14 : 26.) "He will guide you into all truth : for he shall not speak of [or from] himself ; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak." (John 16 : 13.) What- ever is done in the name of one is done in the name of the three. Again, a man must come into a house before he can live and act in it; so we must come into the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit before we can act in his name. Then persons must be baptized into Christ before they can act in him or by his authority. In Matt. 28 : 19 the proper translation as given in the Revision and in all late transla- tions is : "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the na- tions, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." They are put into the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit by baptism. They are then in condition to act in his name, as members of his body and as his servants ; and when they were baptized into these names, the apostles were to teach them to do all that Jesus had commanded them, which in- cluded teaching and baptizing others, all people, of every nation. They are to be baptized into his name, then in his name, or by his authority, they are to baptize others, just as the apostles did. Jesus told the apostles: "But tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high." (Luke 24: 49.) "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you : and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Ju- dea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." (Acts 1:8.) Neither Peter nor the apostles were authorized to do anything save as the Holy Spirit guided them to do what Jesus had taught them. 32 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, BAPTISM, FORMULA IN. Brother Lipscomb: Is it essentially necessary in baptism to say: "I baptize you into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?" An- swer and oblige. We know of no necessity for saying one word in baptism to render it valid. We have no intimation in the Bible that there was any formula repeated, nor do we believe there was. The believer made known his faith in Christ; was taken upon this confession or declaration of faith and baptized. The baptism that was done put them into the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The repeating the formula is a declaration of what is done, but it is not essential to the doing. It shows the ten- dency to mere ritualism, having faith in repeating formu- las, etc., that persons run into these days. A man must eat and drink and work and trade in the name of Jesus. There is just as much necessity for saying, "I take this bread, I drink this water, I plow this furrow or plant this corn in the name of the Lord, I sell this horse in the name of the Lord," to make it acceptable as in the name of the Lord, as to say: "I baptize in the name of Christ, into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." All that a Christian does, is or should be in the name of the Lord. If a Christian were to take a person who declared his faith in Christ and baptize him without uttering a word, it would be valid baptism. There is no harm when you do a thing in telling what you do, save as people come to attach a virtue to the words spoken, not to the submission of the individual to the Lord. The formula is only a telling what you are doing. The Lord knows without being told ; the subject knows, if a proper one; the administrator knows what he is doing; and most intelligent believers know. It may be well to tell the audience for the benefit of ignorant hearers, but it certainly is not necessary to the validity of the ordinance. D. L. BAPTISM AND PARDON. 1. Can a person believe, as stated by you in the notice of mine, and receive water baptism, and still be unpardoned? 2. Is it your honest conviction from your knowledge of the Scrip- tures that no one is saved (living under Christian privileges and obli- gations) but those who comply with all the conditions mentioned by you? Your first question is: "Can a person believe, as stated by you in the notice of mine, and receive water baptism, and still be unpardoned?" We answer, no, if baptized in every way according to the New Testament. There are several things necessary to constitute a person a proper BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 33 subject of baptism. A man must not only believe with all his heart, as Philip said to the eunuch, but he is required to repent ; for all men everywhere are required to repent, and have not the promise of pardon till they do repent. The Holy Spirit, through Peter, on the day of Pentecost, said to the inquiring believers : "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Now, those people, although they already believed, could not have been baptized according to the will of God without first obeying the command to repent ; for that came first, and, therefore, is a prerequisite to baptism. And when a sinner first believes, and then repents, and upon the confession of his faith is baptized, he is then as certainly pardoned as that the word of God is true. There is no doubt about it. Jesus said, "He that believeth and is bap- tized shall be saved ;" and if that is not true, there is noth- ing in the Bible that can be relied on. When Jesus said "shall be saved/' he meant just what he said, or the New Testament is not worth anything to man. A man might believe, and then, without any repentance, without any love to God, but from some fleshly motive, might deceive men, might make the confession, and be put under the water, and not be pardoned. But this would not be baptism ac- cording to the New Testament, and such a one would only be a greater sinner in the sight of God than before. But when he has been prepared for baptism by a sincere faith in the gospel and a genuine repentance and confession of Christ with the mouth, and is then baptized with an honest desire to obey God — if that man is not pardoned when he does it, then there is no pardon and the Bible is a failure. Will you undertake to say that such a one is not pardoned ? No; I am sure you cannot say so, and would not for the world. In this we must be agreed, if you believe the word of God. But if a man be put under the water from any other motive than to obey and honor God so as to obtain his promises, such is in no proper sense baptism and could be worth nothing in the world. As to your second question, it amounts to asking me whether I honestly believe the Bible or not. The condi- tions that I mentioned in my other notice to your inquiries are the conditions that God has given in his word. The language you allude to in my other article is in these words : "When men hear the gospel as preached by the apostles, believe it with the heart, repent of their sins, confess Je- sus, and are baptized into him, they have the promise of pardon, and not till then." Now, which one of these will you leave out? For each one of them is mentioned some- where as coming before pardon. Whether you regard the 34 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, confession as a condition of pardon or not, it was required by Philip of the eunuch before he would baptize him, and it, therefore, comes in with faith and repentance and before baptism; and whether you regard is as a condition of par- don or simply as a verbal manifestation of one's faith to the preacher, we are not concerned now; but it comes in with requirements that are conditions of pardon, and that, too, before baptism, and the promise of pardon does not come in till the last condition is complied with. Will you say that faith is not necessary to the promise of pardon? Surely not, for Jesus says : "He that believeth not shall be damned." Will you leave out repentance? Jesus said: "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." Will you leave out baptism? It was said of those that rejected John's baptism that "they rejected the counsel of God against themselves." And do you suppose it will be a less matter to reject the baptism commanded by the Savior than that preached by John? If the Pharisees and lawyers re- jected the counsel of God in refusing to be baptized by John, do you not think you would also reject the counsel of God against yourself if you were to reject the baptism commanded by Jesus and practiced by the apostles every- where they went and preached? And do you think you could have the promise of pardon and at the same time re- ject the counsel of God against yourself by refusing a pos- itive command of God? How about those Pharisees and lawyers that rejected the counsel of God against them- selves? Will you say they were saved while rejecting God's counsel? I do not think you can say so. But you may say baptism is not a condition of pardon. If you do, then I will prove in precisely the same way that faith is not a condi- tion of pardon. The language is: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Here faith and baptism are both of them inseparably connected together by the con- junction and, and both are to be done for the very same thing. And if faith is a condition of pardon, so is baptism ; for both of them are placed before pardon, and, we may safely say, in order to pardon. You will certainly say that faith is a condition of pardon; and if so, then you cannot deny that baptism is, for the two are inseparably joined to- gether in order to bring the same result, or promise. But you may say you can find passages where pardon is con- nected with faith without any mention of baptism. Then I will also find passages where pardon is connected with baptism and no faith mentioned. But, then, shall we put such passages against each other and some take one and some the other — some contend for salvation by faith only and some for the same blessings by BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 35 baptism only ? We cannot do that, because in the commis- sion, as we have seen, both are inseparably joined together in order to pardon; and if, therefore, we find pardon con- nected with one without mention of the other, we may know the other is understood as being connected with it, and we have no right to promise pardon to either one with- out the other. The same is true in regard to repentance. You may find passages where salvation is connected with repentance with- out either faith or baptism being mentioned. But must we conclude that, therefore, neither of them is necessary? By no means, because in the commission as given by Mark we have seen that both faith and baptism are inseparable con- ditions of salvation, or pardon. And then we have one place in which all three are connected before pardon. On the day of Pentecost, Peter, in the closing part of his dis- course, most positively requires faith in these words: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." In requiring them to know as- suredly, he meant that they should be fully assured in their hearts — should most confidently believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Never was there a more positive requirement to believe than this ; and the command was no sooner given than some of them did believe, and cried out : "What shall we do?" Then to these believers the command is: ''Re- pent, and be baptized . . . for the remission of sins." Here, upon their faith, both repentance and baptism are inseparably required in order to pardon. So that in this passage all three of them — faith, repentance, and baptism — are inseparably placed before pardon, or remission of sins. Or, still further, by comparing Mark 16 and Acts 2, we have in Mark faith and baptism before pardon. In Acts 2 re- pentance is also put in between faith and baptism, and all of them before pardon. So, then, if elsewhere we find sal- vation connected with any one of these without mention of others, we may be certain that both the others are included. God has joined them all together before pardon, and we have no right to interfere with his arrangements. If we promise pardon to the alien sinner without any one of them, we will then be taking from the word of God, and will thereby make ourselves liable to the wrath of God. We prefer to let things remain as God has placed them. In this Bible land, with "Christian privileges and obligations," as you express it, all have a chance to do what God says. And we presume there are none in this country who have grown up to years of responsibility who do not know that the word of God requires faith, repentance, and baptism; 36 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, and unless he is mocking us, he means what he says, and, therefore, all these things are necessary ; and any one that rejects any one of them rejects the word of God and refuses to obey him, and, while thus refusing to obey God, has no promise of pardon. True faith will never spend any time in trying to fix up a plan to be saved on less than God says, but will be all the time trying to do all that God commands. BAPTISM, WHAT FOR? Brother Lipscomb: What is baptism for, and what does John 3: 5 mean? The leading purpose of baptism is to bury the man dead through faith and repentance to the world out of himself and raise him in Christ Jesus. "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them [eis] in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Baptizing them into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit puts them into the enjoyment of all the blessings to be received in Christ, the blood of Christ, the remission of sins, the fellowship of God, Jesus Christ, and all the intelli- gences of the universe that are in fellowship with God. Man dies to the world and to himself ; the body of sin is put off, buried in baptism, and he is raised to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. (Rom. 6:3-6; Col. 3 : 10-15.) John 3 : 5 means to believe and be baptized, as the whole teaching and examples of Jesus and the apostles show. A child in his natural birth is not born of water. Whatever water is present at the birth is born of the mother just as the child is. The water comes forth from the womb of the mother just as the child does. The water is born with the child from the mother. Just as well say when twins are born that one is born of the other, because they both came forth together from the womb of the mother, as to say a child is born of the water because water comes forth from the womb with the child. The idea is a violation of the common use of words, and is a strange and ridiculous inter- pretation to avoid the force of a truth that is taught in other places if it were not here. All scholars agree that for fourteen centuries after Christ no man ever thought of applying it to anything else than baptism. BAPTISM, NECESSITY OF. Will you please show one the necessity of baptism, if, indeed, it is essential to salvation? I am convinced that immersion is the best mode; and if I could see that baptism is essential to salvation, I would be immersed immediately. God commanded through John the Baptist baptism as a starting point to a new life with God. Jesus submitted to BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 37 it as a duty he owed to God. God recognized him as his Son before the world when he submitted to it and bestowed on him the fullness of his Spirit. Christ himself ordained baptism as the act in which he would be confessed. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." The believing is para- mount to accepting Christ in the act of baptism as the Leader and the Savior. The Holy Spirit came to guide man into the remission of sins. He commanded those who believed in Christ to "repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." From that time forward every one — Jew, Samaritan, Gen- tile, rich and poor, the prince and the beggar — who came to Christ, believing on him, was required to be baptized as a condition of acceptance with God. Cornelius, the centu- rion, "a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway," was told to be baptized as a means of his sal- vation. No one from that time forward was ever recog- nized as a child of God or in a saved state until he had be- lieved, repented, and had been baptized into the names of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. God requires it of every mortal that would come to him and receive of his blessing. We know of no higher, better, or stronger reason that any man can have for doing any- thing. If he cannot do it because God requires and com- mands it, he ought not to do it at all. Acts submitted to or works done in religion on any other ground are presump- tuous, and presumption is the highest of sins in the sight of God. The human family has sinned against God and has rebelled against his authority. God demands that every one should take this oath of loyalty, this expressive abnegation and denial of self, and this putting on Christ as his Lord and Master, before God will accept any service from him. We suspect from the tenor of this letter that our friend does not feel himself a sinner, lost and ruined, dependent on God for salvation. The tendency of the philosophy of this age is in the direction of the sufficiency of humanity to dis- cover and work out its own salvation without the guidance of God. If one thinks so, no service is acceptable to God. The weakness, sinfulness, the lost and ruined condition of humanity, must be realized before man can come to God in an acceptable frame of mind. If man was not lost, ruined, undone, doomed, the death of Christ was a meaningless farce. It takes but little knowledge of the world's past his- tory and present condition to see that without Christ and the revelation of God to man, man is lost, degraded, worse than brutal, tending continually downward, and that the 38 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, knowledge of God and his word is the only influence that has ever lifted hirn up, elevated him, given tone and vigor to his moral and spiritual nature, quickened his intellect, and given him character as a moral and spiritual being. If he was and is thus dead in trespasses and sins, with- out the knowledge of God, and God through Christ alone can quicken him, he must accept Christ as his Helper and his Savior on Christ's own terms. And it is not whether immersion is the best way of being baptized, but is it what God has commanded? If it is, man must accept it. For him to do what God commands is merely to accept God's help on God's own terms. This he must do, or God will not accept him. If God refuses to give help, man must be lost. He may, by the influences and institutions of the religion of Christ, remain a respectably moral man in this world, while defaming the influences that lifted him up ; but when he passes beyond this world and all these helpful influences are withdrawn, he must sink down into the degradation and ruin prepared for the devil and his angels. Our only hope is to do just what God tells us, and he said: "Be bap- tized every one of you." BAPTISM, CAN MAN BE SAVED WITHOUT? Brother Lipscomb : Do the Scriptures say that no one can be saved without baptism, or is it only an inference? If an inference, are not all creeds founded on inferences? I have been reading your paper some time, and I like it very well. Inferences are of different degrees of certainty. A nec- essary inference is regarded but little, if any, short of a pos- itive declaration or command. Whatever is necessary to the attainment of an end is necessarily inferred as em- braced in the command. It is a necessary inference that he must do all these things requisite to obtain an end, be- cause the thing commanded cannot be done without doing these necessary things. We, on the other hand, infer things on slight unnecessary grounds. Nothing save a necessary inference should be regarded authoritative. While it is not said in the Scriptures no one can be saved without baptism, it is true that the only plan for saving sinners that God has revealed leads through baptism. And I do not know why the clause, "that he has revealed," should be thrown in, for I do not believe he has an unrevealed plan. The declaration of the Savior is: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Here the road to salvation as marked by the Savior leads through baptism. The fact that lack of baptism is not repeated as a condition of damnation has no bearing, because baptism has been connected with faith and is the outgrowth of it; BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 39 and in calling up faith in the last clause, all that has been connected with it must be understood. The commission as given by Matthew is: "Go ye there- fore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." "Nei- ther is there salvation in any other [name] : for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4: 12.) This is a plain dec- laration that men can be saved only in the name of Christ. But men must enter into that name before they can be saved in it. This commission by Matthew says men must be taught, then baptized into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They cannot be saved without coming into the name of Christ. They are baptized into that name. Of the same force is the idea we are saved "in Christ." In him we find remission, salvation, redemption, and sanctifi- cation. It is in him these can alone be found. Then what- ever is necessary to an entrance into Christ is necessary to the attainment of salvation, redemption, sanctification, and all blessings found in him. Paul says: "So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death." (Rom. 6: 3.) Again: "Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal. 3: 26, 27.) We enter into Christ and enter his death by being baptized into him. We become children of God by faith in Christ, by being baptized into Christ, and so "put on Christ." Now, if baptism is essential to entrance into Christ, it is necessary to the enjoyment of all blessings found only in him. It is a necessary inference, then, that inasmuch as we enter Christ in baptism, baptism is a con- dition of the enjoyment of all blessings found in Christ. The Spirit said on the day of Pentecost: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Now, the remission of sins is the same as salvation from sin, on which future salvation depends. Take it "for the remission of sins" or "into the remission of sins," as our Baptist friends now say it ought to be trans- lated, and we have repentance and baptism as means of reaching remission of sins. All means or acts necessary to reach remission of sins are necessary conditions of obtain- ing and enjoying remission of sins. Hence, if an inference, it is a necessary inference and authoritative as a condition of the promised blessing. So, too, Ananias said to Saul: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." This admonition grows out of the two facts that baptism is a condition on which God cleanses from sin and baptism is a washing. Then if baptism in 40 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, this sense washes away sins, we cannot be cleansed from these sins without the washing. It is a necessary inference here that without the washing in which God cleanses we cannot be cleansed from sin. Peter declares that Noah and his family "were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us." Baptism saves us from our sins in the same manner that water saved Noah and his family from the de- struction of the sin-defiled world — that is, water is the me- dium through which in baptism we pass from a state of sin and condemnation into a state of acceptance and favor with God. If this be so, we cannot reach that state of favor and salvation without baptism, any more than Noah and his family could reach the new world without passing to it by means of water. If it is an inference that no one of the antediluvians were saved without water, it is an inference that no one can be saved without baptism. If an infer- ence at all, it is a necessary inference from so many and so different standpoints that it has all the force and assurance of a clear and distinct declaration. It only means that God has seen fit to pardon man's sins on condition that he be- lieves in Christ, our Savior, and so embodies that faith as to be buried out of self into Christ, the Redeemer. Baptism is the act in which we deny ourselves, are buried out of ourselves, and enter into Christ. This is God's order as plainly revealed as any truth of the Bible, and it is useless and sinful for man to try to set aside or avoid the plain commands of God. D. L. BAPTISM IN LIEU OF CIRCUMCISION. Brother Lipscomb: Did Christian baptism come in lieu of circum- cision? It did not. Circumcised persons were baptized, and the children of baptized Jews continued to be circumcised for a long while, and it would be no sin yet. That this is true you may see from the fact that Jewish Christians demanded Gentile Christians should be circumcised. If they had not circumcised their own children, they could not have asked it of the Gentiles. BAPTISM, THE, OF 1 COR. 12: 13. What baptism is spoken of in 1 Cor. 12: 13? The passage referred to is this: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gen- tiles." The baptism here spoken of is the baptism that puts people into Christ; for when we are in the body of Christ, which is the church, we are in Christ. The baptism that BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 41 puts us into Christ is water baptism. Paul says: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" Here the information is definite that we are baptized into Christ. And in the last of Matthew the commission of Christ to his apostles, as given in the late Revision of the New Testament, is as fol- lows: "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the na- tions, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The new rendering, into the name, is exactly literal, and, therefore, correct. This shows that the baptism performed by the apostles is the one that puts people into Christ, and is necessarily water baptism, for men could not perform a baptism of the Holy Spirit. And the very same baptism is spoken of in 1 Cor. 12, for it also puts its subjects into Christ. Hence the meaning of the passage is: By (according to the teaching of) one Spirit people are baptized into one body. The Spirit, through the truth, teaches us to believe the gospel, to repent, and to be baptized into Christ. It is by the teach- ing of the Spirit that we do everything in religion. BAPTISM, IS IT SPRINKLING? Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I have had the following scrip- ture quoted to me to prove sprinkling: "And so shall he sprinkle many nations." (Isa. 53: 15.) "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean : from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you." (Ezek. 36: 25.) Now, what I want to know is this: Is the same Greek word used in these passages that is in our Savior's commission? Please give the Greek words used in both places. Are the Greek words that are used (in either the Old or the New Testament) for sprinkle or pour ever used in the New Testament for baptize? The prophecies of Isaiah and Ezekiel, as the whole of the Old Testament, were written in Hebrew, not Greek. The Hebrew Scriptures were, however, translated into the Greek before the days of the Savior. It was translated by seventy chosen translators, and is called the "Septuagint," which means seventy. It is supposed to have been trans- lated in the third century before Christ ; was in general use among the Jews in Greece. It was quoted by the Savior and the apostles, and to this extent received their indorse- ment. The word used in the Hebrew is no kin to the Hebrew word for baptize. The word by which it is translated into Greek has no kinship or likeness to the word translated baptize. The word by which it is translated into Greek is thaumazo, which neither means to baptize nor sprinkle, but to astonish or overpower with wonder and fear. This is the meaning of the word. Christ's sufferings had been 42 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, foretold, the marring of his person ; and so shall he over- come with wonder and astonishment many nations. How the word sprinkle ever got into the sentence would be hard to tell. The word in the Hebrew and the Greek by which it is translated means to overcome with wonder. The words used for sprinkle and pour in both the Old and New Testament are entirely different words from those used for baptize in the New Testament. The word translated dip in the Old Testament, as in the dipping of Naaman, the dip- ping the finger in blood, etc., is the word used for baptize in the New Testament. The word cheo means pour; the word rantizo, sprinkle; and the word baptizo, dip, plunge, or baptize. There is nothing in common between the dif- ferent words. The sentence from Ezekiel is evidently an allusion to the sprinkling of the water of purification under the Mosaic law. It would be a strange thing to illustrate a moral purification by an allusion to something not yet es- tablished and totally unknown. This would be an abuse of even a prophetic enigma. D. L. BAPTISM, BECAUSE OF REMISSION. Brother Lipscomb: Is baptism for the remission of sins to one who has been baptized because of the remission of sins? I do not think any one was ever baptized because his sins were remitted. They may have believed their sins were remitted before they were baptized, but the remission of sins was not the moving cause. There is nothing in re- mission of sins as a motive to prompt one to be baptized. They may have thought, inasmuch as God had forgiven their sins, they ought to obey his command to be baptized ; but in that case the desire to obey God is the moving cause. When a man is baptized to obey God, he is led by a proper motive; and I believe when he does this to obey him, God will forgive his sins, whether he knows the act in which God forgives or not. Man cannot be led by a holier or more acceptable motive than the desire to obey God and so "ful- fill all righteousness." It is a dangerous thing to require more than God requires. BAPTISM, HOLY GHOST. Brother Seivell: I would like for you to write something on Matt. 3: 11: "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." There is a "Holiness" woman preacher holding a meeting here that says that God pours out the Holy Ghost on them like he did on the apostles. They say the apostles made a mistake when they baptized in water. Some of our brethren seem to fall in with them and take a great hand with them. They say John baptized in water; but when his mission ceased, they say they were to be baptized "with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 43 This was said of Christ, and had reference to the miracu- lous inspiring power of the Holy Spirit that was to take place at the introduction of Christianity, which was ful- filled on the day of Pentecost and at the house of Cornelius. The apostles and the people at the house of Cornelius are the only ones ever baptized in the Holy Spirit, so far as the New Testament records. Others received gifts of the Spirit, but these are never called a "baptism of the Spirit." None have been thus baptized in the Holy Spirit since that, so far as anybody knows. The baptism of fire spoken of in the passage referred to was not connected with, nor was it any part of, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but means the unquenchable fire of eternal ruin, as is plainly shown in verse 12, when all the wicked shall be cast off into eternal punishment. For any one to claim that the Spirit is poured out on any one now as it was on the day of Pentecost only shows to what extremes error will lead people. To say the apostles made a mistake in baptizing people in water is to destroy, to set aside, the Holy Spirit and his teaching in the whole New Testament ; for the Holy Spirit guided the apos- tles in teaching people to be baptized in water. Such a claim is based purely upon error, upon the false claim that any one receives any sort of spiritual endowment now. It proves itself false by setting the word of God through the apostles at naught. BAPTISM, WITH SPIRIT AND FIRE. In Matt. 3: 11 we find the following: "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear : he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." Does John mean that Christ would bap- tize them with two things or one — viz., the Holy Ghost under the similitude of fire? Did he mean that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost and fire, personally or nationally? He means he would baptize some of them with the Holy Spirit, the others with fire. The next sentence explains this fully : "And will gather his wheat into the garner ; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." There were the two classes — one to be baptized with the Holy Spirit and gathered into the garner of God, the other to be baptized with fire, burned up with unquenchable fire. D. L. There are two baptisms spoken of in Matt. 3: 11. One is the baptism of the Spirit, the other of fire. John was speaking to a mixed multitude, and we are not to conclude that the same would receive both. The apostles on Pente- cost and the household of Cornelius were baptized in the Holy Spirit. All the wicked will be baptized in unquench- 44 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, able fire in eternity. The passage in Peter regarding the filth of the flesh is evidently an allusion to the Jewish wash- ings which were for cleansing the filth of the flesh. He had just declared, "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us," etc. ; and then, lest his Jewish breth- ren should think baptism was for cleansing of the flesh also, he put in the explanation, "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh" — that is, not a mere fleshly washing, but an institution to affect the mind or conscience. The an- swer is, seeking of a good conscience. We have a clear conscience when we know we have obeyed God. E. G. S. BAPTISM THAT PUTS MEN INTO CHRIST. 1. How is it that man can baptize man into Christ? 2. Is the putting on of Christ in baptism water baptism? These questions were handed us by a brother, with the request that we should answer through the Gospel Advo- cate. To both of them we answer unhesitatingly: Yes. In Rom. 6 and Gal. 3 we are told plainly by Paul that we are baptized into Christ. These passages show that by baptism we enter into Christ. Then in the last of Matthew we have Jesus commanding the apostles: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in [eis, into] the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." In this passage the word rendered in, where he says, "baptiz- ing them in the name," etc., is the same Greek word that is rendered into in Rom. 6 and Gal. 3; and as it has the same construction in the last of Matthew, it should be ren- dered the same way, and then we would have : "Go ye there- fore, and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." The only baptism men could perform was water baptism. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was always a promise, never a command; and Christ himself was the administrator, as was said by John when he said of Christ: "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." Christ, then, and not men, was to baptize in the Holy Spirit. This baptism was not said to be into any name, but the baptism the apostles were to perform was to be into the name of Christ. Therefore the baptism which men were to administer to men was wa- ter baptism, and this is the baptism that was to go to all nations and to continue through all time. We have but two instances of the baptism of the Holy Spirit that are called such in the New Testament, and these were the apos- tles on the day of Pentecost and the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius ; and on both these occasions the Spirit was poured out miraculously from heaven, and the subjects of it were BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 45 miraculously endowed and enabled to speak at once in other tongues, in other languages, that they had never learned; and as we have no account of any other occasions like these two, we put them down as the only recorded cases of a bap- tism of the Holy Spirit. We have nothing of the sort now at all. No one is miraculously endowed now; no one now can speak in languages he has never learned. And, besides, at the house of Cornelius the very persons that were bap- tized in the Spirit had to be immediately baptized in water ; for after the Spirit had fallen upon them, after they were baptized in it, Peter said : "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" This baptism in water is the baptism that men were to administer, and, as we have already seen, the baptism that was to put people into Christ. Spiritual baptism only oc- curred on two occasions, and on one of these — Pentecost — those who received it were already the disciples of Christ, and it could not have put them into Christ; they were his apostles already. On the other occasion they were imme- diately baptized in water, and in this way entered into Christ, and not by spiritual baptism. So it is plain that no one ever entered into Christ by spiritual baptism. And, besides, if it requires the baptism of the Holy Spirit to put men into Christ, it follows that none have entered into him since the house of Cornelius, as there has never been an event like that since. But when we take it that water bap- tism puts man into Christ and that it extends to all nations and through all time, all difficulties are at once out of the way. Every time a proper subject is baptized in water he is also baptized into Christ ; but before any one can be bap- tized into Christ he must be prepared for it by an earnest faith which turns the heart to God and by an earnest re- pentance which turns the life to him. When these steps have been taken, the individual is ready, upon the confession of the name of Christ, to be baptized into him, and thus put him on in this divine ordinance. This kind of baptism is in the reach of all who will receive the gospel, while the baptism of the Spirit is not in the reach of any since apos- tolic times. E. G. S. BAPTISM, MUST ONE KNOW IT IS FOR REMISSION BEFORE BEING BAPTIZED? Brother Lipscomb : There has been much discussion concerning the person understanding baptism is for remission of sins. Suppose a Baptist seeks union with a church of Christ, what steps ought to be pursued toward him? 46 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, The person's own conscience and consciousness under the teachings of the Bible must decide the question. For churches or other persons to decide the question of accepta- ble obedience to God is presumptuous. A service based on the judgment or requirements of others, persons or churches, is not acceptable to God. A baptism submitted to because some church or some other person thinks he ought to is not a whit better than infant baptism. Such a baptism is based upon the faith of another. Infant baptism rests on the faith of another, and is as good, as acceptable to God, as any baptism resting upon the faith of any other person than the one baptized. While this is true, it is proper and right to teach every one just what the Scrip- tures teach on the subject of baptism — who should be bap- tized, its office in the plan of salvation, the motives that should lead to it, and the blessings to which it brings us. When this is done, the Christian has done all he can do, and it is then left to the consciousness of the person baptized as to whether he has been led by a scriptural motive, and, when thus instructed, as to whether he has the response of a good conscience toward God. If he has these when thus taught, then none can object. In teaching the office of baptism and the blessings secured, it does violence to the word of God to select one out of a number of blessings to which baptism brings the person and say this one must have been under- stood and have led to baptism, while ignoring all others. We find that Christ was baptized to fullfill all righteous- ness, or to submit to God's whole law for making persons righteous. This was to honor and obey God, the highest and most acceptable motive. In the great commission under which the apostles were sent to preach they were com- manded to baptize "them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." "Being baptized into Christ" is more frequently repeated than any other one end of baptism. Then on Pentecost they were commanded : "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Here they are informed that repentance and baptism would bring them to the remission of sins, and then they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Ananias told Saul: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Rom. 6 : 3-5 teaches that we are buried with him by baptism into death and that we arise to walk in newness of life. Gal. 3 : 26, 27 teaches that we become sons of God by faith in Jesus Christ ; "for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Col. 2: 11, 12 tells us that in baptism we put off "the body of the sins of the flesh BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 47 by the circumcision of Christ," by being buried with Christ in baptism. 1 Pet. 3 : 20 tells us eight souls were saved in the ark by water. 'The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Now, these give a multiplicity of shades of blessings promised in baptism, in- dicating a variety of shades of motives to lead men to bap- tism, all embraced in the one great desire to honor God and do what he commands, and so enter into Christ. When this instruction is given of what the Holy Spirit teaches on baptism, all that can be done by others is done, and the man then must act on his consciousness as to whether he has been led by one or more of these scriptural ends of baptism to submit to it ; and this decision of the person determines his duty in the premises. This is true of every person who has been baptized. To single one motive or blessing and make the understanding of this the one necessary condi- tion of remission, to the neglect of others, is on a par with selecting faith as the one condition of salvation, ignoring all others. Indeed, it is worse, because faith is the great leading principle of all obedience, and more fully embraces all the duties man owes to God, and obligates to air acts of obedience, than any other requirement of man. So if any one act alone justified, it would be faith. But to take one promise that involves what God obligates himself to do and make the understanding of it the sole condition of accepta- ble baptism, ignoring other ends and promises embodying man's duty to God, is to do violence to the word of God and become a factionist. I repeat that a baptism submitted to because some preacher or church thinks you ought to be baptized is not a whit better than infant baptism performed because the parents think it right. To get every one to have a faith of his own, and to act upon it, is the end to be sought. BAPTISM, WHY NOT IT AND THE LORD'S SUPPER NAILED TO THE CROSS? Brother Lipscomb: Please explain through the Gospel Advocate why baptism and the Lord's Supper were not done away, nailed to the cross, when Christ was crucified; also the meaning of spiritual bap- tism. There is a sect here teaching that this is all done away with, nailed to the cross, and that spiritual baptism is the only baptism; that no other has been taught since Christ was crucified. The reason baptism and the Lord's Supper were not taken out of the way and nailed to the cross is, they constituted no part of the law of Moses that was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross. While baptism was instituted by 48 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, John, it was not given as the law of Christ to his church until after he was crucified. Just before he ascended to the throne of God, and in his last message to his disciples, after he had been crucified and raised from the dead, he told them: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptiz- ing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : teaching them to observe all things what- soever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you al- way, even unto the end of the world." The disciples were commanded to teach and baptize all nations after Jesus had come down from the cross. He could not nail an insti- tution to the cross commanded after he had died on the cross. The Lord's Supper was observed before the cruci- fixion, but it was done to commemorate his death on the cross. He could not have nailed to the cross and have taken out of the way an institution ordained to commemo- rate the cross. They both belong to the new institution which belonged after the cross and must continue until Jesus comes again. Paul (1 Cor. 11), long after the death and ascension of Christ, wrote to the Corinthians : "As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." This is not to cease until he comes again. So your sect is teaching contrary to Jesus and Paul. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was the over- whelming of the Spirit that came upon the disciples at Pen- tecost and again at the house of Cornelius. After the dis- ciples had been with Jesus for three years as his followers, after they had wrought miracles and done works in his name, just before he left them he told them: 'Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." They had been his followers, had been preaching under his di- rection, had cast out devils, and done many wonderful works in his name. They were certainly his children; yet they had not been baptized with the Holy Spirit, but are told they shall be baptized "not many days hence." They tar- ried at Jerusalem about ten days ; then the Holy Spirit came from heaven, and they "began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." This was the baptism of the Holy Spirit. At the house of Cornelius (Acts 10: 44), "while Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word." "They heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God." These had been baptized with the Holy Spirit. The result was, they could speak with tongues they had never learned. Now, these are the only examples called "baptism of the Spirit" in the Bible. They both produced the same fruits. A man that claims to be baptized with the Spirit now ought to present the same fruit, or be pronounced a false pre- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 49 tender. In Acts 10, after they had been blessed with the Spirit, Peter says : "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." The baptism Peter commanded was with water ; it was long after the cross. BAPTISM, HOW BAPTISTS BAPTIZE. Brother Sewell: Do Baptists baptize individuals into the Baptist Church or into the church of Christ? If into the church of Christ, how do they get into the Baptist Church? If into the Baptist Church, how must one proceed to come from the Baptist Church into the church of Christ? I do not read one word about any Baptist Church in the New Testament, and, therefore, not a word about any one ever having been baptized into a Baptist Church. Hence, I shall not attempt to answer how such an unscriptural thing can be done, except to say that no such thing can be done by divine authority by any one. Nor do I read of any one ever having been baptized into the church of Christ. I do read of people being baptized into Christ and "into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." I read also, plainly, that Paul and the Romans "were bap- tized into Christ." (Rom. 6: 3.) Then, again, I read where Christ said, when speaking of himself as the Son of God : "Upon this rock I will build my church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt. 16: 18.) I learn also that the Greek word ekklesia, which is rendered church, means literally the "called-out ones." Therefore the word church means the people that obey the gospel and are thus called out of the world into Christ. The word church, therefore, does not mean a denomination, but it means the Lord's people on earth; and these make up the spiritual body of Christ, but in no modern sense of that word a denomination. The whole idea of a Baptist Church, and that such a church is a denomination, is purely human. There is nothing of that sort one single time named in the New Testament. Study the word church as given in the New Testament more closely, and you will not trouble your- self nor others about people being baptized into the Bap- tist Church. The whole idea is a human invention not once named in all the oracles of God. The matter of being baptized into Christ, and that whenever this is done they are the Lord's people, is plainly revealed, but not in any sense as a Baptist denomination. I have been preaching for about sixty-two years, and have never had any one to come forward to unite with the church of Christ that said he had been baptized into the Baptist Church. If such a 50 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, one ever does, I will try to teach and treat him as the word of God directs. But I am not looking for any such to come under that sort of invitation. That sort of folks are better satisfied where they are, and they will stay there till they learn "the way of the Lord more perfectly." I am not set for the defense of the Baptist Church nor any of its errors. So when you hear that I have received or proposed to re- ceive one who says he was baptized into the Baptist Church, then ask me how or upon what authority I did it. But I have found a number of people that said that when they were baptized they did it in submission to the will of God, and they were encouraged to at once take their stand among those who are simply Christians and to live the Christian life as the word of God directs. So I am in no dilemma in regard to the questions you ask. But those that require all those who have been baptized to do God's will to be bap- tized again, "having it in view that baptism is for the re- mission of sins," are the ones that are in the ditch, there being no authority in the word of God for any such pro- cedure. There is but one way to get into the church of Christ, and that is by a humble obedience to the gospel of Christ. But I am under no obligation to try to tell how to get into the Baptist Church, as no such church is revealed in the word of God. BAPTISTERY, IS IT WRONG TO HAVE A? Brother Sewell: We have a baptistery in the church here. Some of the brethren think it wrong. Now, please give us all the scriptures you can on the subject. If it is wrong to use it, we should not do so. We know of no scriptural reason why any one should ob- ject to having water in a pool in a meetinghouse to baptize people in. Water is the element in which people were bap- tized in New Testament times. The first baptizing ever done by divine authority was done in the river Jordan by John, the forerunner of Christ, and he baptized in Jordan because the river Jordan was convenient and there was plenty of water in it anywhere they might strike it. It was not because the water of the Jordan was more sacred than other water, but because it was convenient and plenty of it. The scriptural order was to baptize, immerse, people in water. There is no intimation in the word of God that people must be baptized in a river or any sort of a stream of water, but simply in water. It might be asked : Why do people build meetinghouses to meet in? Why not meet in a grove or a tent or in private houses as well? God does not command Christians to build meetinghouses, but he does require them to meet to break bread, to do his will, BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 51 to worship him ; and where there are a number of members near enough to meet together in one place, it is certainly more convenient to have a fixed place, or house, to meet in ; and they build meetinghouses for that purpose, to have al- ways a fixed and convenient place to meet, so that every member will always know where to go to meet the others. The Lord requires that people must be baptized in water, and it is left with them to find or to arrange a place for that purpose. If they can arrange to have water in a pool in the meetinghouse more conveniently than to go to a stream of water, that is just as scriptural as to go to a creek or river. Christians should be very careful not to make laws where God has made none and then try to force others to accept and comply with their law. If those who oppose a pool or baptistery to baptize people in will find where God has forbidden a pool to baptize in, then they may with great propriety oppose the pool. But the trouble is, there is no such passage to be found. Hence those that oppose the pool are simply trying to force a human opinion upon oth- ers that the word of God does not even mention. When people are immersed in water in a pool, it is just as scrip- tural as if they were to be immersed in the river Jordan. BAPTISTS, HOW RECEIVE THEM. Brother Sewell: In a recent meeting held by the Missionary Bap- tists of New Decatur there were quite a number added to that de- nomination. All of them confessed that they believed that God had pardoned their sins. In keeping with this confession, the preacher stated as he baptized them that they had been saved and that he was to baptize them because they were saved, and not in order to save them or that they might be saved. If you were holding a meeting next year for us and some of those persons should come forward and tell you that they had been baptized and were satisfied, what course would you pursue? It seems impossible to impress upon the brethren what the real issue is on the above-named subject. They cer- tainly know that I have never advocated the power of any false theory of conversion to save any one. I have never in my life even intimated that God will recognize any such system of error as conversion by the gospel of Christ as written in the New Testament. The brethren ought to know that converts made as the above were, and who still understand it that way, never propose to unite with disci- ples of Christ on that sort of conversion while they hold to any such errors as those named above, nor could they possibly be persuaded to unite with those who are simply Christians and who live simply as the word of God teaches. There are very few men living to-day that have larger ex- perience in evangelistic work than I have, and yet I have 52 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, never had a single application from any one on the sort of conversion presented above as having been made by the Baptists. I always showed the difference between the gos- pel as written in the New Testament and such errors as the above, and not one person out of all the number that have ever proposed union with Christians under my preach- ing has ever proposed union upon such conversion as is named above. Therefore I never received a single one upon any such claim. Hence brethren are opposing me and my teaching upon claims that no one ever made to me in all my life. Besides, I have never intimated in any way that such errors ever will, ever have, or ever can save one single soul. If I had even one time expressed such an absurdity, I would not be surprised at brethren running it on me. But I have often found persons coming forward at my in- vitations to unite with the brethren at that place on the Bible; and if I had not already been informed as to how they stood, I would ask them if they wished to be baptized ; and if they said no, that they had been baptized, immersed, then I would ask them if, when they were baptized, they did it as a matter of submission to the will and requirements of God; and if they said they did, that was an end to it, and they were received by that congregation as Christians to live with Christians as the word of God directs. But if one should make the claim of conversion as those Baptists put it of whom you speak in the above, that he was saved before baptism and then baptized because he was already saved, then I would teach him the Lord's will more per- fectly. But I have never had one such case to present it- self; and, brethren, if such a case ever comes to me, I will try to dispose of it as the word of the Lord directs, and will certainly tell you just what I do with it, so you will not have to guess at what I do. But the sort of persons that come to unite with us on the Bible have already learned what we teach as to faith, repentance, and baptism as con- ditions of pardon, and had somehow learned before they were baptized that it was required by God that they should do that and did it to do his will ; and such as these are about the only kind that ever want to unite with Christians on the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice. Now, when the rebaptists require such as these to be baptized again, they are practicing rebaptism without the shadow of a doubt; for such as these have already obeyed the gos- pel, have done the things the gospel requires people to do, and did them because they were anxious to do God's will. Now, these are the characters that no man on earth has any divine right to require to be baptized again. They have already done just what the gospel of Christ requires BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 53 people to do to be saved, and they did it because they un- derstood God required it of them. A man that would re- quire such as these to be baptized again needs to be taught the first principles of the oracles of God. We have written this not only as an answer to the above, but that all may see the real issue between us and the re- baptists. BAPTISTS, JOINING, TO BE WITH HIS WIFE. A certain brother has a Baptist wife. In order to be in the church with his wife, he proposes to join the Baptist Church. In order to get into this sectarian denomination, it will be necessary for him to sub- mit to baptism at the hands of a Baptist preacher. This he will do, not because he believes the Lord has commanded it, but in order that he may enjoy church fellowship with his wife. Please point out the sin committed in this case. If that be a true statement of the case, he will forsake God to follow and obey his wife. He will be baptized pro- fessedly in the name of the Lord. But he cannot do things to please men in the name of the Lord. It is not and cannot be in his name if he believes he has been baptized in the name of the Lord, because a man cannot twice be bap- tized in his name. If the preacher knows the facts when he holds up his hands before God and says, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ/' he will tell a falsehood in the name of Christ, the Lord. Whether the preacher knows it or not, the man baptized does, and he will be guilty of going through a farce to please his wife. Claiming it is in the name of the Lord will cause the preacher to tell a lie in the name of the Lord and will incur all the guilt of such a lie in the name of the Lord. It is a fearful thing to be doing things God has not commanded in his name, and so trifling with his holy name and sacred appointments. BAPTIZE, WHO MAY. We have in our congregation a difference among us as to whether a person whom we will term a "private member" has the right to ad- minister baptism or not. Please point out the scriptures for or against it, and oblige a weak congregation. Very little is said in the Scriptures about who did the baptizing. Paul said he did but little at Corinth, and the presumption is he did but little at any time. His mission was to preach the gospel, not to baptize. This would indi- cate that baptizing was not necessarily to be performed by those who preach it. Saul is said to have been baptized by a "certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias." The church at Jerusalem "were scattered abroad," "and went everywhere preaching the word." The presumption is they 54 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, baptized. I think it clear that no persons were specifi- cally commanded to baptize. I think a baptism performed by any disciple, if the subject is right, would be accepted by God. Yet, under the general provisions that every- thing shall be done decently and in order, it is proper that a congregation should have some one whose business it is to do this — the elders or deacons — as a guarantee that it be done in an orderly and becoming manner and that no re- proach be brought on the service. BAPTIZED, NOT BEING, WAS HE LOST? A man has genuine faith, has repented of his sins, has confessed Christ before men, and, in good faith, was preparing to go to the wa- ter to be baptized, but was stricken with apoplexy and died before he could be baptized. Will you give us your views on the question? Regarding the supposition above made by the Baptist preacher, we have never heard of a case like it, and we do not regard it as a reasonable supposition. We would much sooner believe the Lord would watch over and spare such a one, and allow him to carry out his honest purpose to obey him in baptism, than to suppose he would let him die during his preparation to submit to that ordinance. But, again, if such a case should occur, does that authorize any one to promise salvation to him? Has God ever promised salva- tion to such? Unless we can find some promise to such or some example of salvation under similar circumstances, I do not see that any one has the right to promise or to expect pardon in such cases. We must judge of what God will do by what he says, and not by what we think he ought to do. We have never known of God's making any change in the laws of nature to save innocent, well-meaning people from death. A man in this State a few years ago was suffering from chills, and, in the innocence and earnestness of his heart, took a dose of medicine, believing it to be quinine. But it turned out to be morphine, and he died in spite of all that could be done. The will and purpose in that case did not answer for the deed. The purpose, the intention, was to take quinine; but that did not change the effect of the morphine. Nor can we know that the intention in things spiritual will be taken for the deed, since God has not told us that it will. We know that if we do what God says, we are safe; and that is as far as we can give any assurance. Such questions are always asked to throw difficulties in the way of enforcing the Lord's word. If we say that such will be saved, then that admits pardon on less than God has promised it; and if a sinner can be saved one step short, why not under some circumstances save one two steps short, or three, and so on? No good reason can be assigned why BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 55 not, and in this way men can get rid of all the conditions of pardon as given in the word of God. The Baptists claim pardon to all before baptism, and that was the point he was seeking to establish by the above question. He can just as easily and upon the same principle cut off either faith or repentance, or both, just as pedobaptists do when they sprinkle babies, and at the same time pray the Lord to accept and save them. Any intimation to the world that sinners can under any circumstances be saved without do- ing all the will of God will cause some to neglect parts of the law, even when they have all opportunities to comply with the whole, and thereby imperil the souls of men. No ; we certainly have no right to promise or intimate salvation to any one a single step short of what the Lord has prom- ised in his word. Eternity alone can develop the mischief the denominations are doing in promising sinners the re- mission of their sins short of baptism, and also those of our own brethren who are claiming the salvation of the pious unimmersed. When Jesus says, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," who has the right to step in between the Savior and the sinner and say they can? And when Jesus says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," who now has the right to say that some pious men and women will be saved without baptism? All such sayings are at variance with the words and promises of Him who spake as never man spake. There is no safety, no power to save outside of the word of God. Let us, then, do and teach the word in all things, and all will be well with us. E. G. S. BAPTIZING "IN" THE NAME AND "INTO" THE NAME. In Matt. 28 : 19 they were to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. In Acts 2: 38 they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Why did they not baptize in the three names? There is a difference between baptizing in the name and baptizing into the name. Yet our Common Version does not always make the distinction. In the commission it should be baptizing into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This was to pass them into Fa- ther, Son, and Holy Spirit. In the name means by the au- thority^ of. In the name of Christ means by the authority of Christ. He said to his apostles : "Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name." He tells them that henceforward "whatsoever ye shall shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you." Paul said to the Colossians: "Whatso- 56 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, ever ye do in word or deed, do it all in the name [by the authority] of the Lord Jesus." That is, we must do noth- ing except what he has authorized us to do. The Revision makes these distinctions. Baptized into Christ is some- times used; but it refers to the baptism into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We are also com- manded to be baptized upon the name of Christ when properly translated. This means we must rely upon Christ, into whose name we enter and by whose authority we act. BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, WERE THE "ONE HUNDRED TWENTY?" Brother Lipscomb: As our Bible class differs on some scriptures found in Acts 2, I write this query, hoping you will give us some light. "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place." Does the word they in this verse refer to the hundred and twenty or the twelve apostles only? "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Now, who was filled with the Holy Ghost — the hundred and twenty or the twelve only? "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven." The trouble in this verse is in the words Jews, devout men. Some of the class think these words teach that devout Jews were present only; others think it should read Jews and devout men. We have never heard it called in question that the whole one hundred and twenty were present. If the hundred and twenty were present the days preceding Pentecost, when Matthias was chosen in lieu of Judas, certainly there were additional reasons why all should be present on Pentecost. There will always be a difference in opinion as to whether more than the apostles received the gift of the Spirit on that day. We think likely the tongues like as of fire sat upon each of the apostles, but that all in the room received this outpouring of the Spirit, but in different degrees. There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. The apostles received the greatest measure of it. But others were doubtless indued with the gifts of the Spirit in a less measure than the apostles. Our reason for the supposi- tion that all present received a measure of the Spirit is, Peter says this is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel: "I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh : and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy/' If this prophecy was fulfilled in all its parts, the sons and the daughters proph- esied. They were endowed with gifts prophetic afterwards. We know of no reason why the lesser gifts bestowed for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, until they come to the stature of the measure of the fullness of Christ, should not be given on this first outpouring of the Spirit. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 57 We find some from this time on exercising spiritual gifts. We are constrained to believe that none on that day received the apostolic measure of the Spirit, because then all would have been apostles. Yet none exhibited the fullness of apostolic powers, save the apostles. The Jews were the devout persons present. None but Jews or Jewish proselytes attended the Pentecostal feast at Jerusalem. The Jews had been scattered among all na- tions by the wars that drove them from Judea, but the de- vout ones came back at the appointed times to worship. It was undoubtedly Jews dwelling in the different coun- tries enumerated. (Acts 2: 9.) The proselytes are here mentioned as distinct from the Jews. The eunuch was a Jew of this character. D. L. BELIEVING "INTO" CHRIST. Does the New Testament teach that men believe into Christ? If you answer, "Yes," then please harmonize it with our teaching that it takes both faith and baptism to put a person into Christ. If men be- lieve into Christ, did all (even among us) learn this design of faith before they were baptized? For some brethren teach that a person must know all the designs of a command before he can obey the com- mand. Then have these brethren (perhaps thousands) who have not learned the design of faith obeyed the command to believe? The word believe is connected with Christ in Greek by the same word (eis) with which baptism, is connected with him. We are said to believe eis Christ and to be baptized eis Christ. Eis properly marks the relationship of each act to Christ. And yet no translator ever translated the words the same in the two connections. The reason is, eis, fol- lowing a verb of action or motion, denotes that the subject of the verb changes its relationship to the object of it. Kuhner's Greek Grammar says : "It [eis] is used of motion into the interior of an object, up to, into the immediate pres- ence of; in general, to denote the reaching a definite limit." This is its meaning connected with a verb of motion. Then it says it is used "of a mental aim, object, or purpose." Believing comes under the head of a mental or spiritual act, and eis in this connection points to the mental aim, object, or purpose. It indicates only a mental or emotional change toward the object. Baptism is a bodily act, embraces mind, soul, and body, and indicates a change of relation or posi- tion of the whole man toward the object, and reaches up to a definite limit. To believe eis Christ is to direct the mental and spiritual faculties to Christ — is to trust him. To be baptized eis Christ is an action of the whole man with reference to Christ, and changes his position from without Christ to 58 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, within Christ. Believing eis Christ directs the mind and spirit to Christ as the object of confidence and trust. Bap- tism eis Christ carries the man by the act performed into Christ, where alone remission of sins is found. Or we may put it in this way: Faith, as distinct from baptism or acts of obedience, affects only the heart ; through the mind it reaches and changes the emotions toward the object of faith. Believing directs the confidence, the trust, the emotions, that part of the man affected by the simple act of believing into Christ, and changes these toward Christ. But this does not carry the whole man into Christ. Baptism is the act by which the whole man — soul, mind, heart, prepared by faith, and the body — is carried into Christ. Then only is remission promised. Then faith car- ries us into Christ, or we believe into Christ, only as our believing leads us to perform the acts that place us in Christ. Faith, perfected by works, is the bringing the body into harmony with the faith of the heart. Faith, per- fected by works, embodied and expressed in baptism, puts us into Christ. Many believe eis Christ that never put him on — never receive the forgiveness of their sins. 'The chief rulers" (John 12: 42) believed eis him; but they did not confess him, because they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God, and they never received the remis- sion of sins. Still, faith eis Christ is the grand principle that leads one to put on Christ; and faith, perfected by works, puts a man into Christ. It is certainly as important to understand the ends to which faith leads as those to which baptism leads. Eis expresses the end, or purpose, of God in the commands given. It expresses the ends to which he proposes to guide man. To say man must understand all the purposes, or ends, to which God v proposes to lead him is absurd. If to understand these ends and purposes is necessary to the en- joyment of them, then no child of mortality will ever enjoy them. God asks man to let him lead him as a little child is led by its mother. He who confidently trusts God and is led by him, even though he knows not whither he goes, will be led into the remission of sins and life everlasting. The great end is to get men to let God lead them, to do what God commands, because God commands it and because they love and trust God, and God will lead them safely. D. L. "BETTER THING," WHAT? Brother Sewell: (1) To what promise does Paul refer in Heb. 11: 39? (2) What is that "better thing" provided for us by which those to whom Paul refers in the context were made perfect with us? (3) In what sense were they made perfect with us? BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 59 (1) The promise the people spoken of did not receive was likely the promise made to Abraham that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed — that is, the promise of a coming Messiah, the new covenant, through which the promise of eternal life comes. This promise was repeated in various forms and at different times by the prophets. It was confidently looked for by the Jewish people for many years before it was fulfilled by the coming of Christ. The blessings of Christianity are many and are uplifting in many ways, but they could only be realized in prospect un- til they came. But those ancient worthies had such strong faith in the promise that they could look through all their trials and persecutions and rejoice in hope of what they were sure would come. The coming of Christ and the es- tablishment of the new covenant was the completion of all God's arrangements for the well-being of the human race. (2) The "better thing" provided for us was, doubtless, the new covenant, the completion of God's arrangements for the complete elevation and salvation of man, and the opening up of eternal life. Former covenants were incom- plete, only preparing the way for a better and more perfect tabernacle, or covenant, that could make for man a perfect character and fit him for the glories of the eternal home in heaven. The new covenant is "a better covenant, estab- lished upon better promises." The apostle says regarding it: "And for this cause he is the mediator of a new cove- nant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." (Heb. 9: 15.) No promise of eter- nal life was ever made till life and immortality were brought to light through the gospel. Through Christ all the righteous dead of all the ages have the promise of eter- nal life. Till he came, nothing was perfect. (3) All, both Jews and Gentiles, in all the ages, that lived and died, or may yet live and die, in the service of God, will be blessed with immortality and eternal life. But be- fore Christ came no one was directly promised eternal life. Those worthies that suffered such terrible persecutions and who manifested such great faith in the ultimate fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham had no direct promise of everlasting life. But when Christ came, died, and rose again, the way was fully opened for all those worthies to have the precious promise of the eternal home in glory. Thus the arrangements were at once made through Christ for all the ages, for all godly people to have and enjoy all 60 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, the blessings provided by the Son of God, which are fully- revealed in the new and everlasting covenant. Let all the glory and honor for all these blessings be given to God through our Lord Jesus Christ, now and forever. BIBLE, SCIENCE, AND JOSHUA'S COMMAND TO THE SUN AND MOON. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please answer through the Gospel Advocate and make science harmonize with the Bible in regard to Joshua's command where he commanded the sun and moon to stand still. This is the passage alluded to : "Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Is- rael, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon ; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the Lord fought for Israel." (Josh. 10: 12-14.) We suppose the difficulty is in the language that speaks as though the sun moves and the earth stands still, and as though in this miracle the sun, instead of the earth, stood still; while science teaches us that the sun stands still and the earth moves around it; and that, ac- cording to this, Joshua should have asked that the earth should stand still instead of the sun. The explanation, doubtless, is that the Bible spoke to man in his own lan- guage in things of this sort, and these things are repre- sented as they appear to men and just as men for more than five thousand years thought they really were. It is only a thing of modern times that science has been suffi- ciently developed to tell us that the sun stands still and that the earth moves, and the first man that published it to the world was punished for his daring presumption. And if the Bible had said, three thousand years before science made this discovery, that the earth moves and that the sun is stationary, a hundred would have rejected the Bible on this account to where one does now over the above pas- sage. The Bible represents these things just as they ap- pear unto men, and speaks in the language that men them- selves use in such cases. The Bible speaks of the rising of the sun and the going down of the sun, just as men have always spoken of these things. And not only formerly, but even now, after all the developments of science and in spite BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 61 of all its revelations, men still speak of the sun as rising, as going down, etc. ; and even the scientific men of the world themselves speak in the same style. So far as man can see when he looks abroad, the earth is still and the sun moving ; and the Bible speaks of these things just as they appear to, and as they are spoken of by, men. Joshua simply desired that the day should be prolonged until the Israelites should avenge themselves upon their en- emies, and this is what the Lord granted ; and the language used is just the language that modern scientists themselves would use to-day to express similar things. The infidel world is hard pressed when it gets up such things as this upon which to 1 reject the Bible and all it contains. Just upon what they imagine a small discrepancy between the Bible and science, they reject everything that is sacred to them for time and eternity — reject all the love of heaven, all the offers of salvation, present and eternal; reject all the invitations from God to a home above, where suns shall rise and set no more, just because in the dreams of their imaginations there is a contradiction of science in the Bi- ble. The man that rejects the Bible upon these little things, and then undertakes to account for the introduction of Christianity into the world and its unparalleled success at the very beginning, will have difficulties a thousand times greater than to accept Christianity and the whole Bible as true. E. G. S. BIRTH, THE NEW. (John 3: 8.) Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: I wish, if it is convenient, you would give me some light on John 3:8. The Savior is telling Nicodemus: "A man, to enter into the kingdom of heaven, must be born again." Nicodemus, having before his mind the natural birth, says : "How can a man when he is old enter the second time into his moth- er's womb and be born again?" The Savior says: "Not that fleshly birth, Nicodemus. You must be born of water and the Spirit. It is flesh that is born of flesh in the mate- rial birth, but spirit is born of spirit." Then he adds in explanation ^ "The wind blows where it pleases ; you cannot tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit." He is simply explaining that it is the spirit — the immaterial, unseen part of man — not the flesh, that is affected by the Spirit. The every one is explained as the spirit of every man. That immaterial spirit of man, like the wind, unseen and intangible, is be- gotten by the Spirit. That spirit, affected and changed, leads the body in which it dwells into obedience to God. So the birth is affected by the water and the Spirit. D. L. 62 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, BIRTHS, ONE OR TWO, IN JOHN 3:5? Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain John 3: 5 — whether there is but one birth spoken of in said verse or not, or whether two births are alluded to. I think such an article would be of great im- portance in this community. The Savior most certainly meant but one birth when he said : "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." In verse 3 he said : "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Born again just means one birth, and then the ex- pression, "born of water and of the Spirit," is only a fur- ther explanation ; gives two items — water and Spirit — that are requisite in bringing about the new birth, the one birth of water and Spirit. Peter, writing to those who had al- ready done what Jesus said must be done, had already been born of the water and the Spirit, had already entered the kingdom of God on earth, said, "being born again," etc., which shows one birth only. (1 Pet. 1: 22.) Christ was only speaking figuratively of what should take place in man in becoming a Christian, and we had just as well say that a man must become a Christian twice as to say that it takes two births to enter into the kingdom of God. One natural birth introduces us into this world, and one new birth, one birth of water and Spirit, introduces a man into the king- dom. But it requires all that Jesus said to put a man into the kingdom, and a man is not born again till he is born of water as well as of the Spirit. The Spirit of God directs every step to be taken in entering into the kingdom of heaven. Water baptism is one of these, and the last one, as Jesus shows in the commission, when he says : "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." The promise of salvation is not merely when they believe, but when they are also baptized ; and such also was the teaching of the Spirit through Peter when he said : "Repent, and be bap- tized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." And the three thousand that were baptized un- der that command were born again — born of water and the Spirit; and as the Spirit of God commands baptism before it promises remission, no man need think that he can be born again without water, without baptism, for Jesus shows plainly he cannot. Hence, whenever a man believes the gospel with all his heart, repents of his sins, and, upon the confession of the name of Christ, is baptized, he is a Chris- tian, is in the kingdom of God, is born again ; and it takes these acts of obedience to constitute the one new birth. E. G. S. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 63 BISHOP, MUST A, BE MARRIED? Brother Seivell: Please tell through the Gospel Advocate whether 1 Tim. 3 : 2 means that a bishop must be a married man, or only that he must not have more than one wife — must not be a polygamist. I do not know of any other passage that throws any par- ticular light on the passage named, and this one seems to give some people trouble to fix its meaning. I have just examined two commentaries on the subject, and both hold that it means that an elder, a bishop, should have one wife, but that it requires that he shall not have more than one. I would not speak radically on the subject, as to whether it means he must of nec e( |sity be married or not; but that seems to be a safe conclusion as to the language — that he must be the husband of one wife. But this principle is generally true along that line: that practical business men of suitable age to be appointed as elders are nearly always married men. Very few old bachelors are suitable for eld- ers. That may be because all the men that are practically smart enough to be elders of the church are too smart to try to live single. I hope those about to be bachelors will think about this, anyway, and it may stimulate them to marry some good woman, and I am sure they will make more prac- tical sort of men and better elders. But, finally, since the Book plainly says that the bishop "must be without re- proach, the husband of one wife," etc., it is certainly safe to always appoint married men as elders. But there is one other passage we will notice. The Book contemplates that married men will have children and that they will keep them under good training. "One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (but if a man knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)" (1 Tim. 3: 4, 5.) This rather leaves the old bachelor out, as he has no household to rule. So, take it all in all, it is safe to appoint good, practical married men, with families of children, to be eld- ers; and yet modern sinful custom is knocking even mar- ried men out of that qualification by so many homes having no children. But, brethren, follow the letter of the Book and you will be safe. BLASPHEMY, WHAT IS? Brother Lipscomb ; What are we to understand to be the full mean- ing of the word blaspheme? Can we blaspheme against men? I gave a pretty full account in the Gospel Advocate of May 4. The word means to speak lightly or disrespectfully of persons or things held sacred. It is used about sixty times in the New Testament. There are three different 64 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, forms of the word blasphemy used. Matt. 9: 2, 3 is the first example: "Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, be of good cheer ; thy sins are forgiven. And behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth." (See Mark 2: 7.) For a man to claim divine power was to dishonor God and blaspheme him. The second mention of it is in Matt. 12: 31, where they accused Jesus of working miracles by the power of the devil. Jesus told them that all manner of "sin and blas- phemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven/' Jesus says of this (verse 32) : "Whosoever shall V^eak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him ; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come." Jesus makes it blasphemy to speak against him or the Holy Spirit. (See also Mark 3 : 28.) In Matt. 15 : 18, 19, Jesus tells that "adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings [blasphemies] " "come forth out of the heart." When Jesus claimed to be the Christ, the high priest called it "blas- phemy." (Mark 14: 64.) It derogated from the honor of God to call a human being "God" or to claim him as en- dowed with divine power. The same word in Matt. 27 : 39 is translated "railed on him." "And they that passed by railed on him [Jesus], wagging their heads." (See also Mark 15: 29.) To ridicule and insult the Savior was to revile or blaspheme him. They that were hanged "railed on him." (Luke 23 : 39 ; see also Matt. 27 : 44.) To shame and reproach him was to blaspheme him. Rom. 3 : 8 says : "As we be slanderously reported." To misrepresent the teaching of an apostle was to blaspheme him. Again, in Rom. 14 : 16 the same word is translated "evil spoken of" — "Let not then your good be evil spoken of." To speak evil of a good thing is to blaspheme it. In 1 Cor. 4: 13 it is translated "being defamed" — "Being defamed, we en- treat." To defame a good man was to blaspheme him. In 1 Cor. 10: 30 it is translated "evil spoken of— "Why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?" To speak evil of a good act is to blaspheme the act and the person who acts. In Tit. 2: 8 it is translated to speak "evil" of a man. Again, in 1 Pet. 4 : 4 ; 2 Pet. 2 : 2, 10, 12 ; Jude 8-10; 1 Tim. 6: 4, it is translated "railings," "evil speaking," etc. To blaspheme means to speak lightly of, to defame, or to rail at any good or sacred person or thing. Jesus himself, his teachings, servants, followers, might be railed at, rejected, scorned, and blasphemed; but when the Holy Spirit was come, the additional teaching and tes- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 65 timony of the Spirit would be given and the guilty ones would have the opportunity of repenting. If this was re- jected, spoken lightly of, refused, no more testimony or op- portunity to repent would be given either in this world or the world to come. To blaspheme is to turn from or reject as untrue. To reject the teachings of the Holy Spirit is to sin against the Spirit. BLESSINGS, CONDITIONS OF GOD'S. Brother Lipscomb: Please answer in the columns of the Gospel Advocate if you do, or ever did, take the position that if a person came to you and said he believed that God for Christ's sake had par- doned his sins, you would try to teach him better, but, if you could not, that you would take and baptize him in that condition, believing that he was already saved. Please answer, as you are accused by several brethren of taking that position several years ago. I am a little over a year old in the gospel. I have never found where God has ever suspended the acceptability of man's service on man's knowing the mo- ment God rewarded the service, or the time and reason of a blessing. If he has done this, I do not see who can be saved. The highest type of faith is that of Abraham. He did God's commands, left all and followed him, "not knowing whither he went." Others manifesting great faith are given in the Hebrew letter. Of these it is said : "Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city." God made many promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob of blessing, and how and when the bless- ing would come. They, through weakness, through pre- occupation of their minds with other ideas, and through having their spiritual vision clouded by their surround- ings, failed to understand the nature or special time of the divine promises ; yet God never withheld the promise when in obedience to him they came to the appointed place. Christ so often and so plainly told the apostles that he would be crucified and raised from the dead the third day; yet their minds were so preoccupied with other views that they did not see or understand or believe it. They failed to be- lieve it because they did not see it. They had confidence in Jesus and faith in the truth of his teaching, but the pre- occupation of their minds with the idea of a temporal king- dom and earthly glory hindered their seeing the truth then. Jesus did not reject their service because they failed to see this, the most important item in his teaching. He knew, if led on to obey truly other truths they did see, that they would come to see the fullness of this truth. Peter on Pentecost preached : "The promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off." Yet he 66 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, was slow to understand and believe the promise was to the Gentiles, because his prejudices were in the way. These prejudices were so blind when they were aroused, after he had opened the door to the Gentiles, they led him to refuse to eat with them as brethren. Yet his service was accepted. God makes allowance for human ignorance and human weakness, and accepts service despite much blindness and many errors, or we are all lost. It is only weak man, who imagines that he knows all truth, that makes service de- pend upon a perfect understanding of God's purposes and times. I have no doubt those who refuse to recognize the obedience because the person does not come up to the stand- ard of knowledge mistake the nature and character of the faith required in points much more essential to the forma- tion of the godlike character than the point they insist on. The truth is, there are different motives given in the Bi- ble to lead men to obedience. The highest, holiest motive to obedience is that which led Jesus — the desire to fulfill all righteousness — to do the will of God. I would fear much to meet Christ at the judgment seat of God if I rejected him who did what God commanded him, led by the motive that led Jesus Christ to obey him. When a man trusts God and honors him from the desire of obeying him, he acts from the motive that is more pleasing to God than any other. When we give ourselves up to be guided by God, he leads us to all good. The enjoyment of the good depends upon our being led by God, not on our wisdom or knowledge as to the points at which he bestows this or that blessing. To take one truth or one motive out of a number given by God and say, "This one shall be understood, and the oth- ers need not be," is to do violence to the order of God, and is to crystallize a sect around a truth, wrested from its God- given place, ignoring other truths just as important. This is to form a sect. No truth is more manifest in God's dealings with man than that he often gives a number of motives to move man. One motive will move one man, another motive will move a different one, because they are differently situated. A man moved to obedience by any one of the motives placed before him will be accepted in the obedience. Jesus said : "Though ye believe not me, believe the works : that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." (John 10: 38.) If they could not believe through the words of Jesus, yet could believe through his works, he was willing to accept them. Take this as an ex- ample : A man is born and reared in a Presbyterian family. From childhood he is taught to believe that infant sprin- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 67 kling and all the practices of the Presbyterian Church are right. He lives in all good conscience and tries to do the will of God. In reading the Bible, he sees that God re- quires men to believe, then be baptized. He sees that bap- tism is a burial. In his anxiety to do the will of God, he is baptized, before his attention has ever been directed to the fact that it is "for the remission of sins ;" but he is moved by the same motive that led Jesus to be baptized — a desire to fulfill all righteousness. Who will say that man's baptism is not acceptable to God? Who will say he ought to defer a duty that he knows God requires at his hands until he learns all the blessings God will bestow, and just where and when each blessing will come in, and why it is bestowed? If that is necessary, no man can ever tell when he should be baptized. Such a contention arises from a very mistaken idea of God's character and of the ground of his mercy to man. The ground of God's mercy to man is not that man understands and knows how God works or the point when and where he bestows his blessing; but it is that man is weak, sinful, helpless, willing to trust God and follow him, not knowing whither he leads. Then were a man to come to me who had been reared in a beclouded atmosphere and had seen it was his duty to be buried with Christ in baptism, but under the influence of his former teachings could not yet understand it is neces- sary to observe the Lord's Supper every Lord's day, but manifested a determination to learn and do the whole will of God, I would baptize him. Indeed, unless I added to the requirements of God in a presumptuous way, I would not inquire or know whether he would meet on any Lord's day or not; and a man that would require one coming in faith and demanding baptism to declare his belief in the neces- sity of coming together on each Lord's day to lay by in store as the Lord had prospered him and to partake of the Lord's Supper as a condition of his baptism would very presumptuously add to the word of the Lord. I would bap- tize such a one without inquiring whether he understood this duty and the blessings flowing from it; and if he or some one else told me that he doubted whether it was neces- sary to meet every first day of the week, either before or after baptism, I would try to teach him better. If I failed to get him to see it, I would baptize him, trusting in his efforts to obey God he would learn this truth. It is not necessary to understand all truth before he obeys what he does understand. I did not say I believed he was saved. 68 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, BLIND, WHO ARE THE? Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain Luke 6: 39. Who does the Savior have reference to when he says: "Can the blind lead the blind?" Who are the "blind?" He just means anybody that tries to lead men into the truth when they themselves do not understand the truth, but are teaching error. In Matt. 15 he uses the same ex- pression and applies it to the scribes and Pharisees. They were leading the people; but they were blind to the truth, and they and those they led would all fall together, like the literally blind leading the blind would fall into the ditch together. And so will it be with the leaders who are them- selves blind to the truth. They and those they lead will fall into the ditch together, will fail together of obtaining the blessings of the Lord. God's blessings can be obtained only by doing his will. E. G. S. BLOOD, HOW CHRIST'S CLEANSES. Brother Lipscomb : Please tell us what the Bible teaches in regard to the blood of Christ cleansing us from sin. How is it applied to the hearts and consciences of men? I heard a preacher say in a dis- course that it was taken from the altar of God in heaven and applied to the hearts and consciences by the Spirit of the living God. What is the "anointing" that "teacheth you of all things" in 1 John 2: 27? Were you to question that preacher a little, I am sure you would find that he does not know what he meant by the Spirit taking the blood from the altar of God and apply- ing it to the heart of man. Flesh and blood cannot enter heaven. This was as true of the flesh and blood of Christ as of any other blood. Nor has the preacher any concep- tion of what is meant by cleansing by the blood of Christ. We are cleansed by the blood of Christ means Jesus gave certain laws by which we are cleansed. He sealed those laws by his death, or by shedding his blood. To give his life and to shed his blood mean the same thing. These laws were rendered efficacious by being sealed with his blood. They became his last will and testament. In compliance with this will, we inherit the blessings provided for in the will. We come to the blood of Christ, then, by complying with his laws embodied in the last will and testament of Jesus Christ. This lesson was taught in the typical blood of the lambs and goats of the Old Testament. Then the law was sprinkled with the blood, and thus became authorita- tive (read Heb. 9 and 10) ; and, coming to that law, the per- son received the efficacy of the blood. Just so the law was sealed by the blood of Christ. In obeying the law, we re- ceive the cleansing of the blood. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 69 BLOOD, EATING. Brother Sewell: Will you please explain Acts 15: 20: "And from things strangled, and from blood?" I heard a brother say in a dis- course that it was wrong to eat a rabbit caught in a snare or to eat the blood of an animal. Will you please give in the Gospel Advocate what you think is the meaning of this scripture? In every dispensation that God ever made he forbade peo- ple to eat blood. He first forbade it in the patriarchal, then in the Jewish, and lastly in the Christian dispensation. Hence there never was a time when men could eat blood without committing actual rebellion in the sight of God. Nothing strangled with the blood in it is allowed to be eaten ; neither is blood to be eaten in any other way. Some people esteem blood pudding as a very great luxury ; but no man can eat it, or anything else made of blood, without violating a positive command of God, and thus imperiling his soul. God is not to be mocked in these matters. BODY OF CHRIST, DIVIDING THE. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Suppose there is a church with a goodly number of members — say, one hundred. They have many of their number in disorder — drinking, cursing, dancing, card playing, threatening, and such like. Now suppose such church has been preached to for many years to appoint shepherds who will take the matter in hand to keep order, but they will not do it. New cases are coming up. Would a few who wish to do right be justifiable in with- drawing from them, and thus divide the church, such as it is? There is no sin more frequently and persistently con- demned and warned against as fatally evil in its results by both Christ and the Holy Spirit than that of dividing a church of God. The division that is here so earnestly con- demned is not a division of a denomination or into denomi- nations, but a division of the individual congregation of disciples. To the congregation of Rome, Paul says: "So we, being many, are one body in Christ." It was to this same congregation he said : "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions [in this congregation] and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned." To the congregation at Corinth he warned and protested against parties and divisions in that congrega- tion. It was the same to the Ephesians. The sin of divi- sion against which they are warned is division in their own congregation. So of the church at Colosse. We have never seen a sentence in the Bible admonishing a general unity as is even contended for at this day among disciples. Without saying so, they mean a denominational unity. Many think it a slight matter to divide and sunder a congre- gation of the Lord Jesus, which is the body of Christ; but 70 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, they contend greatly against a general division. This is unknown to the Bible. That is severely condemned. Un- der Christ's law, if the congregations do not divide, there can be no division, no strife. There ought to be no division in the body of Christ. Great evil grew up in the congregations in primitive times, but the Holy Spirit never intimated that a circumstance could arise that would justify divisions. The Christian's duty is to stand by the truth, . maintain the truth, enforce the truth, but do it always in the church of God. If any divide or secede, let it be those who violate his law. But a man ought not to rest with the state of affairs de- picted in the foregoing. No man can well tell unless he was upon the ground and made familiar with the whole con- dition. We cannot but believe that one earnest, godly man, with the Bible in his hand, could cause reformation or bring about discipline in the church of God. The trouble is, we so frequently go at these things in a hesitating, men-fearing spirit. A dozen members standing on the Bible and enforcing its discipline in the spirit of Christ upon a hundred disobe- dient to him would not be dividing the church. If the hun- dred refused to recognize divine authority, they would no more constitute a church than one disobedient one would constitute a church in opposition to one hundred maintain- ing the law of God. But we think it very seldom that a majority of a congregation, rightly approached, would re- fuse to abide by the teachings of the Bible. D. L. BODY, PRESENTING THE, A SACRIFICE. Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Please explain through the Gospel Advocate Rom. 1: 12, which reads as follows: "I beseech you there- fore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." The Christian religion involves the whole man — body, soul, and spirit. The whole man must be holy, the body as well as the heart. When a man's heart has been sprinkled from an evil conscience and his body has been washed in pure water — in other words, when one has believed the gos- pel with all the heart, has repented of his sins, and, upon the confession of the name of Christ, has been baptized into Christ — that one is wholly consecrated to the service of God ; his body is then holy. And so long as he walks in the Spirit and does not fulfill the lusts of the flesh, he can pre- sent his body a living, holy sacrifice anywhere — at the BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 71 Lord's table, at the house of prayer, visiting the afflicted, or any other work required of the Christian. In the ex- pression, "a living sacrifice," the apostle, we suppose, has reference by contrast to the bodies of the animals that were sacrificed under the Jewish law. Those bodies were dead when offered in sacrifice to God. But our bodies must be living, active, working bodies in the Lord's vineyard ; and if we do not keep our bodies pure and holy, as well as our souls, the Lord will not accept us. BONES, RESURRECTION OF DRY. Brother Sewell: Please explain Ezek. 37: 1-11 — the resurrection of dry bones. The Jewish people at this time were in captivity, and had been for a number of years, on account of their many sins, and were becoming much discouraged about ever getting back to their land again. This vision of the dry bones was given to encourage them, to show them that God was watch- ing over and caring for them, and that he was able and willing to do anything needful to be done to restore them to their own land again; and the vision of bringing these dry bones back into human beings again was to cheer the people up and give them renewed hope. They seem to have concluded that they themselves were little more than dry bones. Verses 11-13 fully explain the purpose of the mat- ter. "Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel : behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts." This verse shows the pitiable and hopeless conditions they had been imagining themselves to be in. Then verses 12, 13 go on to say: "Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God ; Behold, my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, my people, and brought you up out of your graves." This was a remarkably strong figure to convince them that their case was not a hopeless one, as they were supposing, but that God was still watching over them for good, and that he was able to bring them back to their own land again, and that he would certainly do so. BORN OF GOD, WHEN IS A MAN? Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: You will please explain through the Gospel Advocate 1 John 1 : 8 ; 3 : 9. I want to know who it is that is born of Christ. John chiefly of the inspired writers uses the figure of a birth to illustrate our union with God ; others allude to and 72 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, use other figures to illustrate the same truth. Paul uses the figure of a planting with and growth in Christ to illus- trate the same thing. He uses the figure of a grafting into Christ, whereby we become branches of the same vine; of adoption into the family of God, whereby we are permitted to call him "Abba, Father ;" of a marriage. These various figures, with others still, all represent one and the same thing. But the Bible does not always speak of this matter in figurative language. It sometimes details the exact things to be done to bring one into Christ. The figure is fully and clearly explained by these literal direc- tions. The Bible does not mean that a man is literally en- grafted into Christ; but his entrance into him is like an engrafting in some respects. The results are likewise in some respects similar. A branch, in being grafted into a stock, changes its source of life. It no longer draws its sustenance and life from its own natural root, but from the root into which it is engrafted. The Christian is broken off from his own fleshly life as the source of spiritual life and draws his life from Christ, partakes of his nature, im- bibes his Spirit, conforms his life to the life of Christ ; and, unlike the grafted branch, it produces fruit according to the nature of the root from which it draws its life. So, too, it is in some respects like to a planting, both in its processes and results. It is compared to a birth. It is not a literal birth, but in some of its processes and results it resembles a birth and is illustrated by it. Just exactly what is required without figure to bring him into Christ is required to complete or perfect the birth. A person can always determine exactly when a man is born into Christ or born of God by taking the directions given, when no figure is used, and see what is commanded in order to bring him into Christ. But we will examine what is said in reference to being born again. The different connections in which the figure is used help us to correct ideas in reference to the process of birth and the condition into which it brings us. We find the figure introduced thus: "He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as re- ceived him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1: 11-13.) To become the sons of God and to be born of God is one and the same thing. Then the birth was not according to blood, nor from the lust of the flesh, nor according to the will of man, but was according to the divine will. The power to become the BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 73 sons of God was given to those who received him or believed in his name. The simple believing did not make sons, but put them in a condition that they could become sons. It plainly teaches that without believing they could not become sons of God. In John 3 : 5, in the conversation with Nicodemus, the new birth is again referred to as the means of entrance into the kingdom of heaven. This is a passage much controverted ; but it has always seemed to us that the simple, plain truths lying upon the surface ought to be easily grasped. There is controversy as to whether the word translated wind should be wind or spirit. We do not believe the ques- tion affects the lesson of the passage in any degree. Jesus tells Nicodemus he must be born again or he cannot see the kingdom of God. It puzzles Nicodemus ; his mind is on a literal birth. "How can a man enter into his mother's womb when he is old, to be born again ?" Jesus answers: "It is not your mother's womb from which you must be born ; but except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh [your mother's womb] is [your] flesh, that which is born of the Spirit is [your] spirit. In other words, it is not your flesh that shall be quickened and be again delivered from the womb, but your spirit." Spirit begets and operates on spirit. Then he introduces the fig- ure: "The wind blows where it pleases; thou hearest the sound, though you cannot tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth. So is every one that is born of the Spirit." Now, the point manifestly is to illustrate to Nicodemus more fully how it is not the flesh, but the spirit, that is the subject of change in the birth. Hence, as the wind is unseen in its course, so it is the unseen, or spirit, of man that must be affected or wrought upon by the Spirit. This in- dicates the change in the spirit. Then, the body, under the direction of the quickened or renewed spirit in man, is brought forth from the water. But more of this at an- other time. From this we learn that man's spirit, as the unseen spirit, is quickened, or changed, or operated upon by the Spirit of God as an essential part of the birth. The manner in which this quickening is done is plainly recorded in the Bible. Paul, whose tongue and pen the Spirit used, said to the Corinthians: "In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." (1 Cor. 4: 15.) The gospel was the means used by the Spirit for reaching or quickening the spirit of man. James (1: 18) says: "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth." Peter 74 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, says : "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of in- corruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." (1 Pet. 1: 23.) We might multiply evidences indefinitely indicating how the Spirit of God reached, quick- ened, molded the spirit of man ; but these must suffice. A man, then, cannot be born again unless he believes in Christ, or his spirit is changed or quickened by the Spirit of God. The next scripture to which we refer is 1 John 3:9: "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." This passage may have a strained meaning forced upon it that will* perplex people; but, taken in con- nection with other scriptures, it can only mean that a man born of God receives the word of God, which is the incorrup- tible seed of the kingdom, into his heart as the rule of his life, and while he adheres to it as that rule he cannot live in rebellion against God. He cannot intentionally sin against God ; he cannot pursue a course of sin. It cannot mean that he never sins, for in the beginning of the Epistle he tells them: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves." But he afterwards comes to contrast the courses of life. He says first: "He that committeth sin is of the devil ; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." Here he means a life, or course, of sin. Then, in contrast with serving the devil through sin as the purpose and course of life, he says: "The child of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remain- eth in him, and he cannot [purposely] pursue a course of sin, because he is born of God." Compare this with the expression in 1 John 2: 24: "Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father." This word of God, the seed of the kingdom, heard from the beginning, was the thing to abide in them. Through it they were born again, and by it, if it should remain in them, they were to be kept in Christ and in God, or from courses of sin and rebellion against God. A man must be born again, must receive the word of God into his heart, into a good and understanding heart ; it will bear fruit in no other. The reception of the word, the seed, is equivalent to believing in his name — is the act of change of the spirit and constitutes the first step in the process of conversion or being born again. "Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world : and this is the victory BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 75 that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overeometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" Here believing that Jesus is the Son of God — our faith — overcomes the world ; and he that over- comes the world must be born of God. "Every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God." The converse of this is: No one is born of God save he who loves. But "he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also." No man is born of God, then, unless he loves God, and love to God involves the love of his brother also. "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his command- ments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his com- mandments: and his commandments are not grievous." This resolves itself into this : We are not born of God un- til we receive his word, and our hearts by that word are made anxious to keep his commandmnets. The evidence that we love God, that we love the brethren, even to our own hearts, and hence that we are born again, is that we are anxious to keep the commandments of God. The anxiety to do the commandments of God is the first in- dication of breathing of the new principle of life in the soul. It is excited by the word of God, by the gospel of the Son of God. We love him, for he first loved us. The desire to do the will of God is the first indication of the new life in the soul as manifested to the individual himself. The life thus imparted manifests and develops itself in acts of obedience to God. Life must exist before birth. Birth is the deliver- ance of the incipient life into a state into which it may find independent activity and development. But the loving leads to obedience. Repentance from all evil purposes confronts the new desire as the first requirement. Repentance espe- cially concerns and affects the will and purpose. But no purpose of the will which dwells in the body can find devel- opment or be perfected until it molds the body in which it dwells and through which it acts into harmony with itself. The first requirement that touches the action of the body is : Be baptized. Hence the first desire kindled by the gospel in the soul is to obey God. This desire, searching the will and purpose, brings forth repentance; and repentance, working toward completion, leads to baptism as obedience to the first overt or bodily act — our immersion into and emerging from the water; hence, the deliverance of the new life into a state or condition suited for the develop- ment of that life imparted by the Spirit of God into a dis- 76 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, tinct life and being of its own. That state into which it is introduced and which is suited for its growth and devel- opment is the kingdom of God, of which Christ is the head and in which God's Spirit dwells. A man certainly cannot be said to be born again until he believes in Jesus as the Christ, changes the whole purpose of life toward God, and is buried out of self into Christ — introduced into the kingdom of God on earth. If we examine the duties as literally set forth in the Bible by which a man is quickened and introduced into Christ, we will find the fitness of the process to this figure. Men believe in Christ. This draws their affections, feelings, de- sires, toward him. This desire, not choked out, but fos- tered, produces a change of purpose, or will. Believers are commanded to repent; but they are baptized into Christ — put him on in baptism. In other words, through baptism the new principle of life in the soul is introduced into the kingdom suited for its growth — the church of God. When an individual is born of God, a child of God, he, having received the principle of new spiritual life from the Father, can preserve that life only by feeding it upon "the sincere milk of the word," the food prepared and given by the Father for the preservation of the new life. If that word remain in us, we will live in God, will not serve sin or the devil, but in our full purpose and interest will turn from him and will remain with God. We will through fleshly weakness frequently be betrayed into an act of sin, but can never purposely engage in a course or life of sin until the word of God ceases to dwell in us and control us. As sons of God, drawing our life from him, sustaining and develop- ing that life by his word dwelling in us as the controlling principle of life, we cannot otherwise than do the works of God and in our life bear the same fruit that exhibited itself in the life of Jesus Christ. As branches of the vine, he bears fruit through us. It sometimes occurs to us that too little of the life, prin- ciples, and temper of Jesus is presented in the presentation of the gospel. Our preaching of the gospel is too exclu- sively the authority of the Son of God. The spirit is im- bued too exclusively with a sense of responsibility to obey him in his specific legislative enactments. We are too little impressed or begotten with the Spirit of Christ, and the spirit begotten never lives the true life of Jesus. Our growth is all in the way of submission to specific ordinances, not enough the development of the life of Christ in our lives. We have given scripture and reasoning. While we be- lieve the reasoning correct and the conclusions true and in BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 77 full accord with the Scriptures, all are at perfect liberty to reject these and cling to the Scriptures only. But with this, no man was introduced in primitive times into the kingdom of God save through believing in Christ, turning from sin, and being buried with Christ. Hence a person is not born into the new kingdom without these. When he comes into the church or has been baptized, he is not recog- nized as a true child of God unless the purpose reigns in his heart and controls his life to obey God and develop the Spirit of Christ anew in his life. His spirit must have this likeness of the divine Spirit impressed upon it or it is not born of that Spirit. D. L. BORN OF GOD AND SINNING NOT, Brother Lipscomb: Please explain 1 John 3: 9: "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." This passage is one that is difficult to be harmonized with some other passages, with the popular ideas many have of the expressions used. There are different kinds of sins spoken of in the Bible — the sin of ignorance and the pre- sumptuous sin of the Old Testament. John speaks of the sin unto death and of the sin not unto death. One of these sins is pardonable, the other not pardonable. John says: "If we [Christians] say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." Here he evidently refers to the sin of weakness, or the sin which is not unto death; but of the other — willful, presumptuous sin — he says one born of God sinneth not — the presumptuous sin — because he is born of God. A man is born of God through the incorruptible seed, the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever. This is the seed which remaineth in him and prevents his sinning. So long as this seed, the word of God, remaineth in the man's heart to mold his heart and guide his life, he cannot willfully sin. He will fall into sin of weakness then. The apostles did. But of the willful sin he is here speaking, and this he will not commit while the word of God remaineth in him. The difficult point is that John said that his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. This is interpreted to mean that a man that is born of God cannot cast forth his word from his heart and sin. We do not think that this is the meaning, but regard it as simply a strong expression, indi- cating with John the improbability of one actively in ear- nest toward God turning from him and turning back to sin, and the impossibility of one with the word of God in his 78 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, heart turning into willful sin. He must get that word out of his heart before he can do this. D. L. In the verse in chapter 3 the apostle was showing the difference between the children of God and the wicked peo- ple of this world. Those who make no pretensions to and feel no interest in Christianity think of nothing else but to go on in their worldly, sinful course, live the whole of their lives in sin. But the children of God, those who have given up their sins and turned to God, are new creatures — new in every respect. Their relationships, their aspirations, their desires, their efforts and aims, are all new, and their entire energies are bent on living a new life, on consecrating their bodies and spirits to the service of the living God ; and they scorn and hate a life of sin and turn from it as from poison. And there is as great a difference between these two courses of life as between midnight darkness and the noonday sun. Hence, in the very next verse he says : "In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: who- soever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother." This shows clearly that John was showing the contrast between the sinner, who gives his whole life to the wicked one, and the Christian, who gives his whole life to the service of God ; and he shows plainly that the man that does not give his whole life to the service of God is not in the light of God's truth at all, but is in dark- ness. "Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God." "Whosoever is born of God sinneth not," does not give his life to a course of sin, but to the very best of his ability gives his life to the service of his Master. And there are men who embrace the gospel and have their names on .church books who will fail of heaven because they are not giving their lives to the service of God, but are still serving the wicked one. This is the burden of the entire connec- tion of the verse under consideration. The apostle was not intending to teach that the child of God will never through weakness or mistake do anything wrong; for in another place he teaches that all sin, all do wrong at times; but these unintentional wrongs may be forgiven, as John him- self teaches in the preceding part of this letter. His pur- pose, therefore, in verse 9 was to show that a child of God will give his life to the service of God and not to the world ; and if he gives it to the world, that proves he is not a true child of God. In the passage in chapter 5 the apostle was giving instruction regarding the sin unto death. He says all unrighteousness is sin, but there is a sin unto death; and his object is to show that a Christian, a true child of God, will not commit that sin. The sin unto death was, BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 79 and is, to presumptuously, willfully sin against the teach- ing of the Spirit of God, against the word of God; and "whosoever is born of God," a true follower of the Lamb, will never do such a thing ; for his whole desire is to obey, not to disobey, the Spirit's teaching. No danger of a true Christian committing the unpardonable sin. E. G. S. BREAD, THE, USED IN THE SUPPER. Will you please give your scriptural view in regard to the bread used at the Lord's Supper? Was it not the same as was used at the passover — that is, unleavened bread? For he (Jesus) desired to eat the passover with his disciples. I think there is no doubt but the Savior used unleavened bread in the institution of the Supper. Some think it not obligatory as an example ; but whether it is or not, it is safe to use it, and to it no objection can be raised. So I think all ought to unite on the safe ground. Leavened bread is used, too, because it takes a little trouble to prepare the unleavened bread. This careless indifference to prepare for the service of the Lord is reprehensible. Service for which we are willing to take no trouble will never benefit us. BREAK BREAD, WHAT TIME OF DAY SHOULD DISCI- PLES? Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Will you answer through your pa- per the following question? We meet in Sunday school at nine o'clock and occupy about one hour's time, after which we have a Bible class; and after we have spent, say, a half hour, we attend to the breaking of bread, the large majority of the church preferring to have the Supper at that time. We have a brother, who is an elder, who will not commune with us because we take the Supper before twelve o'clock. Now, if the church is in error for taking the Supper at that time, we want to know it, and ask that you give us your views on this important question. We have known one or two men in life that would not take the Lord's Supper till after twelve o'clock, so that they might partake of it in the evening. They suppose, of course, that from twelve o'clock in the day it is evening; that evening begins at noon ; and that any time after twelve o'clock, or noon, would be evening. And the masses of the people in our country so regard it. But in a strict sense this is not the case. From twelve o'clock till six, or till about the going down of the sun, is properly called "after- noon;" and from about sundown till fully dark is evening; and when dark fully sets in, it is night. Evening, there- fore, properly speaking, is the period from about sundown till dark. And this is about the New Testament use of the word. In Matt. 20, when the eleventh-hour men had been 80 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, called into the vineyard, we have then the following lan- guage: "So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the laborers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first." The word even here is the word that elsewhere is rendered evening, and should be here, and shows that the evening, in the New Testament sense, was six o'clock, the close of the day. The Jews began the day then at six in the morning and closed it at six in the evening. These laborers worked till six, and this was called "evening." People are very much mistaken when they suppose the New Testament even- ing begins immediately after twelve in the day. But here is another example: "He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather : for the sky is red." (Matt. 16: 2.) Evening in this passage means at sunset; for it is just as the sun has disappeared that we see the red appearance mentioned here, by which we judge of the weather, and we do not see it until about the setting of the sun. This, then, is evening in New Testa- ment style. The day, therefore, would be, in the sense given in the parable of the vineyard, from six in the morning till six in the evening, which ended the laborer's day. The language used in reference to breaking bread is: "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow." (Acts 20: 7.) Those disciples came together the first day of the week, not the first evening, and any time during the day would fill this passage. When the word of God means evening, we think it says so — as, for instance, in John 20: 19: "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." These disciples met in the evening of the first day of the week and closed the doors for fear of the Jews. They did not meet at this hour because they were required to do so, but they met and closed the doors for fear of the Jews. This indicates that the meeting was after sundown, when the day had closed and darkness was setting in. Thus the word of God is specific in these matters. When, therefore, it just says "the first day of the week," as in Acts 20 and 1 Cor. 16, we under- stand it to mean just what it says, and that when Christians meet to take the Supper, either in the forenoon or after- noon, they fill the bill. And one reason for meeting before twelve o'clock is that the mind is more vigorous and active than in the afternoon, and the very best strength of mind BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 81 we have ought to be devoted to the Lord. But if we lived in a congregation where good brethren had scruples about eating the Supper in the forenoon and we could with any degree of convenience meet in the afternoon, we would be willing to gratify their scruples and meet with them in the afternoon, believing that any part of the day will do; but we give the preference to the forenoon, when we are more vigorous and active and can render more strength of devo- tion to the Lord. And if we meet in the afternoon, it would be wise to fast — that is, not eat dinner till after the Lord's Supper ; for people are poorly qualified to give their hearts to God just after a big dinner. But some say, again, that the Lord's Supper comes in the room and stead of the Jewish passover, and that, therefore, as the Jewish passover was attended to in the evening, so ought the Lord's Supper to be taken in the evening. There is not one word in the New Testament to indicate that breaking the loaf comes in the room and stead of the pass- over. We do not deny that the Jewish passover was in a sense typical of the Supper ; but the Lord's Supper is a new institution, like all the appointments of the New Testament, and does not come in the room and stead of anything. If it came in the room and stead of the passover, then we cer- tainly ought to keep the feast of unleavened bread for seven days in connection with it. We would have no right to leave that out if the Supper came instead of the passover, for nothing comes instead of that feast in the new institu- tion. But that would prove too much and make the Lord's Supper a mere Jewish ordinance, after all. But, just for argument's sake, suppose we grant that the Lord's Supper does come in the place of the passover, and that the Sup- per must, therefore, be attended to in the afternoon, then we must have the time exact and eat the Supper just at the time of day that the passover was eaten ; and now we will see when that was as nearly as we can. When God had told Moses what kind of a lamb to select for the passover, we have the following: "And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month : and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper doorpost of the houses, wherein they shall eat it." (Ex. 12: 6, 7.) They were to kill the lamb in the evening, but it is necessary to take a little pains to ascertain just exactly what is meant by the word even- ing in this passage. The learned claim that our version of this passage is defective, and that the rendering should be "between the two evenings" instead of "in the evening;" 82 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, and in the margin of some of our reference Bibles this ren- dering is given in preference to the common rendering. And now the question is: What are the two evenings spoken of in this new rendering? For the same rendering is given in the margin in a number of passages where the passover and the time "between the two evenings'' are given as the time of killing the lamb and not of eating it. The time of eating it is to be settled yet. And is this done in verse 8 of the above passage: "And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire?" This settles it that the eating was to be done in the night, not in the afternoon. The killing was to be done and finished by the time it was dark, and the eating was to be done in that night; and, therefore, if we are going to follow the time of eating that passover, we must eat the Lord's Supper in the night. The afternoon will be no better than the forenoon unless we wait till after dark, if we are to follow the rule of the pass- over. But the time of the passover has nothing to do with the time of the Lord's Supper. The two passages in the New Testament that mention the time of the assembling of the saints plainly express it on the first day of the week, not the first evening or night; and as the day properly includes the whole period from the time it is light in the morning till light begins to fade in the evening, we are satisfied that any time of the day will answer for breaking the loaf ; and, in fact, in New Testament language, the day may be counted from the time dawning begins, as Christ arose on the first day of the week, and he arose before it was fully light, as some of the Gospels indicate; and if it suited the congregations as well, we could see no objections to break- ing the loaf before sunup, as that time would be included in the first day of the week. We are satisfied that any part of the time, therefore, that may properly be called "the first day of the week" will do for breaking the loaf. But, as we said, we think the forenoon preferable. But we may be met with Acts 20 : 11 : "When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed." Some claim that this breaking of bread was the Lord's Supper. To our mind, there are some difficulties in the way of that. Those who claim that this breaking of bread was the Lord's Supper take the Jewish count of time in reckoning the day or period of twenty-four hours, begin- ning at sunset one evening and counting till sunset the next evening, and this makes the Jewish day of twenty-four hours. With this count, we would have to understand that those disciples at Troas met Saturday night, which, accord- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 83 ing to the Jewish count, would begin the first day of the week. Then we would have it, if that breaking of bread was the Lord's Supper, that they did it in the night, a long while before day; for after breaking bread, he talked a long while, even to the break of day. He quit talking at break of day. Break of day is when it begins to get light ; hence, if that count of time be correct, they broke the loaf in the night, long before the time of day that Christ arose from the dead, according to the best count we can get of it. He certainly did rise on the first day of the week, by sunup at the farthest limit. And from an expression by Matthew we do not understand that the first day of the week began till about the time that Christ arose. He says : "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher." Here the indications are that the first day of the week did not begin till the dawning of that morning on which he arose, and that he arose at the beginning of what in the New Testament is called "the first day of the week ;" and his rising on that day is what gives significance to the day, anyway. As the breaking of bread on this oc- casion occurred just after midnight, long before day, it oc- curred before the time that Christ arose, and according to Matthew, before the first day of the week began, if they met on Saturday night, as some think. And we do not believe that the disciples ever took the Supper before the time of day that Christ arose, which time, according to Matthew, begins the first day of the week ; but if we say they met in the evening of the first day of the week and then did not take the Supper till after midnight, and give the Jewish count, they took it on Monday morning, and not on the first day of the week at all; for if the Jewish count is correct in this matter, and the first day begins at dark Satur- day night, then the first day would end at dark Sunday night; hence, if they met on Sunday evening, they broke the loaf on Monday morning, if the breaking of bread was the Lord's Supper. And, besides, count the time as you may, if that breaking of bread was the Lord's Supper, it forever kills the idea of taking it in the evening; for this was between midnight and day, and that part of the night never was called "evening" by anybody, Jews or Gentiles. The only scriptural conclusion, therefore, to which we can come is that as those disciples met on the first day of the week to break bread, they broke it that day, and then, as the meeting continued all night, they had some sort of re- freshment after midnight, and that is what in that place is ealled "the breaking of bread." We have something like it 84 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, in Luke 24, where Jesus sat at meat with the two disciples at Emmaus. It is said there that "he took bread, and blessed it, and brake." The Greek word rendered bread here is the same one rendered bread in both instances. In Acts 20 and in this case it was not the Lord's Supper, but an ordinary meal, so far as we know. He sat with them at meat, signifying an ordinary meal ; and so we think it was when Paul broke bread after midnight at Troas, and that they had taken the Lord's Supper before that time. We do not, therefore, know a single passage in the word of God that signifies that the evening is any better time to take the Lord's Supper than the morning. The church of God is a new institution, and the first day of the week is a new day entirely, and the Lord's Supper is a new institu- tion, and is not governed as to its time by any that pre- ceded. Under the teaching of the apostles, the disciples met on the first day of the week to attend to this ordinance, and that is the time to meet now. E. G. S. CAIN AND ABEL, HOW DID, KNOW WHAT TO DO? Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: A week ago Brother J. E. Scobey preached here and made a strong point in favor of obedience to God, having under consideration the offerings made by Cain and Abel. I have been asked several times since how Cain and Abel knew that God required of them an offering, and how they knew what kind of an offering God did require of them, and whether the kind of offering they should make was commanded. It is said of Abel that "by faith" he offered unto God "a more excellent [that is, more acceptable] sacrifice than Cain." The fact that Abel made his offering by faith gives an easy clue to the matter. Paul says in Rom. 10 that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Now, since faith comes by hearing the word of God, where there is no word of God, there is no faith. In order, therefore, for Abel to make an offering by faith, he must have had the word of God on the subject. He must have been told what sort of an offering to make, and then must have of- fered it just as the word of the Lord directed, or he could not have offered it by faith. If he had varied in the least particular from the Lord's direction, it would not have been by faith, but by his own wisdom. Whenever man deliber- ately turns aside from anything that God appoints and does something else instead, he sets the wisdom and authority of God aside and sets up for himself. This is just what Cain did. He did not have enough of faith in God to do just what he said, while the excellency of Abel's offering was that his faith in God was strong enough to lead him in every step that the Lord directed. He did all that the Lord BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 85 commanded, and did it as the Lord required; and it takes all this to do anything by faith. It is quite certain, there- fore, that the Lord spoke and .told Cain and Abel to make offerings to him, and told them what kind to make, and that Abel did exactly as the Lord directed, while Cain went his own way and acted upon his own wisdom in the matter in- stead of doing as the Lord commanded. We must not conclude that because an account of what God said to Cain and Abel is not given, therefore he did not say anything. Enough is said in the Bible regarding the principles upon which the two men acted to show that he did speak to them and told them exactly what to do, and that Abel obeyed just what God said, while Cain went his own way. It is evident that all that God said to men in the first age of the world, in the patriarchal age, is not re- corded in the book of Genesis ; but enough has been recorded to let us understand the principles upon which God dealt with them and upon which they acted. In all ages and dis- pensations it has been necessary for men to do exactly what the Lord required in order to enjoy his blessings ; and in all cases where people turned aside to go their own way, as did Cain, they failed to receive any blessings from the Lord; and these are the principles upon which men must act now if they would be blessed of God. E. G. S. CAIN'S OFFERING REJECTED, WHY? Brother Lipscomb: Please answer the following: "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the first- lings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering; but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell." Why was Cain's offering not accepted? Paul says: "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain." What I want to know is this : Was it because he did not have faith that his offering was not accepted, or was it because he did not offer a blood offering? Was it not required of him to offer a blood sacrifice in or- der that it might be acceptable? Our information on this subject is not as specific as we might like ; yet we might get a pretty clear idea by a little patient study and examination. What commands were given Cain and Abel, we are not informed, or whether any were. Yet Paul says that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God — that is, we come to believe in God through hearing of him. We believe this thing is right, because God has told us so ; that wrong, because God told us it was wrong, or because he failed to tell us it is right. Sometimes a failure to tell us a thing is right is equivalent to telling that it is wrong. A failure to author- 86 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, ize a thing is equivalent to a prohibition of it. Paul says that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. If Abel had faith in the acceptability of his offering, it must have been because God had commanded it ; if Cain lacked faith, it must have been because God had failed to command it. God's word is the only basis of faith in such matters. Whether or not God had specifically announced the great truth that without the shedding of blood there is no remission, we have no means of telling. Evidently he commanded them to bring the lamb, and that command was in accordance with the great principle of remission through the shedding of blood. We think it clear that the require- ment of the sacrifice of the bleeding victim was specifically made. The circumstances clearly indicate that other of- ferings were not prohibited. He reasoned that what is not prohibited is allowable, and so brought the offering that accorded with his own judgment instead of following that which was required. D. L. CALLED TO PREACH, WHO ARE? Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Will you please answer the fol- lowing questions: Who are called to preach, and how may they know it? Does 2 Tim. 2: 4 apply to ministers who are merchandising or engaged in any secular business? It depends wholly on what is meant by the term called. If it is meant who is called and qualified as the apostles were, we answer : None. No man is specifically called and qualified now as were the apostles in primitive times. Whose duty is it to preach? It is every person's duty to do all he or she can to save man and honor God. And preaching, in the common use of the term, is not the only means used to save men. An honest or upright walk be- fore God and man, a kind and beneficent spirit that seeks opportunities to do good and benefit the human family, is an effective method of preaching or of teaching men and honoring God. Each man is possessed of some talent that he is under obligation to cultivate and use for the good of man. A man must not only have a talent, but he must have a desire for a work ; he must have a taste for it. A man that has no taste for teaching people the word of God can never suc- cessfully teach them. Taste leads to desire. A man had better lack talent than to lack taste for a work that he en- gages in. He is more apt to succeed when he has taste and is lacking in talent than when he has talent but no taste for a work. Then the first requisite for a preacher or teacher is a de- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 87 sire for a work. If he has no desire for it, all the talent in the world would not enable him to succeed. If he has a desire, earnest, true, a taste for such work, he will be found at it whenever and wherever opportunity offers. A man that never makes any effort to preach or teach until he is sent is not fit to send. When he has a desire and finds him- self by this taste or desire led to the work, it is his duty to consult with the discreet and prudent brethren, especially with the elderly ones, in reference to their judgment of his talent and ability. He is the judge of the taste; they, of the talent. If they think he has talent when rightly used, they ought to encourage him to the work, giving him pru- dent and encouraging advice. When he has proved him- self to their satisfaction, they ought to sanction his work. He then may be said to be called to preach. Of course, where there are no elders, he is left to his own taste and judgment, and should act cautiously and modestly, but de- terminedly, in the matter. It is difficult to tell exactly what is meant by 2 Tim. 2:4: "No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier." Paul did not mean that he must not en- gage in labor to make a living when it is necessary. He did that himself, and said he did it that he might in this be an example to others. He admonished Timothy to follow his example. We think it means that he should not entangle himself in business associations with men of the world or with unbelievers in such a manner as to be controlled or in- fluenced by them. We should not enter into worldly asso- ciations which demand our service, our time, and the obli- gations which may seriously interfere with our duty to God. It means the same as : "Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers." It refers to all who war a good warfare for Christ. It is just as applicable to those laboring in other callings as to those preaching or teaching the word of life. He who labors for God and man in other callings is just as much a soldier of Christ as he who preaches. D. L. "CALLING WHEREIN HE WAS CALLED," HOW ABIDE IN? Brother Lipscomb: (1) In 1 Cor. 7: 20-24 we read: "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. . . . Breth- ren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God." Of course we know that a man who is engaged in the saloon business, gambling, racing, and other disreputable callings, cannot abide in them and with God at the same time. What do you think verses 17-25 teach? (2) Please give also your idea concerning John 13: 8-10, es- pecially verse 10. Do you think that the "Living Oracles," otherwise 88 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, the translation of Doddridge, Campbell, and Macknight, and the "Em- phatic Diaglot," as also the King James Version, translate this cor- rectly? Do you think that the Savior had any reference whatever to baptism? 1. The context, it seems to me, shows clearly that he meant in whatever relations — natural, social, or civil — a man is, when he is called, he should not seek to change it. He illustrates the meaning: If a man is a servant, he should not mind it. He should serve God as a servant and not seek to change his state. If he is called as a Jew or cir- cumcised, he ought to be content as a Jew or circumcised person to serve the Lord ; if he is called as a Gentile, as a Gentile he should serve God. This is illustrating that if he is called in an unmarried state, it was well for him to so remain if he could restrain his lusts ; but if he was con- verted being a married man, he should not seek to free him- self from the married state. In whatever state he is, rather than a special employment, let him remain. 2. This is an account of the observance of the passover. They had to bathe themselves as a cleansing preparatory to eating the passover. "And the Jews' passover was nigh at hand : and many went out of the country up to Jerusa- lem before the passover, to purify themselves." (John 11 : 55.) The purification took place before the eating of the passover, at or before the beginning of passover week. But after this bathing, which was done some days before the eating of the passover, in passing to and fro, they were liable to have the feet defiled, and at the table the feet must be washed. Jesus washed their feet to fit them for eating the passover. Hence, Jesus said: "He that is washed, or has been purified, needs now but to have his feet washed, but is clean, purified, every whit, or wholly." Their for- mer bathing when they first came to Jerusalem had cleansed them, and now the feet have been cleansed of any chance de- filement after the purification ; so he is wholly clean. There is but one thing in the way of this explanation — that is, the Common Version reads, "and supper being ended ;" the Re- vised Version says, "during supper;" but the Bible Union Version reads, "supper being served," or made ready. The facts show this last to be the condition. When supper was served, they all placed themselves around the table, but could not eat without washing the feet as a certainty against defilement. In this condition it was proper for them to wash the feet of each other. This was the office of younger or servants. The least or youngest among them should per- form this service for the older. This aroused the dispute as to which was the greatest, as told by Luke (22 : 24) . To BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 89 reprove and shame them for this contention, the Lord and Master himself washed their feet. He came first to Peter, and he vowed the Lord should not so humble himself as to wash his feet. Then the conversation given took place. "And there arose a contention among them, which of them should be accounted greatest. And he said to them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them ; and they who exercise authority over them are called benefactors. But ye are not so : but let the greatest among you become as the younger, and he that is chief as he that serves. For which is greater, he that reclines at table, or he that serves ? Is not he that reclines at table? But I am in the midst of you as he that serves" — referring to the fact that he was then acting the part of a servant in washing their feet while they reclined at table. Not many likely will receive the explanation ; yet I have seldom felt more sure of the cor- rectness of a position than I do of this. Jesus, who was chief among them, performed the service of a servant in washing their feet. D. L. CATECHISM, A, ANSWERED. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: We have an interesting Sunday school going on at this place. We have a catechism in our school by Alexander M. Thigpen, edited by W. G. E. Cunningham. When we got to the thirty-fourth lesson, I opposed its being taught in school. I told them that I did not want my children taught that lesson, and why? Because it was not so; and I went on to prove it was not so from the Bible. The following are the questions and answers I op- pose: "Q. With whom did God establish his church? "A. With Abraham. "Q. What was the sign of membership? "A. Circumcision. "Q. Were children admitted into the church? "A. They were. "Q. Who gave them this right? "A. God. "Q. Has he ever taken that right from them? "A. He has not. "Q. Are children, then, still entitled to membership? "A. They are. "Q. What is now the sign of church membership? "A. Baptism. "Q. Are children entitled to baptism? "A. Certainly they are. "Q. What becomes of children who die in infancy? "A. They are saved. "Q. What words of Jesus prove this? "A. 'Of such is the kingdom of heaven.' " It is very strange to me that a man will teach such doctrine. Will you please give us your views on all the questions in the thirty-fourth lesson? 90 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, The teaching of this catechism regarding the time of the establishment of the church of God is without one syllable of foundation in the word of God. Christ was promised to Abraham when God said to him: "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." But that was only a promise in the far-off future, and nothing that in any sense resembled the establishment of the church of God. Cir- cumcision never belonged to the church of God in any way whatever, and, therefore, was never the sign of anything in that church. It was given to Abraham and incorporated into the law of Moses, but ended when the law ended. The infants of Jewish parents were born in the Jewish church, and circumcision had nothing to do with making them members of that covenant. It was a mark of distinction as to nationality, and without it no Jew could live among his people. The idea that baptism comes in the room of circumcision, and that, therefore, baptism belongs to in- fants, as circumcision did, is utterly without foundation in the word of God. Baptism comes in its own place, and be- longs to an entirely new institution, and is for those who are old enough to be taught the gospel and to believe it. Infants need no baptism, and were never required to be baptized by the authority of God. Infant baptism is wholly human — not one word of authority for it in the word of God; and it is certainly not safe to teach for doctrine the commandments of men. All the answers except the last two are wholly human — wholly the opinions of men, and not the word of God ; and teaching the opinions of men in- stead of the word of God has brought about the divisions and strifes that now harass the religious world. That in- fants, dying in their infancy, are perfectly safe, is plainly taught by the Savior in the above language; but the other answers are human, and those who follow them are follow- ing men instead of God. E. G. S. CATHOLICS, THE, AND THE BIBLE. I am living now in a Catholic neighborhood, who claim that the Protestant Bible as we have it now is a mistranslation of the true Bi- ble. They also claim to have the original work and all their trans- lations up to the present time, and no other church has them. Please give us light on this subject. Please trace up from the original man- uscript. The Catholics have no copies or translations of the Bible that are not open to the whole world and are known to all scholars who choose to investigate them. What is known as the Vulgate Version has from the fifth century been the authorized version of the Catholic Church. It was a trans- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 91 lation made by Jerome in the early part of the fifth century. Many changes had crept into the copies extant at that time. Jerome gave his time to the study and the correction of these manuscripts. Damasus, bishop of Rome, requested him to revise and correct the current versions. This he did. After much opposition and many corrections by other hands, it came into general use, and has continued as the standard of the Romish Church until this day. It has, as modern criticism advanced, been improved and corrected. But it is substantially the same. The Vulgate is in Latin. It is the foundation of all the modern translations into the living languages of Europe and America. As modern in- vestigation, hunting up the different translations and man- uscripts, the diligent comparison of these, has brought to light errors and the original text has been more satisfac- torily settled, the corrections have been made in these modern translations. The Latin version of Jerome has also to some extent been corrected. Our Common Version is substantially from the Latin Vulgate. The Catholic translations vary but little from the Prot- estant, except as to ecclesiastical terms, which have not been translated in the Catholic and only partially in the Protestant. The word repent is always in the Catholic version translated do penance. The phraseology is not so modernized as the Protestant versions. The answer of Pe- ter at Pentecost is translated in the Romish version: "Do penance and be every one of you baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." The Catholics have been slow to make translations into the tongues of the common people, holding that they are in- competent to understand the Bible without the interpreta- tion of the priesthood. But the scholars among the Cath- olics do not differ as to the original text or the translation from the Protestant scholars. The differences in transla- tion arise from the prohibition by the church of the trans- lation of terms affecting the ordinances and officials of the Romish Church. Some years ago I was asked to discuss the claims of the Romish Church with one of their bishops. I agreed to do it, and agreed to use their translation, claim- ing only that I should have the right to prove the true mean- ing of some untranslated terms by their own scholars. Catholics sometimes claim that they have been the keep- ers of the Bible because some of the manuscripts have been found in their old monasteries. The claim to those who know the facts is a reproach and shame instead of a glory. Those old manuscripts, as we stated a week or two since, 92 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, are not half so valuable as the translations of the second century, but they are valuable. They were just left neg- lected for hundreds of years, hid from the world, until Protestants revived the spirit of investigation. Take, for instance, the Vatican manuscript. It had been in the Vat- ican library in Rome for hundreds of years. The popes re- fused to publish it themselves or to let others do it. Two very imperfect and incorrect copies of it were published by priests. Finally, Tischendorf gained access to it and copied it. The pope of Rome published a facsimile copy of it in 1868, but from the plates prepared by Tischendorf. Had they not been pressed by Protestant investigation, it would likely have been yet hidden from the public. As many manuscripts have been found with the Greek Church as among the Roman. The Sinaitic manuscript was found in the monastery on Mount Sinai by Tischendorf, and the emperor of Russia published it at his own expense — more liberal in spirit than the Romish head. "CHANCE," DOES 1 PET. 4: 5, 6 TEACH ANOTHER? Brother Sewell: Please explain 1 Pet. 4: 5, 6 for the benefit of our religious neighbors. Some claim that God gives them another chance. The passage follows : "Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the living and the dead. For unto this end was the gospel preached even to the dead, that they might be judged indeed according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." Verse 5 speaks of the people that were speaking evil of Christians, to whom Pe- ter was writing, because they would run into the excesses of wickedness that they themselves were indulging, who he said should give an account to him that was to be the judge of the living and the dead. In 2 Tim. 4 : 1 we are told that Christ will be the judge of the living and the dead. That means that Christ will be the great Judge of all, both the living and the dead, at the last day — that is, all that shall have died will be raised and judged then, and all that are still living till then will also be judged then by Jesus. In verse 6 we are told that the gospel was preached to them that are dead, which does not mean that the preaching was done after they died, but while they were living, just as the Spirit of Christ went and preached through Noah to the antediluvians while the ark was being prepared. (1 Pet. 3: 19, 20.) We have no account that any preaching was ever done or ever will be done to anybody after death. The judgment comes after death, but no preaching then, so far as the word of God records. The people to whom the gos- pel has been or ever shall be preached will be judged ac- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 93 cording to their treatment of the gospel. Those that obey the gospel as written until death will be saved, while those that disobey it will be lost. In the case of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man cried for help after death, but failed. I do not know a single passage that gives a particle of as- surance of any second chance for salvation. Those that refuse to obey God in this world are doomed to the loss of the soul in eternity. The apostle said: "And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment," etc. (Heb. 9: 27.) This clearly shows that the very next thing people meet after death is the judg- ment. No intimation, therefore, for a second chance. In this life is the only time and place to prepare for eternal life. Those, therefore, that neglect that die without hope. When the gospel is preached to men in this life and they obey it, that gives them a chance to live after God in the spirit here and in eternity ; but if they disobey it in this life, they die in their sins and will be lost in eternity. This is the teaching of the Bible. "CHARIOT," WHO COMMANDED THE, TO STOP? Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: Who commanded the chariot to stand still— Philip or the eunuch? This is a simple question, but we feel interested enough to want your opinion. We give it as our opinion that the eunuch is the one that commanded the chariot to stand still. He was the owner of it and had the right to command it. It is most reason- able to conclude that as he was a nobleman, occupying so high a position as he did, he had a driver along with him to drive his chariot and wait upon him, and that he com- manded this driver to hold up until he could be baptized. E. G. S. CHARITY, WHAT IS? Brother Lipscomb : In 1 Cor. 13 : 13 Paul says : "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." Having heard different opinions as to what is here meant by charity, will you please give yours? Charity is love. The Greek word agapee is used about one hundred and twenty times in the New Testament. It is translated in our version twenty-seven or twenty-eight times by the word charity; in all other cases but one, by the word love. It is translated once by the word dear. Char- ity and love in the Bible are precisely the same thing. It would have added something to the clearness of our trans- lation if it had been translated love every time. Love and charity as used in the Bible are precisely the same thing. 94 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, Love is not a blind passion; it is not magnetic attraction. It is the doing of good to others in whatever position they are found. It leads to a faithful performance of duty in every relationship of life. It makes us honor and obey God, submit to our rulers, do good to our fellow man in whatever he needs, and live soberly, righteously, and godly in this world. "This is love, that we walk after his command- ments." (2 John 6.) D. L. CHECKERS, ETC., PLAYING. Brother Lipscomb: Is it sinful for Christians to play such games as checkers, dominoes, crokinole, croquet, etc.? All recreation is not to be denied to Christians. Any recreation is sinful when carried to excess, when it leads to the neglect of the important affairs of life and the improve- ment of our minds or doing good to others. Some recre- ations are sinful because of their associations. Some are associated with gambling, lead one into the company of gamblers, and tempt those engaging in them or seeing them to gamble. All such are sinful and are to be avoided. But the games mentioned are not subject to these objections, so far as I know. They are no more corrupting in their in- fluence than much of the idle conversation carried on by old and young; and if too great time or attention is not given them and if not allowed to interfere with the serious duties of life, they are not necessarily sinful. "CHILD ONE HUNDRED YEARS OLD." Brother Seivell: Please explain Isa. 65: 20, with regard to the child dying at one hundred years of age, "but the sinner being a hun- dred years old shall be accursed." The passage you quote is a figurative and prophetic ex- pression and had reference to some future blessings that would come upon the Jewish people. At the time of this prophecy the Jewish people had gone very far into wicked- ness and were to suffer severe chastisements, as other pas- sages from the prophets show ; but after a while they would repent and be delivered from these chastisements, and would return to their own land, and would again enjoy the fruits of the labor of their own hands, and would be abun- dantly blessed in many ways, and among other blessings would enjoy happy and long lives again, and would not be cut off in childhood or youth unless they should again go into sin. In that case they would again be cursed ; the man that would go into sin at a hundred years old would again be cursed. Long life was considered a great blessing among BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 95 the Jews and was promised to the faithful among them. The passage you name either refers to the blessings of this sort that would come upon the Jews when they should hum- ble themselves and turn to the Lord and should serve him faithfully again, or else it has reference to spiritual Israel, to Christianity, and the great blessings that would then be enjoyed in that by all that would embrace it and be faithful in it. But likely the stronger probability is that the pas- sage was intended to be applied to the blessings that would be enjoyed by them when they would forsake their sins and should return to faithfulness to the law of Moses. But in either case the principle is the same, showing that the bless- ings of God are always to the faithful. This principle is manifested in the dealings of God from the garden of Eden on down. Always when people have been submissive to God and have done his will, no matter what dispensation they were under, they were abundantly blessed by Jehovah ; but the face of the Lord has always been, and always will be, against those that do evil, that refuse his will. CHRIST'S BIRTHDAY. Brother Sewell: Is there any evidence in the Bible or in history that shows December 25 to be the birthday of Christ? There is no divine testimony that Christ was born on what is known as Christmas Day — December 25. No one can settle definitely the day of his birth from the New Tes- tament. Nor is there any human testimony known to us that settles it. These facts indicate plainly to Us that it is not important that we should know the day, or it would have been put to record in the New Testament. The fact that he was born, the place where he was born, and the circumstances surrounding that wonderful birth are fully and prominently given ; and if the day of his birth had been important for us to know, it would certainly have been fixed. CHRIST, FORSAKING ALL FOR. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain Matt. 10: 34, 35 for the benefit of our class at this place, and oblige. It simply means that frequently in a family some will be converted to Christ, while others will not. Those con- verted will be so earnest and zealous for Christ they will separate from wife, husband, brother, sister, mother, daughter, for the sake of Christ. Those who oppose will be so bitter they will persecute even those of their own house to the death. Also, that the preaching of Christ, al- though he is the Prince of Peace, will produce these strifes ; 96 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, and that although his religion will finally bring peace — lasting and true peace — it will gain that peace only through conflict and strife, not unfrequently among those of the same family- — the same flesh and blood. It shows that the religion of Christ, when it takes a firm hold upon the heart of an individual, is stronger than any fleshly tie. D. L. CHRIST, HOW DO WE GET INTO? A Baptist brother and myself have disagreed upon the question as to how a penitent believer gets into Christ. I take the position that he is baptized into Christ. He takes issue with me, saying that if he were baptized into Christ he would give offense to the congre- gation, and they would withdraw from him; that he needs to be bap- tized into Christ the second time before being in Christ again. The Bible is a safer teacher than any of our reasoning or theories. It says: "So many of us as were baptized into Christ were baptized into his death." (Rom. 6:3.) "Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal. 3: 26, 27.) He says here we come into his death by being baptized into him. We become children of God by faith in Christ Jesus by being baptized into Christ, and so putting on Christ Jesus as our Savior, just as Noah became an heir of righteousness through faith by building the ark and entering into it to the saving of his family. Peter likens the salvation of Noah through the ark to the salvation that comes to the believer through baptism. Then faith makes us desire Christ, and repentance fits us for him. We enter Christ, we put on Christ, in baptism. That is the clear teaching of the Bible. But does this ne- cessitate a rebaptism if we sin? Human reason may say so, but the Bible says: "Repent of your sin and pray God that the sinful thoughts may be forgiven; and if we con- fess our sins, God is just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." We apprehend the mistake in the reasoning is to suppose that when a man sins he is out of Christ. This is a mistake. When a man in Christ sins, he is not condemned as an alien sinner, but as an un- faithful and unworthy child of God. A man once in Christ will be dealt with as unfaithful to his vows, as an unworthy child, and will be cast out at the last day. CHRIST'S ETERNAL EXISTENCE. 1. Did Christ exist as a divine person, separate and apart from the Father, before the foundation of the world? 2. What are the principles of the doctrine of Christ as mentioned in Heb. 6:1? Some call them "first principles" and say it means the law of Moses. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 97 1. I do not see how one who studies the Scriptures can doubt the existence of Christ as a distinct person before the world was created. Read John 1 : 1-3 : "In the begin- ning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made." Verse 14 : "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." Then we are told (Col. 1: 15, 16) : "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature : for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth. . . . All things were created by him, and for him." He existed before the heavens or the earth were created, and they were created by him and for him. (See also 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 3:9; Heb. 1:2.) There can be no doubt as to the distinct existence of Jesus as the Word before the world was. '^ 2. To determine what is meant by principles of the doc- trine of Christ is more difficult. The only way to deter- mine such questions is to examine their connection. The division into chapters and verses often hinders this. In verse 12 of the preceding chapter he tells them : "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God." This turning back and their need to be taught again "the first principles of the oracles of God" is the same thing they are now- admonished to leave. The same thing is referred to in Heb. 6 : 4-6 : "For [in consideration of what has been said] it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, . ... if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." To lay again the foundation of repentance from God and of faith in Christ is to turn back to the condition they were in before they repented and believed, or to turn back to Ju- daism and its practices. Then he admonishes them if one turns back from Christ to Judaism, it is impossible to re- new him again to repentance. So I conclude it is turning back from Christ to Judaism which was the foundation de- manding repentance and faith. CHRIST, WHO CRUCIFIED? Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: In our Sunday school this morn- ing the question arose as to who it was that crucified the Savior. W. M. Whitlock, a Baptist minister, contended that the Jews did it; while I contended that the Jews delivered him up to the Gentiles, and they crucified him. He admits that baptism was for the remission of sins 98 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, to the Jews, to show their repentance for crucifying the Savior ; that we Gentiles had nothing to do with the crucifying of the Savior; and he gives to us the gift of the Holy Ghost for the remission of sins be- fore baptism, referring us to the house of Cornelius. Now, it stands us in hand to prove that the Gentiles did crucify the Savior. The above-named Baptist requested me to write to you for an explanation on the subject. Also please explain 1 Pet. 2:8; John 17: 2. The Jews at the time of the crucifixion were a conquered people. The Roman government had subjected the Jewish nation and appointed a governor, or procurator. Pontius Pilate was the governor. He had a band of soldiers to maintain the Roman authority and repress all disorders in society. These soldiers were Gentiles. The Jews, in their subjugated state, were not allowed to punish any one with death. They could scourge them and inflict minor punishments, but could not punish capitally. Whenever a case was worthy of capital punishment, the rul- ers of the land — the Gentiles — must try and execute them. Pilate, wishing to free himself from the case, said: "Take ye him, and judge him according to your law." They were determined upon his death. It was not lawful for them to put him to death; so they declined to take him, but re- sponded : "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." (John 18: 31.) They were anxious to crucify him or to have it done. Pilate said: "My hands be free from the blood of this just person." They said : "Crucify him, cru- cify him : his blood be upon us and our children." That is, "it is unlawful for us to crucify him, or we would willingly do it. We will bear all the responsibility for the deed if you will have it done." So the Jews instigated and secured his crucifixion. The course that was taken is clearly presented in Matt. 20 : 18, 19 : "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem ; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again." The Jews brought him before the chief priests and scribes. They decided he was worthy of death; but as they had no power to put any man to death, they set about extorting his condemnation and crucifixion from the Gentiles, their rul- ers. With this agrees exactly the history of his crucifixion. The Jews in their council first decided he was worthy of death. They then fiercely demanded his crucifixion of Pi- late. He finally yields, signs his death warrant, and de- livers him to the soldiers to execute. "Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 99 delivered him to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the gov- ernor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of the soldiers. And they [the sol- diers] stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe." (Matt. 27 : 26-28.) They (the soldiers) platted a crown of thorns ; they (the soldiers) spat upon him; they (the soldiers) took the robe off, put his own clothes upon him, and led him away to crucify him ; they (the soldiers) gave him vinegar mingled with gall; they (the soldiers) crucified him and parted his garments, casting lots. Read connectively Matt. 28 : 27-35, and no one can doubt that the soldiers crucified him. Read Mark 15 : 15-25, and it is equally clear that the soldiers did all these acts of ridi- cule and persecution and crucified him. Luke's account is not so clear. He says Pilate "delivered Jesus to their will ;" it says they took him, without saying who they were. He gives an account of their scourging him to the place and crucifying him, parting his garments, etc., without saying who they were. He introduces the people in contrast with those who had crucified him, then the soldiers again as of- fering the vinegar. Read Luke 23 : 24-36. John (19: 23) says that "the soldiers,, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part," and then cast lots for his seamless coat. Four soldiers — a quaternion — waited on Pilate. To these he delivered Jesus, who then called the "whole band of soldiers." These same soldiers broke the legs of the thieves crucified with him, and one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear. It was the soldiers — Gentiles — who did the deed at the instigation and persuasion of the Jews. So both were equally guilty of crucifying the Son of God. The Jewish mode of punishing with death was by ston- ing. See all orders for death in Deuteronomy were to stone to death. Stephen, killed by the Jews, was stoned to death ; Paul was stoned by the Jews till they thought him dead. The Romans crucified ; it was their style of punishing with death. Peter on Pentecost charged the Jews with betraying and crucifying the Lord of glory ; but they were guilty simply because they had instigated and abetted the murder and were the more guilty party. While this is all true, it is not at all necessary to main- tain it in order to meet the difficulties presented by your Baptist. There is not a word of foundation for his theory in the Bible. It is a mere pretext to evade the truth. The Bible nowhere says the Holy Ghost was given for the remis- sion or pardon of sins to either Jew or Gentile. So the 100 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, Spirit was given to inspire those receiving it that they might know the will of God before the New Testament was written out and to call to their remembrance all things Je- sus had taught, to guide them into all truth, and to testify of Christ. It was given to Cornelius, the first Gentile con- vert, and those at his house, to convince the Jews that the Gentiles were to be received into the church of God as fel- low heirs on the same terms with the Jews. (Acts 10 : 47 ; 15: 7.) The Bible says the words spoken by Peter to the house of Cornelius were the means by which "thou and all thy house shall be saved." (Acts 11 : 14.) Besides, it is specifically declared that God put no differ- ence between Jew and Gentile. He concluded them all alike under sin, that he might have mercy upon all. The same conditions of mercy offered the one were to the other. It takes something more than the mere assertion of a poor mortal to annul these sacred truths of God. The passage, 1 Pet. 2 : 8, means that those who disobeyed God stumbled at Jesus as the Son of God, rejected this truth, and all who do not obey him are appointed to stumble at this truth. John 2: 17 means just what it says. Those whom God had specifically given to Jesus were his apostles, as we may learn from verses 8 and 12 of the same chapter. But it is doubtless true that God has given to his Son all who believe on his name through the words of the apostles. Of the twelve apostles, one was left of the number who believed on him through the words of the apostles. All that are not faithful unto death will be lost, that the Scriptures may be fulfilled. The Scriptures foretold one of the apostles would betray him. The Scriptures equally foretold that all who are not faithful unto death, but fall away and disobey God, will be lost. All such must be lost, that the Scriptures may be fulfilled. D. L. CHRIST, WHAT DAY CRUCIFIED? Brother Lipscomb : Please explain Matt. 12 : 40 by telling on what day Christ was crucified and buried. If it was on Friday, he could not have been in the ground only three days and two nights. Suppose we say he was buried on Thursday and raised on Sunday. Thursday is one day, Friday is two, Saturday is three, and Sunday is four. That would make his resurrec- tion on the fourth day. But the Bible says, a dozen times over, that he was raised on the third day. Take the account given by Luke (23: 53-56; 24: 1). Joseph "took it [the body] down, and wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb that was hewn in stone, where never man had yet lain. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 101 And it was the day of the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew on. And the women, who had come with him out of Galilee, followed after, and beheld the tomb, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments. And on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment. But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came unto the tomb," and found the Sav- ior risen. This is an account of what was done, day by day. The women prepared the spices and ointment and waited till the Sabbath had passed. Two Sabbaths together had never been heard of then. The knowledge of such a won- derful thing is a latter-day revelation. When the Sabbath had passed, at early dawn Jesus had risen. The account in Mark (15: 42-47; 16: 1, 2) agrees with this, leaving no room for doubt. The same is true of Matthew's account (27: 59-61; 28: 1). They all give similar accounts. He was buried the day of the Preparation. He lay in the grave the Sabbath and was raised on Sunday morning. This is called "after three days." "After eight days" (John 20 : 26) means on the eighth day, after eight days has come. Language is the sign of ideas. God speaks to men in lan- guage they can Understand. The Jews were in the habit of using this language and of making the expression of a day and night mean a day, and God used the language of the Jews. There is nothing in the question to affect a man's well-being. The world, the whole religious world, brought the truth down from the days of the Savior. It will not affect any man's happiness in this world or the next. To write about it till you are as old as Methuselah may show you think God could not tell a straight tale on an insignificant matter, for the day-by-day account of the death, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ by each of the lives of Jesus does not allow any room for another day. I write this to settle a squabble over an unimpor- tant matter after I had said : "I have said all I have to say." It seems that kind of a question interests more people than a practical one. CHRISTIANS SHOULD SETTLE THEIR DIFFERENCES AMONG THEMSELVES, NOT IN CIVIL COURTS. Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: Please give us your views on 1 Cor. 6: 1-6. In verse 1, who is the unjust person spoken of? In verse 6, who are the unbelievers? Also, is the word rendered unjust in verse 1 the same word rendered unrighteous in verse 9? The unjust were the unbelievers — those not Christians. The word rendered unjust in verse 1 and unrighteous in verse 9 is the same. The meaning of the verses is just 102 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, this: No Christian at that day held an office in the civil government. They were all heathens and idolaters. Chris- tians had differences, and resorted to the civil tribunals to decide these differences. Paul condemns them severely for the course, and tells them to let the saints, or Christians, settle these difficulties. He says the saints shall judge the world and even angels. How much rather are they com- petent to judge the affairs of this world! He tells them then, if they have these judgments of temporal things to be settled, to put even the very least esteemed in the church to settle them rather than the civil rulers. He then tells them it is a shame to go before these rulers, and asks : "Is it possible you have none in the church wise enough to set- tle these personal difficulties?" He then tells them there is utterly a wrong when they go to law before these unbe- lievers; tells them they had better take and suffer wrong than thus to bring reproach on the cause of God. It is a lesson that is sometimes forgotten among brethren, but we think it no greater sin than Christians mixing up in civil affairs in other ways. D. L. CHRISTIANS, PROVIDING FOR RELATIVES. There are four brothers of us, all able to work, but poor as to this world's goods, and all of us with small families. We have one old aunt, the only one we have in this country; she is very old and feeble. Is it the duty of nephews and nieces to take care of her, or is it a church's duty? Would it be right to send her to the poorhouse? Paul (1 Tim. 5: 4) says: "If any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God." This showing piety at home is caring for the aged and infirm. It is the care and providing for these widows connected with us and our families, and not our wives and children, of which the apostle speaks when he says: "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." That is, if any man have a wid- owed mother or aunt (according to this translation), and especially if she be of his own household, he is worse than an infidel if he fails to provide for her. I repeat: This language is used in reference to the widows connected with the families, and not to the families themselves. This would be decisive of the question at once but for the fact that the word translated nephews in the Common Ver- sion in the Revised Version is translated grandchildren. This, which we take to be correct, would lay the obligation on the children and grandchildren to care for a widowed BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 103 mother or grandmother on pain of being pronounced by God as worse than an infidel. The fact that a man is poor does not alter the case. God has one law for rich and poor alike. A poor man cannot keep the widow of his family in as much style or with as many comforts as a rich man, but he can do the best he can; and my faith is, no man was ever made the poorer by helping those in need, as God says Christians should. It is a lack of faith in God that makes men think they can- not do things that God requires them to do. He requires us to help the helpless and needy, even if they are not of our kindred. And in doing good in God's name we are never impoverished. If one of these nephews were to take this widowed aunt and care for her, he would never be the poorer thereby, and the others should be ashamed to let one do what all should jointly do. While these nephews are doing this work, if they are poor and pressed for help, all their brethren and sisters ought to do kindness to them and help them, not because this law or that one requires it, but because we are breth- ren, and we "ought to bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." It is a bad sign when men or churches begin to seek specific laws to exempt them from doing good. We think it would be alike a disgrace to the kindred and to the church to let their kindred or a member of the body of Christ go to the poorhouse. As the children and grandchildren deny the faith and make themselves worse than the infidel in failing to pro- vide for the widows of their household, the church certainly places itself in the same position when it refuses or fails to provide for its helpless widows. While the Scriptures are strenuous in demanding help for the worthy helpless, they guard against providing for the unworthy. I have no doubt that our city churches sin in helping many who are unworthy, and who are able to help themselves, because they do not take the time to look into their condition ; but many of the country churches sin in not looking after the poor and helpless at all. CHRISTIANS, THINGS THEY SHOULD NOT DO. 1. Has a Christian any right to take part in a play at an enter- tainment in which the boys kiss the girls? 2. Is it right for a Christian to go to the theater? 3. Is it right for a Christian to work for a firm that sells intoxi- cating liquors? 4. Is it right for a Christian to sell groceries on Sunday where it is not against the law of the country? 1. No specific answer is given to these questions in the Scriptures; yet there is no ground to doubt the right or 104 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, wrong of them. The tendency of the freedom of contact and caressing between the sexes is to lasciviousness and lewdness. Many young persons are led into sin by too much freedom in caressing and handling each other. The lascivious and lustful feelings are excited and they are drawn by degrees into ruin. The right thing is not to take the first step. Avoid the contact that excites the lustful feelings and weakens the resisting power. Old people are to blame for much of the licentiousness of the young, and many boys and girls are ruined by the tolerance by the par- ents of improper associations between the young. Girls who allow themselves to be kissed and caressed by the boys do not commend themselves to the boys or secure the re- spect of those they kiss. The young men who kiss them, when they seek wives, never want the girls they have kissed ; they seek girls who do not allow themselves to be kissed, who reserve their kisses for their husbands. I once heard of a rich, rattling young man who was noted for kissing the girls in his town. He finally concluded to marry, and sought a girl who surprised his friends. She was not his equal in wealth and social station. When pressed by his friends to know why he selected her, he said : "She is the only girl in this town who refused to let me kiss her." He declared he was going to marry her to kiss her — which, of course, meant she commanded his respect and love by her modesty and reserve. Sensible men never marry the women who allow themselves to be kissed and caressed by men. 2. The theater has always been on the side of licentious- ness and sin. As such, it ought to be discountenanced and avoided. It appeals to the fleshly and licentious feelings in men. While we reason that theatrical performances ought to and might be of an intellectual and elevating character, it remains true that they have always appealed to the fleshly and lascivious feelings and have tended to immorality and vice. If this is so, Christians should avoid the theater. Even if it appears that one play now and then would not be hurtful in its tendency and that a discriminating mind might attend and avoid others, yet the harmless ones are so few that the example would lead others less discrimi- nating to attend those that lead downward, and in so lead- ing others to their ruin we sin against Christ. The results of the theater have always been against morality and vir- tue, and Christians ought not to countenance it. 3. "Let him labor, working with his hands the thing that is good," is the restriction Paul throws on the work Christians may do. Selling whisky is not a good work. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 105 4. The laws of the land do forbid all kinds of secular business on Sunday, save those of necessity and mercy. Sometimes brethren persuade themselves there is no harm in attending to business, so they attend the service on the Lord's day. But I have never known a person to begin this who did not very soon give up either the business or the religious service. They do not harmonize and cannot be kept together. Whatever has a tendency to wean away from the service of God is sinful and ought to ve avoided. The example of attending to secular business on Sunday is hurtful. A great to-do is made over saloon keepers keep- ing open on Sunday. Their business is legalized, and, from their standpoint and legally, they have the same right to conduct their business on Sunday that the grocer or mer- chant has. They ought to be all treated alike by the law. If it is wrong for any legalized business to be conducted on Sunday, it is wrong for all such business to be so conducted. A Christian ought to avoid, as far as possible, all attention to secular business. D. L. "CHRISTIAN CHURCH," THE TERM. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In the Gospel Advocate of October 12, you, speaking of the Caskey and Price debate, use the phrase "Christian Church." I want to know why you use it. Is it right? I know A. Campbell and a majority of our brethren use this phrase; but does that make it right? The apostles spoke as the Holy Spirit gave them utterance; they never once used the name "Christian Church/' The apostle Peter says: "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God." It always seemed strange to me that breth- ren prefer to use names not found in the Bible to those that are there when speaking of Bible things. I was amused once at Brother C. M. Wilmeth in the Advocate. He seemed to be very much opposed to be- ing called "parson." He says: "You may stick pins in me, pour hot coffee in my lap, call me 'possum;' but don't call me 'parson.'" He says the Christian Church has enough titles. The thought struck me that he would find "parson" in the same chapter and verse below where he found "Christian Church." I frequently, when reasoning with my Baptist neighbors, tell them they have got hold of the wrong name — "Baptist Church." This they cannot deny, but generally turn on me for my authority for "Christian Church." I tell them I have none; the Bible says not one word about it. They say: "What? The Gospel Advocate and your standard authors use the name." This I cannot deny. I can earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints by Christ and the apostles by letting their words dwell in me, but cannot contend for titles and innovations that have been added on by great and good men. The apostle Paul says: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." "Christian Church" is without proof. I know some argue it is grammatically right, but is it scrip- turally right? Why not use the language of the apostles — "church of God?" All' agree that this is right. This would be same nearer the apostolic injunction: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of 106 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing." ( 1 Cor. 1 : 10.) We suppose it is more by force of habit than otherwise that our brethren use the expression "the Christian Church;" and, of course, the fact that brethren, whether editors or others, use the appellation does not make it right. The expression is not found in that form in the New Testa- ment. The expressions there are "kingdom of God," "church of God," "the house of God," "the temple of God," "the body of Christ," etc. ; and it is certainly proper that we should use some of these expressions when we speak of this kingdom. But, still, the expression "Christian Church" is not so unscriptural nor so likely to lead astray as some other names. The word church literally means congregation, and the name Christian belongs to all the followers of Je- sus Christ ; and when you put any number or all Christians together as a collected body, you then have a Christian con- gregation, and that is all the expression means. But we are not at all disposed to defend the expression as a desig- nation of the body of Christ. There are plenty of Bible expressions that are just as plain and as easy of pronunci- ation as that one. Yet we cannot say that it is wholly un- scriptural. But, to avoid all possible difficulty in the mat- ter, we think it would be better to use exactly the expres- sions that are found in the word of God on that and all other subjects. We should remove every possible objection out of the way that we possibly can and leave the people no room to find fault. Paul told Timothy to hold fast the form of sound words, and we ought to follow the divine rule. This is the one distinguishing feature between us and the denominations — that we follow the word of God in all things and avoid all human wisdom in matters of reli- gion ; and if ever the people of God are one, it will be when all human names and human platforms are laid aside and when all shall take the pure word of God and follow ear- nestly and closely its divine precepts. We ought contin- ually to labor for a union of Christians upon the one foun- dation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone ; and to labor successfully, we should remove every difficulty and every hindering cause out of the way, and thus have a clear and open field into which we may invite all the lovers of the Lord to enter and aid us in the grand work of edifying and strengthening the church and in the conversion of sinners to the purity of our holy religion. E. G. S. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 107 CHRISTMAS TREES. We have been discussing the propriety of having what is called a "Christmas tree" in the church, house at this place, and find that we greatly need light on the subject, and wish you to give us all the light you conveniently can. 1. About the only t thing certain about the time of the Savior's birth is that he was not born at Christmas time. This is regarded as certain. 2. The Bible never authorized any celebration of the birth of Christ. To engage in worship not ordained by God is sin. This we regard as beyond dispute. 3. We do not believe there is any harm in a social gather- ing and the interchange of presents and kindly offices among members of the. church; but I would never make the impression it was done on the birthday of the Savior nor as a religious service. 4. There is nothing sacred about a meetinghouse. It is built for the congregation, the comfort and use of the peo- ple. The people who obey constitute the church of God. Anything the church or its members may do may be done in the house they built for their convenience. CHURCH, IS ONE, AS GOOD AS ANOTHER? The affirmative of the above is a very common expression among the denominations, and sometimes is heard even among the disciples of Christ. If when the expression is used reference is had only to denominations as such, we have no disposition whatever to question the truth of the claim ; but when the church of God, as revealed in the New Testament, is brought into the account and compared with denominations of human names and human build, we are compelled to say, No. All denominations have been built by human wisdom, and everything that is peculiar to any denomination is essentially human. The church of God as given in the Christian Scriptures is purely divine in all its parts. Every item, both in introducing men into it and in carrying on its practical work, is given us by inspiration. Nothing here is left for man's wisdom. God has given us all the laws of his kingdom. But in all the denominations in the world there is more or less that is human. The name of every denomination in the world is human. God never named one of them nor gave a single one of their pecu- liarities. And to say that any one of these denominations is as good as the church of God is to elevate human wis- dom to an equality with the wisdom of God. There is not one denomination to be found that is built upon the one foundation which the Lord has laid in Zion. When Je- 108 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, sus was on earth and sojourning with his disciples, and when Peter had said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," he replied: "Upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt. 16: 18.) Paul also said: "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." These passages enable us with certainty to determine what the one foundation is. It is the sublime truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. There is no denomination that builds upon this truth. Every creed, discipline, or confes- sion of faith we have ever examined claims that Christ is "very and eternal God," and thus they all contradict the word of God, reject the one foundation the Lord has laid, and erect something else upon which to build ; and not only do they reject the one only foundation, but they reject the law of initiation into the kingdom that God has ordained and establish others of their own devising and their own arrangement. The Lord ordained that sinners, in order to an entrance into the kingdom of Christ, must believe the gospel, must repent of their sins, and must be baptized into Christ. Everywhere the apostles preached, these things were re- quired ; and the people by thousands submitted, and thus entered. But where is the denomination that teaches and practices these things now? Not one such is to be found. However much they may differ in other things, they are unanimous in claiming that the sinner is in Christ, is par- doned, saved, before baptism and independent of it. While God has ordained that by baptism men enter into Christ, the religious parties of the present day set that aside and claim an entrance into Christ before baptism and by other means, thus making void this command of God by their traditions. Can churches acting thus, rejecting the wis- dom and authority of God, be called as good as the church of God, the one "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone?" By no means. This cannot truthfully, scriptu- rally be done. Then, as to the practical work of the church, the management of the house of the Lord on earth, where is the religious party, denomination, that takes the word of God as given in the Christian Scriptures and follows these divine directions? There is not one such to be found. But, on the other hand, they actually claim that there is no rule, no system of church government, laid down in the New Testament, but that all this is left to the wisdom of men. Hence, synods, conferences, presbyteries, assemblies, and associations are called for this purpose. These assem- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 109 blies all act upon this principle. They, in their judgment, must finish up what the Lord has left undone. They must make laws for the government of God's peo- ple. Although the word of God says that "his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and god- liness/' they ruthlessly contradict this and say: "No; this is a mistake. God has not given all things ; he has left for men to arrange the particulars of church government as may best suit their own wisdom." Although the word of God says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works," yet denominations say, "No; the man of God is not furnished in the Scriptures with a rule for church government, but must make them by his wisdom," thus setting at naught the word of God, setting up their own laws and regulations for the government of the church. Thus they reject God and make void his word by their traditions. In this is man- ifested the disposition of the man of sin, the disposition to set themselves above God, above his authority, set up for themselves in the whole management of the church on earth. Hence their long disciplines and confessions of faith and articles of decorum and such like. Never was higher presumption manifested by Catholicism itself than is man- ifested by all those who set the government that God has given at naught and set up for themselves. Indeed, we regard this as one of the leading features and characteristics of the man of sin as given by Paul in his second letter to the Thessalonians. Shall we, then, say that these are as good as the church of God that takes his word and goes by it? Nay, verily. Then, again, the anathemas of God are settled against those who add to or diminish from the word of God which he has given. And yet in every creed, every discipline, and every confession of faith in the land both these things are done. They all ignore, set aside, some things that God has required and add some things that God never ordained and will never approve. Thus all the creed makers in the world make themselves guilty of both these offenses. God requires his people to meet on the first day of the week to break bread, to worship him in taking the Lord's Supper ; but these denominations, creed makers, have changed this order and have arranged to take the Supper once a quarter or once in six months, and have also inaugurated the custom of meeting on the first day of the week to hear preaching — something God 110 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, never ordained — thus adding to and diminishing from the word of God at the same time. Then, again, denominations have set aside the names that God has given for the divine institution that he or- dained and have substituted human names instead. Also the names God has given his individual children are set aside, while human names, unknown to the oracles of God, are substituted instead. Are these organizations that do these things as good as the church of God? Surely not. When these denominations are compared one with another and one of them is said to be as good as another, we have nothing to say. This may be true for aught we know, and we shall spend no time in pointing out differences or in try- ing to determine which of them is better or^ which is the best; but when these parties are compared with the word and church of God and said to be as good as it, we do not believe a word of it. Like Elijah of old, we are zealous for the Lord of hosts, and, therefore, oppose all who engage in pulling down the Lord's altars and persecuting his proph- ets. And, strange to say, some, even of the disciples of Christ, or that claim to be such, use the expression at the head of this article affirmatively, even when the church of God is taken into the account, and say, "One church is as good as another," including the church of God as one. This is just a little too bad. But we have never known any to do this, except those who are ignorant of the difference be- tween the church of God and modern denominations, or such, in the next place, as have done like the denomina- tions — have added things that God never ordained, in the way of societies, human plans, organs, and such like things, that can no more be defended by the word of God than the errors of denominationalism. And for such as these to con- demn the parties around them would be to condem them- selves, for they have acted upon precisely the same princi- ple in what they are doing. These are the very men among those claiming to be purely the Lord's people that say that one church is as good as another; and whenever they do this, they place themselves upon a level with all who in any matter set aside the word of God and substitute something else. Those who do this are going backward, not forward. As to the people that belong to these denominations, many of them are apparently as pious, as humble, as zeal- ous, as any we find; and for these traits we love them. Many, too, of the masses are wholly ignorant of the extent to which the creeds to which they adhere have rejected, changed, and added to the word of God, and many that if they knew these things would submit no longer. For all BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. Ill such as these we have the highest regard. But we can never say of these denominations as such, with their human creeds, that they are as good as the church of God. We do not believe it, and, therefore, cannot say so. We be- lieve in respecting the word and authority of God above all things else. We believe in the names that God has given to his church and to his people above all human names. We believe in the word of God as the only rule of faith and practice against all the creeds and confessions of faith the wisdom of the world ever produced, and can never consent to any form of speech that will place human wisdom and human productions upon an equality with the word of God and his wisdom. E. G. S. CHURCH, IS ONE, AS GOOD AS ANOTHER?— AGAIN. The claim that one church is as good as another is based upon the assumption that the doctrines and practices of one are as good as the doctrines and practices of another. But the question is : What is the standard by which such claim is made? Evidently the claim is based upon the outward appearance of men, in their outward manifestations of ear- nestness, zeal, devotion to their systems of religion, and their general manifestations of morality and piety. Such an estimate as says one church is as good as another is not made by comparing these churches and their creeds with the word of God, and thus deciding that all these harmo- nize with that word ; for if the estimate were made in this way, all would fall behind. There is not one denomination extant that could stand the test of such comparison, for all these denominations have things in their creeds and in their practices that are plainly contradictory to the word of God. It will be in order here to show up some of these contradictions. We will begin with the Presbyterian "Confession of Faith. " On page 11, second chapter, of this book we have the following language: "There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit invisible, without body, parts, or passions." We note one point of contradiction with the Bible in this pas- sage. It says of God that he is without parts. But God said to Moses: "And thou shalt see my back parts." (Ex. 33: 23.) Here God himself shows he has back parts, and that he would show them to Moses. In this the contradic- tion to the word of God is so palpable every one can see it at a glance. And besides this passage, naming the back parts of God, there are other passages that speak of the face of God, his hand, his arm, his feet, his fist. Then 112 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, there are others that speak of his love, his anger, his hatred, and such like; and yet the above passage from the "Con- fession of Faith" says he is without passions. Here, then, are two declarations that contradict the word of God. The Cumberland Presbyterian "Confession of Faith" says pre- cisely the same thing, and thus contradicts the word of God in the same way. As the language is just the same as the above on this matter, we need not quote it. The Methodist "Discipline" also says God is without parts and does not say he is without passions. Thus in the mat- ter of parts all three of the creeds named contradict the word of God. How, then, can churches founded on creeds that contradict the word of God be called as good as the church of God, founded upon his word alone? On page 13 of the Presbyterian "Confession of Faith," speaking of God's eternal decrees, we have the following: "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life and others foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished." This quotation, together with the whole article on God's decrees, is contrary to the whole spirit and meaning of the gospel of Christ, which requires it to be preached to every creature, promising that those who be- lieve and are baptized shall be saved, declaring "he that be- lieveth not shall be damned." This shows that whether men shall be saved or condemned does not depend upon a fixed and unalterable decree, but upon their own choice and action. If they believe and obey, they shall be saved; if they believe not, they shall be damned. According to the spirit of the above, the commission should be : "Preach the gospel to every creature, that those predestinated to life may believe and be saved and that those ordained to death may disbelieve and be damned." This, while in harmony with the creed, contradicts every principle of the gospel of Christ and destroys every vestige of human responsibil- ity; for, according to the creed, none can believe except those already and unchangeably decreed to life, while none of those unchangeably decreed to death can possibly believe ; and even if they could believe and obey, they are already doomed to be lost and it would do them no good. This entirely disannuls the spirit and intention of the gospel as given forth in the word of God ; for God wills not "that any should perish, but that all should come to repent- ance." (2 Pet. 3: 9.) Thus, while God says he does not BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 113 will that any should perish, the creed says he has already from before the foundation of the world willed that many, both of men and angels, should perish, thus plainly contra- dicting the word of God in this matter. On page 31 this same creed teaches that those whom God has elected and called "can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere therein to the end and be eternally saved." This teaches that no child of God can cease to be a child and be lost ; but the Bi- ble gives us cases in which immense numbers of those who were once servants of God ceased to be his servants and were rejected of him, as the Jews in the wilderness, even the seventy elders who were spiritually endowed, disobeyed God and died ouside the promised land. And in the New Testament there are any number of passages teaching that unless Christians will serve God faithfully to the end of life they will be lost at last, though once the people of God. Peter speaks of those which have forsaken the right way, "to whom the mist of darkness is reserved forever." This is plain, showing that some in the lifetime of Peter were at one time in the right way and had already forsaken it so far that their doom was already fixed. This is all contra- dicted by the creed. In Revelation it is plainly taught that people may have their names enrolled in the book of life, and then their names may be blotted out. The Cumberland "Confession" teaches the same thing on final perseverance, and thus in this matter contradicts the word of God the same as the other. Again, the creeds teach that the light of nature teaches men that God exists, while the word of God teaches that the world by wisdom knows not God. Again, the creeds say positively in regard to baptism that "dipping of the person into the water is not necessary, but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person." But this language of the creeds is not only outside of the Bible, not only entirely human, but is ut- terly contrary to the Bible ; for, to say nothing of the mean- ing of the word baptize, Paul, both in Romans and Colos- sians, tells us that we are buried with Christ in baptism. We are buried. A burial in water is not performed by either pouring or sprinkling a few drops of water upon men. In this matter again the creeds set aside the word of God by the word and authority of men. And shall we say that the churches acting thus are as good as the churches of God? Again, the Methodist "Discipline" says, regarding the de- sign of Christ's death: "Who truly suffered, was crucified, 114 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sin of men." This plainly says that Christ died to reconcile his Father to us; but Paul says: "God was in Christ, rec- onciling the world unto himself/' (2 Cor. 5: 19.) We might present many passages in the word of God of the same import, but this is enough to show that in this the "Discipline" contradicts the word of God. Again, the "Discipline" says: "Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort." In this the "Discipline" says, "We are justified by faith only;" but James says: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." "And not by faith only." Could contradictions be more positive? Many other contradictions to the word of God can be given, but these are enough for a sample. These creeds not only contradict the word of God, but they contra- dict and conflict with one another almost from beginning to end, and especially regarding church government, and thus make it impossible for the adherents of these different creeds ever to unite as one people, and make it utterly impossible for them ever to unite upon the word of God as long as these creeds are bonds of union among these reli- gious bodies. Thus they are keeping up endless and in- determinable differences and carrying on endless strife and confusion. "But," say some, "the members of these denominations do not read, understand, nor go by these creeds." That may be true with many of the private members, but it is not so with the preachers and leaders. It is made a point with the leaders that the creeds of these parties, respec- tively, must be accepted when they are ordained. One of the questions asked of every Methodist preacher who enters the conference is : "Are you willing to conform to the 'Dis- cipline' of the church?" Also every preacher ordained in the Cumberland Presbyterian Church is required to answer in the affirmative to the following: "Do you sincerely re- ceive and adopt the 'Confession of Faith' of this church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scrip- tures?" (Page 227.) Also on page 187 of the Presbyte- rian creed we find the same language, which shows that every preacher in that church is pledged to acquiesce in and obey the creed of his church. With all these facts before us, how can we say one church is as good as another, and how can the disciples of Christ enter into union meetings and such like things with those tied and committed to creeds that contradict the word of God? E. G. S. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 115 CHURCH, ARE ALL CHRISTIANS MEMBERS OF THE? Are all Christians members of the church of Christ? Is there any act after baptism by which we become members of the church of Christ? All Christians are, without any doubt, members of the church of God, the body of Christ; and they become such by obeying the gospel. When any one obeys the require- ments of the gospel, the last of which is baptism, he is then born again, is in Christ, in his body (the church), is a child of God, an heir of God and joint heir with Christ; and no step he can take after this has anything to do in making a member of the church of God. But when persons thus obey the gospel, enter into the church of God, the congregation where they propose to meet and strive to live the Christian life extend to them the right hand in order to bid them a hearty welcome into their number to keep the ordinances at that place. This is done because they are members of the church of God, not to make them such, but to bid them a kind and Christian welcome into that particular congre- gation, as their Christian home, to meet and worship the Lord with them; and this kindly reception by extending the right hand is not becoming a Christian, nor is it joining the church of God. CHURCH, THE ATTENDING TO, BUSINESS ON THE LORD'S DAY. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Is it right for the church when they have assembled on Lord's day to try members for misconduct, or transact any business of that kind — or, in other words, have they any right to do anything but read, sing, exhort, pray, preach, and partake of the emblems? Would it not be better to attend to the other busi- ness on Saturday or some other day of the week? We never could see any impropriety in attending to the Lord's business on the Lord's day. Occasionally business may come up that it is hardly proper to associate with the observance of the Lord's Supper. Then it would be better to attend to it at some other hour in the day. But ordina- rily the Lord's business, attended to in a decent and Chris- tian way, has no evil results upon the observance of the Lord's Supper. The latter should have a hallowing effect on other business. D. L. CHURCH, THE, NOT CIVIL COURTS. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In 1 Cor. 6: 4 we find this lan- guage: "If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church." Why "set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church?" Please answer through the Gospel Advocate as soon as convenient. We do not understand that Paul has reference to the members of the church when he speaks of those least es- 116 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, teemed in (by) the church. He was reproving the church of Corinth for going to law with one another before the un- believers instead of settling their disputes in the church. The meaning is as if he had said : "Why do ye set them to judge who are least esteemed ?" The "Living Oracles" ren- ders the verse thus: "If, then, you have the cognizance of such matters, why do you set those to judge who are of no account in the congregation?" And as the whole connec- tion is a reproof to them for going to law, we understand the meaning to be: "Why do you set officers of the world to judge your causes? Are there none among you able to judge of the commonest affairs in worldly matters? Are you unable to judge the smallest matters?" He lets them know that their whole course was wrong, and that they must come out from the world and settle all their differ- ences in the congregation. IE. G. S. CHURCH, THE, AND SECRET SOCIETIES. Was the church designed only to benefit man's spiritual wants? Can a man be a good Christian and be an active member of secret so- cieties? When a man is benefited spiritually, he is benefited in- tellectually and physically. When a man brings himself under the laws of Christ, he cuts off every dissipation that hinders the cultivation and development of the mind. He ceases every practice that injures his physical development. He ceases all dissipation, quits the use of spirits, tobacco, and all stimulants and narcotics, and uses food in moder- ation, so that the whole man is built up and strengthened. He ceases to strive for honors and riches, so is released from care, anxiety, and worldly strife. He can do his duty, throw his burdens on the Lord, and sleep sweetly and soundly. He lives frugally and quietly, doing his duty to God, to his fellow man, and to himself. The Christian reli- gion then cultivates the heart, the mind, the body, and gives promise both of the life that now is and of that which is to come. That is what the Christian religion will do if we live up to its teachings. When we refuse to live according to its teachings, it cannot so help us. A man can find op- portunity and the wisest means (wisest because given by God) in the church for receiving and bestowing good. If he lives up to the obligations of the church, he has no room in his heart, his life, or his purse for other organizations or service. God's provisions for receiving and bestowing good are as high above man's as heaven is above earth. We know of no difference, morally, between secret societies and those not secret. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 117 CHURCH, THE, IN MATT. 18: 17. What "church" is referred to in Matt. 18: 17, which reads thus: "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican?" A church is a called-out and separated band. The per- sonal followers of Christ were the only such in his day. They were to tell it to them. Since then congregations have been planted, and the church which the parties are with is the one. CHURCH, FOUNDATION OF THE. Brother Lipscomb: Please explain Matt. 16: 16-18 through the Gospel Advocate. Jesus had turned his face toward Jerusalem for the last time. On reaching the city, he must give up his life. As the end approached, he was considering, and wished to im- press on his disciples the importance of considering, how they should regard him. He asked his disciples: "Whom do men say that I am? What impression has my mission and work made upon the world generally?" They tell him : "Some think you are John the Baptist ; others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets of old, come to life again." This con- ception of him did not satisfy the demands of Jesus ; so he directly put the question to his disciples, who had been his companions for years, had heard his teachings, and had seen his miracles: "Whom do you say I am? What impression have I made on you?" Peter, with his natural forward- ness, answered: "Thou art the Christ [the Anointed], the Son of the living God." This was the true position of Je- sus, and satisfied his demands. So, in turn, he tells Peter he is blessed in the conception of this truth — that this is a revelation from God, not a conception of man. It had been revealed by God to Peter at the Jordan when Jesus was baptized, when the voice from heaven said : "This is my be- loved Son, in whom I am well pleased." He further tells him this truth that he had confessed is the fundamental truth of his teaching, on which his church should rest, and the gates of Hades should not prevail against it. There is some diversity of opinion about what is meant by the ex- pression, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." I think it safe to say it involves the idea that this kingdom should never be destroyed. All other kingdoms and insti- tutions shall come to naught, but this builded by God will survive and stand forever. Christ then commits to Peter the work of opening the door of this kingdom to the world, or of first directing men and women into it. Peter did this on Pentecost and again at the house of Cornelius. There 118 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, is some contention in the religious world as to whether Je- sus by "this rock" means Peter or the truth that Jesus is the Christ. Paul (1 Cor. 3: 11 — "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ") settles this question. Paul says : "I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon." He laid the foundation in preaching that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." CHURCH, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE. Brother Seivell: We have a brother here that does not take the Gospel Advocate, but wants you to write a piece on the establishment of the church for the benefit of himself and others. We have already written some things on this subject that will, ere long be published ; but we will write briefly now in response to the above, as it is an exceedingly important subject. The kingdom of heaven is an historical matter, and the time of its establishment can be easily settled if we examine closely. In the Old Testament, the new cov- enant, the gospel of Christ, the body of Christ, the general assembly and church of the firstborn, the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God, was purely a matter of proph- ecy, as it was not in existence then. In the New Testament, the preparatory work and state of the kingdom began un- der the preaching of John the Immerser. His proclamation was: "Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." When many of the Jews had been baptized by John, Jesus came and was baptized also. Soon afterwards he chose and sent out the twelve apostles, and commanded them to preach the same things. Christ himself preached the same things for a time. But soon he entered much more largely into the preparatory work, teaching the great and general principles upon which the church of God was to be builded, presenting these things from various standpoints and in many parables, and performing many miracles to prove himself to be the Son of God. This preparatory work was continued till the death of Christ, thence on till he had given the divine commission, including the miraculous bap- tism of the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles in their great work of carrying out the commission given them and in fully establishing the church, together with its practical work. This brings us to the day of Pentecost, at which time and place the church of God was fully established. From the beginning of John's ministry up to this memo- rable day, the kingdom, the church, when spoken of, was al- most represented as in the future. The preaching on the day of Pentecost was entirely new, something that had never been preached to men as a plan of salvation before BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 119 that day. "Christ, and him crucified," was then preached as the plan of salvation. The people were required to be- lieve it, to repent, and to be baptized into the remission of sins. About three thousand did the things required and were thus added to those who had already been prepared and were the charter members of the church. In the very chapter giving these facts (Acts 2: 47) the church is men- tioned as actually present and people being added to it daily. This chapter, therefore, gives us the full establishment of the church of God on earth, and precisely how to enter into it. And from this day on to the end of the New Testament, the church, the kingdom of God, is spoken of as present, and its members were also taught all the practical work and worship of the church. So, then, in general terms, the first four books of the New Testament give the preparatory work and state of the church and how it was carried on ; Acts of Apostles gives us the establishment of the church in its full- ness and the way into it ; while the letters of the apostles to the churches give the practical work of the church. CHURCH, WITHDRAWING FROM A. When a member who lives almost under the shadow of the church edifice asks for the privilege to "withdraw from the congregation" of said church, alleging as a reason for such a step that "a large majority of the Christian Church members have done all they could do against every effort my wife or myself have ever made to procure the actual necessaries for our family," also that "this same congregation show by all of their acts that they do not wish to fraternize with me or mine," should such privilege be granted until after the charges against the congregation shall have been thoroughly investigated? We have no scriptural example of anything like the above. Where one individual complains of a whole congre- gation, we very naturally suppose that he is wrong himself. It very rarely occurs that a whole congregation will array itself against all the efforts of one of its own members. We have not known an instance of the kind. The probabil- ities are that the above-named member is either morbidly sensitive and suspicious of his brethren or he is in some way radically wrong himself and they do not wish to encourage him in his wrong course. If his charge is correct, the con- gregation should by all means make matters right; but if not correct, then they ought to strive earnestly to get him right. If they succeed, they have gained their brother; if all gospel means fail and he persists in. making a false charge against the church, we do not see how they can per- mit him to withdraw as if in good standing. If in such a case a member withdraws, he withdraws from the church of God and ought not to be recognized as a Christian by any 120 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, congregation till he mends his ways. And, moreover, when a member gets wrong and all gospel means fail to set him right, the congregation where he belongs, instead of allow- ing him to withdraw from them as if in good standing, ought to withdraw from him for walking disorderly. Such steps, however, should be taken with great caution, that everything be done according to the word of God and in the spirit of Christ. E. G. S. CHURCH, SHOULD AN INDIVIDUAL WITHDRAW FROM THE? Is it right for an elder, and a minister of the word, to fall out with a part of the members of the church to which he belongs and with- draw his name from the congregation, and continue to preach in other localities, without any membership in any congregation? I am an as- sistant subscriber for the Gospel Advocate, a poor man, who pays one dollar to Brother L. D. Randolph, who takes it, reads it, turns it over to me, and I read it and lend it to my friends to read. H. C. McNees. I am the "elder" and "minister" referred to in Brother McNees' question. He has not exactly stated the case as it is. It is rather this way : Some of the brethren have fallen out with me. I have done all in my power for the cause of my Master in this country. I have labored for this people — the church — for nearly thirty years (ever since 1855), and all without one dime of remuneration. I have met sin in the face, and hence my offense to some. Well, I could not, in the light of the apostle's injunctions, remain a member with the con- gregation. (2 Thess. 3: 6; 1 Tim. 6: 5; 2 Tim. 3: 1.) Please say whether I was justifiable or not. Do you consider Brother Milligan's exposition of 1 Tim. 5: 19 cor- rect? See "Scheme of Redemption," page 308. It is this: "That an accusation against an elder should not be received unless it was sup- ported by the testimony of two or three witnesses." L. D. Randolph. The above questions, as stated by the brother and the preacher, are put to us. Certainly we have never been able to find any authority for a member of a church, minister or others, withdrawing from a congregation. If such a thing ever occurred in apostolic days, they failed to tell of it. If the Holy Spirit anticipated such a necessity would ever oc- cur, he failed to give any intimation of the fact. Churches became very corrupt in apostolic days; rather, they began very low down in morals and did not improve. The Co- rinthians retained a man that took his father's wife from him. The Holy Spirit reproves the church for retaining such an individual, but does not advise any one to withdraw from the church. The Spirit wrote to the churches of Asia, as recorded in Revelation, and found much sin to condemn. One church had fallen from its first love; another had in it members who were of the synagogue of Satan; another had those BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 121 who held the doctrine of Balaam, those also that taught the disciples to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit for- nication. Then of the Sardis church he says: "Thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead." But he says : "Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not de- filed their garments." Does he tell these few to withdraw from the church on account of its disorderly walk? In- stead thereof, his admonition is: "Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die." The scriptures to which our brother refers teach exactly the opposite from what he practices. These scriptures teach that the congregations should withdraw from the dis- orderly members. The first scripture is: "We command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." The lessons in Timothy teach us to keep aloof from these wandering, irresponsible teachers that work evil. There is nothing more plainly taught in the Bible than that the church, the individual congregations at Corinth, at Thessa- lonica, at Ephesus, constituted the body of Christ, and the individual members were parts of this body. To withdraw from this body was to withdraw from Christ. The idea that a man can be a member of Christ, can be in Christ, and yet in no congregation or body of Christ, is an idea that has no foundation in the Bible. It is a part of that old secta- rian idea that a man may be in Christ before and without being in the body of Christ. It embodies the idea that there is an invisible church on earth, separate and distinct from the churches of God. The whole idea is wrong and subversive in all its workings of the divine order. The di- visions condemned in the Bible are divisions in these indi- vidual congregations of the Lord. Men who think nothing of dividing and destroying congregations of Christ preach much about Christian union. The only church union taught in the Bible is the indivisible unity and harmony of the local churches of God within themselves. Until we learn to re- spect and honor the churches of God, others will not respect them or our plea. The whole thing of withdrawing from one church and joining another, save as we change our lo- cality and worship with one near us or we near it, is with- out warrant in the word of God. No preacher or individ- ual who refuses to recognize himself as a member of the church near him by worshiping with it ought to be recog- nized by any other congregation. This we say of the gen- eral practice on this subject; of the special difficulties in 122 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, the above case we know nothing. Generally the brethren are pretty much what the preacher makes them. When he has taught them for thirty or thirty-five years, he is like a father to his family. It would be a very strange proceed- ing for a father to raise a family of children, and then, when he is old, repudiate them, refuse to recognize himself as their father, disown them as his family. The whole idea that a man, preacher or otherwise, can fall out with a church and withdraw from it is without biblical foundation and most destructive to the cause of God. To withdraw from a church is to withdraw from the body of Christ, is to withdraw from Christ. If these brethren do not aid our brother when he needs it, it is doubtless because he has not done his duty in teaching them. He should repent of his wrong, acknowledge it, and patiently teach them what is right instead of leaving them. They will likely not fully recover from his failure to teach them during his life ; but he can, to some extent, rectify former failures. Christians must be taught the duty and blessedness of giving before they will practice it. The exposition of 1 Tim. 5 : 19 I think correct. A portion of the people of Israel were called "Jews" be- cause they dwelt in the land of Judah. The land received its name from Judah, the son of Jacob. D. L. CHURCHES, CONSTITUTION AND ORDER OF. Brother Lipscomb: I see that our scribes are discussing the "local church" as it existed in the days of the apostles. I feel great interest in the discussion. Please answer seriatim and fully the following questions: 1. What is a scriptural local church, such as "the church at An- tioch?" 2. Is there scriptural authority for a plurality of churches in one city, each an independent body, with its own elders or bishops? 3. Is the Church Street congregation, Nashville, Tenn., a scriptural local church? 4. Do the Scriptures authorize the pecuniary reward of elders or bishops for their work as such? 5. Is it scriptural for evangelists to be the teachers of churches which have scriptural elders or bishops? But little is said of the extent or limit of a church of God in the New Testament ; therefore we are inclined to say but little. We have been satisfied fully that the local church or a number of local churches is the only manifes- tation of a church or the only thing recognized as a church or churches of God on earth. The "church universal," as it is called, exists on earth only in and through the local church. It is addressed only through the local church; it is commanded only through commands given to the local BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 123 church ; it can act only through the local church ; it can be approached only through the local church ; it is manifested on earth only through the local church. Nothing is done or can be done on earth by the church universal, save as it is done through the local church or churches. Through them alone its life is manifested or its existence known. They embody its only existence on earth. Whatever is not done by or through the local church in its legitimate action is not done by the church universal. While this is true, it might have been supposed that the church local, which is the pillar and support of the truth, would have been clearly defined as to its numbers and geographical limits. But of this almost nothing is said. 1. We have studied the question with care as to what constitutes a church of God according to the Scriptures. We reached the conclusion that one single individual in a community, worshiping God according to his appointments, embodies all the essential elements of a church of God. He is called out, separated from the world, consecrated to God in life, and, observing his ordinances, he constitutes a church of God. We remember some years ago taking this position in the presence of Brother Fall. He dissented so far as to say it took two individuals to constitute a church of God. If there be other servants of God in the commu- nity, it is their duty to meet together to encourage, strengthen, and help one another; but as to the distance they should come to worship together, we have never found an intimation in the Bible. This seems to be left to the judgment of the individuals. Where God has made provi- sion, we insist that it is sacrilegious presumption for man to devise, invent, or add to these provisions ; where God has made no provisions, human judgment must be left free. We dare say different communities will and ought to act differently. An old brother in Wilson County last year told us for years he and his wife rode sixteen miles to church and returned, making thirty-two miles horseback ride to church, for years, and seldom missing a fair day. But few would do this. A brother moved from Middle Ten- nessee to West Tennessee. He found no church; but the first Lord's day after his arrival, in an upper room (he had gotten possession of only the second story of his house) he and his sister and wife attended to the Lord's Supper. They constituted a church of God. Such zeal is never left long alone. How near another church must be to them to make it wrong to constitute a church, the Bible gives no intimation. We can give no judgment. In large cities it is found impracticable for persons to attend church at a 124 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, distance that would be regarded as convenient in the coun- try. Several reasons can be given for this. God has certainly made no restrictions or given no direc- tions as to the nearness or distance apart of churches. Where he has left human judgment free, it should have no restrictions thrown around it. It would undoubtedly be sinful to organize two congregations in the same commu- nity based upon any bad feeling one toward another upon any social, family, race, or pecuniary distinctions, because division on such grounds is specifically warned against and condemned in the Scriptures. No Jew and Gentile church could exist on such ground in the same community. I be- lieve it is sinful for the whites and blacks to separate into different churches on the basis of race antipathies. I would, then, define a scriptural church to be the disci- ple or disciples of Christ in a community who shape their lives according to his teachings and keep his ordinances as he has delivered them in the Holy Scriptures. 2. There certainly is clear evidence of more than one church in a city. This is to be found in Paul's letter to the Romans, in which he sends greeting to the church meeting in their (Aquila and Priscilla's) house, which indicates there were other churches meeting in other houses. This letter to the Romans is supposed to have been written from Corinth. He says in this letter: "The churches of Christ salute you." This could hardly have been said of the churches at large, and doubtless means: "The churches of Christ in Corinth [where he was when writing] salute you." This would indicate a plurality of churches in Corinth. A church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla is also spoken of in the letter to the Corinthians. There were undoubt- edly a plurality of churches in one city. I have never seen a particle of evidence that two churches were under the same eldership. The letters are addressed, it is true, to the "church of God at Corinth;" but this does not imply they were all under one eldership, any more than it implies they all met at one place. Were a document addressed to the Masonic body at Memphis, it would be understood that all the different associations of Masons were addressed ; but it would not indicate that they were under one corps of offi- cers. Paul says he persecuted the church ; yet the churches were in many cities far apart. Different associations of people, having like laws and a common purpose, may be referred to collectively as one body, when the address ap- plies equally and alike to all. The new Revision (Acts 9: 31) says: "The church throughout all Judea and Samaria and Galilee." BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 125 To speak of the church of God in Kentucky, in Tennes- see, in Mississippi, would be entirely proper, yet would not indicate they were consolidated together under one board of officers. No more does it indicate this concerning the church in Corinth or in Rome, especially as Paul in the same letters indicates clearly that there were churches in those cities. Again, I do not see why all the disciples in a city should be consolidated into one organic body, any more than all the disciples in a county or State. Were the disciples numerous in New York or London, or even scattered in different por- tions of these cities, the difficulty of one board of officers looking after them would be greater than for one board of officers to look after all the disciples in some counties or even States. Why should there be limitation to the num- ber of churches in a city, but none to the number in a county or State? Has God given those in the county the right to suit their convenience, but not those in a city? While churches have been injured in some cases by sub- divisions and jealousies, we are satisfied that greater evil results from improper ideas of the objects and ends of church existence than from fewness in numbers. The ob- ject of churches is not to attract and entertain, but to wor- ship God. It is not to even entertain one another and be popular, but to become acquainted with one another, sym- pathize with one another, counsel and help one another in trials, troubles, and difficulties of life. In order to do this, they must know one another. Every member of a congre- gation ought to know every other member of that congre- gation — know him as a man, a brother, in fellowship and harmony with every other member; ought to know his weakness and strength, his wants and his abilities. Read Paul's description of the intimate relations of the members of the same body, and ask yourself if our ordi- nary congregations in which half the members have no ac- quaintance with or care for the other half is not a base bur- lesque on everything like true church fellowship — true brotherly sympathy and true Christian helpfulness one of. another. The object of the church with reference to the world is to convert it to Christ. In proportion to numbers, wealth, and talents, the smaller-sized congregations, when content to conform themselves to the ends of church existence as laid down in the Scriptures and herein set forth, are much more efficient in converting the world than the large ones. It is only when they attempt unscriptural ends that they are less efficacious than large ones in proportion to numbers. 126 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, When they attempt to be places of fashionable resort and to furnish attractive entertainment for the irreligious in and out of the church, they are less efficient than moderate- sized congregations. But in the Scriptures there are absolutely no restrictions or regulations to determine how near together, or how far apart, how few or how numerous, congregations shall be. We are opposed unalterably to any restrictions where God has imposed none. What he has left to human judgment must be decided by human judgment, without laws or reg- ulations from any. That mistakes in this, as in all matters that are left to human discretion, occur, we believe. That they as often occur in maintaining but one congregation where several ought to exist as in having two or three where there ought to be but one, we fully believe. If two or three or a dozen worshiping assemblies ought to exist under one official board, it would inevitably resolve itself into one bishop or ruler over all, with one or more subordinates in each worshiping assembly. This is dio- cesan prelacy, and our Methodist friends are right in hav- ing an elder over a number of churches in a district. And we cannot see any objection to having these districts under a still higher official, a bishop, and these under a still higher authority, with one or more heads. It seems to me this idea necessarily leads to the destruction of congregational ex- istence, and does not lead to, but is itself, the metropolitan- ism that culminated in the papacy. It is right for congregations to plant new churches around them, to watch and care for them until they can care for themselves. The innate love of power in man tempts him to retain control over these new churches as adding to his power and dignity. Hence the growth in primitive times of dioceses around the cities, with the bishop of the city church bishop of all the churches around planted by the city church. The work of planting churches around and caring for them ought to be done, but the evil that grows out of it ought to be guarded against. We certainly think, if, in the judgment of the congrega- tion, it is better that two or three different worshiping as- sembles should exist within a certain territory, whether in city or country, it is better that each should have its own distinct eldership so soon as talent for this work is devel- oped in the worshiping assembly. One law applies to both city and country. These church plantings ought not to be done factiously, but by the agreement of the congregation. Action on this matter ought to be governed by the Scripture laws of unity and deference and submission one to another. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 127 3. As to the points involved in these queries, I would cer- tainly say the Church Street congregation is a scriptural church. So is the one in East Nashville. So would the one on Gay Street be, if not based upon a color line or race an- tipathies. 4. The Scriptures certainly teach it is right for the church to pecuniarily reward elders, bishops, deacons, or any other class of persons who labor for the church, who spend time and talent for the church so as to interfere with their making a livelihood at other callings. And I cannot regard as honest and manly any church or individual that would appropriate or even accept the service of any indi- vidual in any capacity and then according to ability refuse or fail to reward him for his time and service. Every hon- est and manly spirit in a church desires to bear his share in all church service and burdens. This does not, however, justify a Christian in refusing to do a needed work in his power if others refuse to do their duty. He must do his duty as he is able and leave the others with themselves and with God. The double honor to which the elders who labor in word and doctrine are entitled, embraces, beyond all doubt, pecuniary help. The principle is laid down, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn" — that is, he who serves in the affairs of the church, from sweeping the floor to teach- ing the members, is, according to the ability of the church and his services and needs, entitled to live out of the offer- ings to the church. 5. We do not believe an evangelist ought to be a perma- nent teacher in a church with scriptural bishops or elders. No one is perfect in his work; some most excellent elders or bishops fail themselves to be competent laborers in word and doctrine. It is their duty when not able to fully teach to secure the needed teaching from others. It is right for them to call in the services of an evangelist who is capable of rendering the needed teaching. But this should only be temporary. D. L. CIRCUMCISION, HOW NOTHING. Brother Sewell: (1) In 1 Cor. 7: 19 we find the following: "Cir- cumcision is nothing, . . . but the keeping of the commandments of God." Does not this seem to lessen the importance of keeping the commandments? (2) In Matt. 13: 10 the disciples asked Jesus: "Why speakest thou unto them in parables?" He said: "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries, . . . but to them it is not given." How about this? (1) I do not see that the passage you name underesti- mates the commands of God in any sense. The apostle had 128 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, just been teaching husbands and wives to remain husbands and wives and faithfully live the Christian life, and for the believing husband or wife not to leave the unbelieving one, but that they should live on together, and that in that way the one not a Christian may also be converted and saved. Then he went on to teach the Jewish and Gentile Christians not to have any trouble over circumcision ; that the Jewish Christians were to recognize Gentile Christians without any regard to circumcision, and Gentiles to do likewise toward the Jews; that circumcision was nothing, as it had ceased with the law of Moses and was no longer in force, as is taught elsewhere. But the thing for all of them to do was to go right on continuing to obey the commandments of God in living the Christian life. The apostle did not mean in this passage the commands of the law of Moses, for these were already set aside. He meant the commands of God in the new covenant, not the old; that they should not break fellowship as Christians over any of the relations named in that connection, but should continue to obey the word of God in living the Christian life. (2) In this passage Jesus was talking to his disciples, and did not mean that God had passed by others in like cir- cumstances as they had been, and that he did for those dis- ciples what he did not for others in the same condition they had been in. Their superior condition was evidently from the fact that the disciples had utilized the light as it had been given. When John, the immerser, gave the first light regarding the kingdom of heaven, they embraced it, ac- cepted what John preached ; then when Christ came into his public ministry, they accepted him as a divine teacher, and had continued with him, listening to his wonderful teaching, and thus learning more and more, and still remaining with him, catching items day by day regarding the coming king- dom, thus utilizing every opportunity to learn things con- cerning the kingdom of heaven. But the masses of the Jewish people closed their eyes and ears against every ray of light that had been thus far developed, and were still in darkness because they would not accept the light as it shone out around them. This same state of things continued. The disciples still needed the light as little by little it shone upon them till Jesus had died, and the Holy Spirit came mightily upon the apostles and through them completed all needed light regarding the whole matter of human redemp- tion and the kingdom of heaven. And to this day the same s\ BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 129 principle is true. The New Testament contains the full light of Christianity, and yet only a few open their eyes and ears and take it in, and will die in their sins, it being wholly their own fault. God is still holding out the light, but the masses continue to refuse it. COLLECTION, THE, ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. Brother Lipscomb: Please explain 1 Cor. 16: 2. Does it mean for each member of the church of Christ to lay by for himself or her- self, as the case may be, or does it mean that each one must cast into the treasury upon the first day of every week? Please tell, also, to what the term gatherings refers. Does it refer to gathering up their nickels and dimes, or does it refer to the people's coming together? I copy this from page 553 of the Gospel Advocate for 1903: "There certainly is a word that means 'putting it into the treasury/ First they are commanded: 'Upon the first day of the week let each one place [tithetoo, a verb meaning to place, in the imperative mood] by itself, put- ting it into the treasury [thesauridzoon, a participle from the verb which means to treasure up, or to place in the treasury for safe-keeping'].' Thesauridzoo is defined to store, to treasure up, to lay up in store, to preserve. The noun thesauros is defined a store laid up, treasure, a store- house or treasure house, magazine; in Herodotus, especially, the treasury of a temple, any receptacle for valuables, a chest, a casket. The word meaning put it into the treasury after it is placed by itself is certainly in the sentence, and the only question that can arise is : Was it to be placed in the man's own treasury or that of the church?" To place by itself means "to separate it from what he keeps as his own," to take it out of his own treasury. Then it is to be placed in the treasury, "that there be no gatherings when I come." It can mean nothing else than it must be placed in the treasury of the church ready for Paul when he reached Corinth. COLLECTION, HOW TO BE TAKEN. Brother Lipscomb: There is some trouble here about the way the collections are made. Some of the brethren want to go forward and lay it on the table after partaking of the Lord's Supper, while some of them want to pass the plate and conduct the ordinance as the sects do. I have never found a word of direction as to how the con- tribution was made — whether it was put under the table or on the table or whether there was any table at all or not. I think the service would be acceptable if it was performed in a stable, in a barn, or in the mountain cove where nei- ther tables nor baskets were ever seen. Some of the col- 130 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, lections were placed at the feet of the apostles. When peo- ple undertake to make laws how things should be done where God has made none, they commit sin. When the Lord tells a thing shall be done without telling how to do it, he expects men to do it the best way they can. It is no sin to wear clothes like the sects wear, nor to live in houses like the sects live in, nor to eat food like the seats eat, and I do not see it is any harm to place a collection in the plate, in a basket on the table or under the table, if the sects do it. Brethren who fuss over such untaught questions are very anxious for a fuss. Had God a special way for doing it, he would have let it be known. Do it the way that it can be done with least trouble to all. COMING, THE SECOND, OF CHRIST. Brother Sewell: I preached at Bellwood to-day, and found before I left the church house that there was considerable controversy with the brethren about Rev: 1: 7, which reads thus: "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen." The question is this: Does this verse point forward to the second coming 1 of Christ or back to the destruction of Jerusalem? If it refers to Jerusalem, what mean these expressions: "And every eye shall see him," "and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him?" Now, those brethren know that no man's final salvation de- pends upon a knowledge of this verse; still, they are endeavoring to obey the injunction, "Study," that they may learn all they can and do all they learn. They have agreed to leave it to your pen. Can the above have a twofold meaning and refer to both? We think it clear from all the surroundings that the com- ing of the Lord mentioned here is yet in the future and has reference to the end of the world and the final judgment. In the first place, according to the best chronology we can get, this passage was written some twenty-five years after the destruction of Jerusalem had taken place. Jerusalem was destroyed about the year 71, and this passage was writ- ten in 96, and for this reason could not refer to the destruc- tion of Jerusalem, unless there were something in connec- tion with the passage to refer us backward in regard to time. And there is nothing of the sort; but, on the con- trary, the indications in the connection are that future time is meant. The first verse says: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John." This shows that the revelations made to John pertained to the future at the time they were made. This puts the coming of Christ spoken of unquestionably in the future. And, in the next place, the language of the passage itself puts BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 131 the event in the future, such as, "and every eye shall see him" and "all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him." The expressions shall see, shall wail refer to future time — something that was to take place after the language was used ; and it was used or told through John long after the destruction of Jerusalem, and still says they shall see him. Christ himself taught while here on earth, as in Matt. 25 : 31, 32: "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all nations : and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats." All nations of all time will be gathered before the judgment seat, and the wicked of all nations will wail because of him, know- ing that they will be condemned by him. They that pierced him will be in that assembly and will see him, and we have no doubt but this is the coming referred to. What is said in the passage cannot be made to harmonize with any other occasion that ever occurred on this earth; but everything mentioned in the passage will perfectly harmonize with every passage that can be found on the subject of Christ's final coming to judge the world ; and when we get the true meaning of the passage, it fully agrees with every other one on the same subject. E. G. S. COMMANDMENT, BREAKING ONE. Brother Lipscomb : Please explain James 2 : 10. Does it mean that he who breaks one of the commandments is guilty of the sin of break- ing all of them? Is it required of the sinner in turning to God, be- fore obeying the gospel, to restore everything gotten fraudulently? If so, how can a person who has spent a number of years cheating and defrauding ever make reparation? It means the same as Jesus : "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5: 19.) That is, when a man presumes to change the least of God's appointments, he assumes the right to change the laws of God, and that is as bad as to change the whole law. When one assumes to change or nul- lify a command of God, he assumes the position which be- longs to God alone. It is not required to undo his evil doings before he can come to God. He is required to repent, to change his pur- pose, to cease to sin. His life after he comes into Christ is to be spent in doing works worthy of his repentance. No matter how much a man has wronged others, he has 132 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, wronged God much more. He has cheated and defrauded God every day he lives in sin, and the highest obligation is to turn and correct his wrong against God and then go for- ward to correct those against man. He is to correct all as soon as it is in his power. COMMANDMENTS, ARE THE TEN, STILL IN FORCE? Please explain through the columns of the Gospel Advocate the law of the Ten Commandments. You say they have been abolished and taken out of the way. I want to know in what sense they have been taken out of the way. Do you not think they are binding on us? Do you not think it wrong to violate any of the Ten Commandments? The Scriptures plainly declare that the ministration writ- ten on stones has been done away. (Gal. 3: 7-11.) These commandments of the law were taken out of the way, nailed to the cross, by the Son of God. The law given prior to the coming of Jesus is not in force now. It was a schoolmas- ter to bring us to Christ. When Christ was come, then the law was taken out of the way. We are no longer under the schoolmaster. The ten commands, as given by Moses, are taken out of the way as part of this law. The same com- mands are binding on us now only so far as they are re- peated, reenacted, by Jesus Christ. They are in force, not because commanded in the law by Moses, but because com- manded in the gospel of Jesus Christ. To what extent have these laws been reenacted in the New Testament or com- manded by Christ? The principle embodied in all of them, except the law to keep the Sabbath, has been reenacted by Christ in the New Testament — the same laws in different language. The Sabbath was the seventh day (Saturday) under the Christian dispensation. The first day of the week was set apart as the day for public worship of God. We do not doubt that the example of consecrating one day to the service of God, as set forth in the observance of the Sabbath, indicates that one day should be devoted to that service ; but the day is not the same, nor are the rules reg- ulating it the same. COMMON, ALL THINGS IN. Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Please explain Acts 2: 44, 45, which reads as follows : "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." I want to know if that means that we shall sell all that we have or not, or only give to those that cannot help themselves, or those who are afflicted. The passage teaches plainly that the disciples at Jerusa- lem sold their possessions and had all things common. But BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 133 other passages, in other places, teach plainly enough that it was not a fixed and universal law that all Christians should do so. But Christians should hold what they have in read- iness to be used for the cause of the Master when needed. "CONCEIVED IN SIN," HOW. Brother Sewell: Please give in the Gospel Advocate an exegesis of Ps. 51: 5, which reads as follows: "I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." David did not mean that he was born a sinner, as some would have us believe; nor do I suppose he meant to say that his mother was a sinner when he was conceived. This psalm is supposed to be the confession and prayer of David after his sin with the wife of Uriah and he had Uriah put to death. But while none are born sinners, all men through weakness of the flesh are liable to sin, and are required at all times to guard against sin. David had this weakness, this susceptibility to sin; and so did his mother, and so do all men and women. All have this weakness, and David was making a full confession of his sin and praying God to have mercy upon him, and was thus presenting this general weakness, or liability to sin, in all men, even in himself, and that he, like all others, inherited this weakness, and very earnestly confesses it and prays God to forgive him — to blot out his iniquity. The passage certainly has no ref- erence to hereditary total depravity, as has generally been claimed. It is only a full confession of his sin and a presen- tation of the susceptibility in all human beings to sin, and that he had fallen under that same weakness. CONFESSED, WHEN MUST CHRIST BE? Brother Sewell: A and B become members of the church. A con- fessed Christ before baptism; B confessed after baptism. Which ren- dered acceptable obedience? There are two or three things to be considered in this question. In the first place, is a formal confession of Christ a condition of pardon, of becoming a Christian? If it is, then it would be necessary to ascertain where God has placed it — that is, if God has given any specific order in which the conditions of pardon are to come. It is easy to determine that faith is a condition of pardon and that it is the first step to be taken after hearing the gospel. Jesus said to the apostles: "Preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." It comes before baptism ; that is certain. But in another passage it is equally certain that repentance also comes before bap- 134 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, tism, and it comes between the act of believing and of being baptized ; for, on the day of Pentecost, Peter said to believ- ers who had asked what to do, "Repent, and be baptized," showing that repentance comes between the first act of be- lieving and that of being baptized. These two passages show three conditions of pardon, and the order in which they come in the sinner's obedience — first, faith ; second, re- pentance ; third, to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. No one that believes the Bible can question that these three things are conditions of salvation, nor can he question that the above is the order in which they come in obedience to the gospel. But when we look in the same chapter, which contains an account of the conversion of about three thousand souls, for the formal confession, we fail to find it mentioned in any way. Now, if a formal confession is a condition of pardon, is it not strange that it should be en- tirely left out on so important an occasion ? But such is the case ; and this fact of itself is sufficient to start a doubt as to whether it is a condition of pardon or not. We also look on over the thousands more that were con- verted till we get to the latter part of Acts 8. There, in the King James Version, we find a formal confession made by the eunuch. But when we look into other and later ver- sions, we do not find it. It is left out of the version called "Living Oracles" and out of the late Revised Version, and is said to be wanting in the oldest and most authentic manu- scripts. Yet there are said to be some manuscripts that have it. But many of those said to be the best scholars leave it out. So, leaving that out, there is not a case in all the cases of conversion on record in the days of the apostles that has it, and there is no allusion to it in the Epistles that definitely makes out such a case. These facts, to say the very least, cast some doubt as to the confession being a condition of pardon. But preachers have only a right to baptize believers, and they need to be careful not to baptize unbelievers. This being true, and the fact that the eunuch's confession is said to be in some ancient manuscripts, there is no better way, or one that has any better show of scripture, than for every preacher to have one desiring to be baptized to make this confession be- fore baptism. This would be positive evidence to the preacher that the one to be baptized is a believer. So we always call for this confession unless we have undoubted evidence that the one to be baptized has already made the confession. But while we think it proper to say this much in favor of the confession before baptism, we would not intimate that a believing penitent baptized without this con- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 135 fession would not be saved, nor that it would be better for him to make it afterwards to fill out something lacking. But we do understand that every child of God should be ready at all times through his whole life to confess Christ with the mouth when need requires and to stand ^for him and die for his sake if need be. CONFESSION, IS IT ESSENTIAL? Do you think the confession is essential, and must it be made with the mouth? When and where do the sects make the confession? "The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart : that is, the word of faith, which we preach ; that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believ- eth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Rom. 10: 8-10.) This is the scrip- ture requiring confession. It is addressed to the Christians at Rome. Whether it refers to a formal confession before baptism, I somewhat doubt, for the following reasons: In the commission, in its fulfillment on the day of Pentecost, and in the examples of conversion presented in the Acts of the Apostles there is no example of a formal confession be- ing required as a precedent to baptism, unless the case of the eunuch be regarded as such. In reference to this, it is claimed by the textuary cities generally that the confes- sion there recorded is an interpolation. The context and circumstances would indicate that just such a confession was made. It is also clear that Philip was not seeking a formal confession, but evidence of faith. Whatever con- fession was made came in response to this seeking. The natural evidence of faith in the heart is the confession with the mouth. When Philip said, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest," the natural response would be: "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." But it was made to manifest the presence of faith, not to make a for- mal confession. But if this does not require the confes- sion, the singular fact is presented that in the Scriptures a condition of salvation is left out of all the precepts and ex- amples concerning remission and is to be found only in a reference in a letter to Christians as to what had been re- quired. Then it is necessary that at every step of the reli- gious life, even after one has grown old in the service of the Lord, with the mouth confession must be made unto salva- tion and with the heart he must believe unto righteousness. He must live by and walk through faith unto the end. It is just as necessary that man should believe unto righteous- 136 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, ness with the heart the last day he lives as the first. By faith man is led forward at every step in the path of right- eousness, and at every step man must confess his faith in the Savior. It is necessary that confession of Christ should be made at all times or Christ will not own us ; but that any specific or formal confession was required before baptism, more than at any step of his religious life, is not clear. Confes- sion of Christ in our words is necessary. It is necessary in coming to Christ; it is necessary in all the Christian life. I am sure the questions and obedience on the day of Pente- cost were an acceptable confession. So at the house of Cor- nelius and in all other instances. Any words or acts that declare to the world that we believe in Christ and trust him as our Savior is a confession of him. D. L. CONFESSION, IS THERE A FORMAL? Brother Lipscomb: Will you please tell me why it is that the church of Christ requires the sinner to make a public confession as a condition of pardon from past sins in the absence of a command or example to do so in the New Testament? I never ask for a formal confession as a condition of for- giveness. I ask, "Do you believe ?" as an assurance of faith in Christ; and unless they believe in Christ, baptism is of no avail. I do not believe a formal confession was required by Jesus or the apostles in order to baptism, nor ought it to be done now with that purpose in view; but it is right to require faith in Christ as a condition of baptism and the remission of sins. The most direct way to obtain this is to ask them if they believe in Christ. CONFESSION OF SIN. Brother Mullinicks desires to know what we meant by saying: "We never could exactly see the necessity of con- fessing a public sin." To confess a thing is to make it known. We cannot exactly see the necessity of making a thing known that is already known. We are to confess our faults and to turn from them, make them known and indi- cate our willingness and purpose to quit them. Now, when a sin is well known, the thing is not to make it known, but to indicate or make known our purpose to quit the wrong. The confessing the fault is merely an incident to turning from it. The Bible requires us to confess or make known our sins that are concealed. Confessing faults must have reference to this. It requires us to repent of this course, to express our sorrow for it. This is confessing our re- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 137 pentance — making it known. When a sin is known, the sin is not to be confessed, but the repentance of that sin is the thing needed to be confessed or made known. But when a sin is not known, the sin itself is to be confessed. The confession of a sin is valuable only as it indicates a purpose to turn from it. Our purpose was to impress the idea that the fact that the fault must be confessed indicated clearly that it was a secret fault that was referred to. The con- fession of a fault well known would be merely an incident in the confession of our purpose to turn from the fault. D L. CONFESSION OF SIN, MUST IT BE PUBLIC? Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain through the Gos- pel Advocate if a brother sins against the church — say, for instance, drunkenness — and only confesses that sin to the elders and brethren privately, is that sufficient, or do the Scriptures require him to get up publicly and in person make a public confession of the sin he has com- mitted? A member who has done a public wrong, such as drunk- enness, is never humble enough to be forgiven till he is hum- ble enough to publicly take away the reproach that he has publicly brought upon the church. Whenever such men are ashamed to go before the whole church and make their con- fession there, either by their own mouth or through some one else while they are present, to give their personal sanc- tion to it, their repentance is not sincere, as we think, and there is not much hope of permanent reformation in such cases. A very deep and earnest repentance and humility are necessary to a reformation of life. And it is a false idea that men have that it is degrading to go before the con- gregation and publicly acknowledge a public wrong. The wrong itself is already public, already known by all the church, and the stain of it felt by all ; and all are entitled to hear the confession of the wrong and to enjoy the benefits resulting from such confession, which is calculated to have a good effect upon all in reminding them of the weakness of humanity. A man is doing himself incalculable injury in trying to hide a public offense. No one who does it is truly honest with himself, his brethren, or with his Lord and Master. He is only, therefore, adding the sin of hypocrisy and falsehood to the public sin committed when he attempts such a thing and is adding sin to sin. Let a man be a man and confess the whole truth, and then he is in a condition to be forgiven, both by the church and by our Heavenly Father. Christians are commanded to con- fess their faults one to another that they may be healed, and they should be honest, truthful, and faithful in so doing. 138 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, When the offense is wholly of a private character, only involving the rights of an individual member, then it may be sufficient to confess it to him alone ; or if it be an offense only against God, then let him go to God with it and con- fess it to him alone and pray for pardon, if he does not wish men to know it. The confession, therefore, must be to the full extent of the parties involved in and injured by the wrong, whether to one or more individuals, to the whole church, or to God ; and no dodging, hypocrisy, or falsehood should be indulged, as that only increases the man's guilt. CONSCIENCE VS. CONSCIENCE. Much has been written of late about "the law of love," conscience and conscientious convictions, in relation to church work. Your able pens have thrown much light on these questions, and I have much con- fidence in your ability to elucidate any dark subject. Now, please give us a solution of the following: A number of the members of a local congregation believe that individual and congregational efforts fall far short of what should be done for the Lord. Seeing much bet- ter results claimed by organized cooperation through a central com- mittee, they conscientiously believe it to be their duty to unite their congregation with those engaged in this organized cooperation. Other members of the same congregation believe that said organization is wrong and to unite with it is sinful on their part; hence they are con- scientiously opposed to uniting their congregation with those engaged in this cooperative work. Here we have conscience opposed to con- science. What is to be done but divide? Conscience against conscience — this is no unusual thing in this life. A man's conscience depends upon what he be- lieves to be right. Therefore a man's conscience depends upon the foundation of his faith. If a man's faith is founded upon what the word of God says, then his faith stands in the word and wisdom of God ; but if a man's faith is founded upon what men say outside of the word of God, then his faith stands in the words and wisdom of men only. The creeds say sprinkling and pouring are baptism, as well as a burial in water. It is only uninspired men who say sprinkling and pouring are baptism, while it is the word of God that says "buried with him by baptism into death." When a man believes that sprinkling and pouring are baptism, he only believes the words of men. His faith stands in the wisdom of men and not in the wisdom of God. Therefore his conscience, founded upon the word and wis- dom of men, cannot claim one thing in connection with it above man's wisdom. Such a conscience is worth nothing in the world to a man beyond human wisdom and human power. And since human wisdom is unable to direct man in religion, and since human power is unable to save a sin- gle soul, such a conscience is worth nothing, so far as sav- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 139 ing the soul is concerned. No matter how strongly con- scientious a man may be in these things, it is all human from beginning to end. But when a man believes that bap- tism is a burial, he believes what God says, and his faith, therefore, is founded in the word, the wisdom, and the power of God ; and his conscience, therefore, is upon God's word and power, and is worth to him all that the word, the wisdom, and the power of God are worth. Now, whose conscience in this matter ought to prevail ? The one that believes in sprinkling also believes in im- mersion ; and in giving up his conscience on sprinkling, he is only giving up what is human, the best that can be said of it. But the other man cannot give up the burial idea in baptism, because the word of God says that, and to give it up is to give up the word of God. This he cannot do. The man whose conscience is on sprinkling only gives up what men say, while he still retains what God says ; but the man whose conscience is on a burial for baptism has nothing else ; he does not believe that sprinkling is anything at all, having its foundation in uninspired men. If he gives up burial, he gives baptism up entirely, and thus rejects that much of the word of God and has nothing left that his con- science can stand on, while the sprinkler has the word of God left in all its fullness and power to stand on. Now, we say, again, whose conscience has the best foundation? In reality, the matter in which these consciences are op- posed to each other is only on what men say. Both accept what God says, while one accepts what men say and the other does not. Both are agreed so far as the burial is concerned and are one upon the word of God, and their con- sciences are one on that. Only on what men say do they differ. Both can give up what men say and lose nothing, but both cannot give up what God says without losing all. We regard the very same principle true in the matter re- ferred to above — that is, regarding missionary societies. The apostolic churches contributed of their means to sustain the cause. At Jerusalem the contributions were so liberal that all the strangers there as members and all the preach- ers were thus supported. The church at Antioch sent means to the suffering in Judea. The church at Corinth and the churches in Macedonia, by the directions of the apostle Paul, also sent contributions to the poor saints in Jerusalem, and the contributions were made by them on the first day of the week ; and this was all done by the word of God, and not by a missionary society ; and if there were any poor preachers among the poor saints at Jerusalem, they 140 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, were fed and sustained with the others and just like any other poor. Again, we read in the word of the Lord that the church at Philippi sent to Paul's necessities once and again. This was all done by the church, and not by a missionary society. These things we read in the word of God, and are at the same time told both what the churches did and how they did it. But there is not one word said about a missionary so- ciety in the whole history of the church of God in the New Testament. The man, therefore, that believes the churches, as such, should support the poor and sustain preachers in sounding out the word of God has his faith founded in the word of God, and a conscience founded on this faith is founded on the word and wisdom of God, and he can as easily give up the words of eternal truth as to give up his conscience founded on them. God is the author of such a conscience. But the man who believes in a missionary society formed by men believes in what men say, and his faith stands in the words and wisdom of men, and of men only, and unin- spired men at that ; and a conscience resulting from such faith as this is a conscience from men only. God has noth- ing to do in forming any such a conscience. It is also true that the society man believes it to be right to work through the churches and as churches, so that in what God says the faith and consciences of these two men have the very same foundation. Both are from God and by his word and his authority. The trouble in the matter is that one of the men has another conscience, that is formed only upon the words and wisdom of men, and he can give up this and not lose a thing that comes from God ; but the other man, whose con- science is founded only on what God says, cannot yield his conscience without giving up the word of God that will stand when every missionary society ever formed by men will sink into oblivion. No man who has his conscience formed upon the word of God can afford to give it up. His eternal all depends upon keeping the word of God; but no man's salvation depends upon doing what men say, nor does any man believe such a thing. Therefore no man has a conscience on missionary societies that he believes his soul's salvation depends upon. Society men admit this much by saying : "God has revealed no plan of spreading the gospel ; this is all left to man's own wisdom." If God has revealed no plan at all, then it is cer- tain he has not revealed the society. The difference, then, in the two opposing consciences in these things is that one is founded upon the word of God, BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 141 and thus comes from God, is formed by the power, word, and wisdom of God, and is, therefore, as abiding as the throne of God, if the man will continue to stand firmly upon it ; but the other is founded upon the words and wisdom of men, and is, therefore, from men and by men, and worth nothing under the heavens to any man so far as his salva- tion is concerned, and nothing is lost by giving it up. E. G. S. CONTRADICTION, NO. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I want you to give me some help on the Scriptures. The infidels have a pick at me, claiming that the Scriptures do not harmonize. They say one of the writers said that Judas went and hanged himself, and another said he fell headlong and his bowels gushed out. Please help me to harmonize this. The passages are both true and no contradiction between them. All we have to do is to believe both, and in so doing we have the full history. Matthew tells us that he hanged himself. This is true. But Matthew does not pretend to tell all that occurred. Luke comes in and tells us of his falling headlong, bursting asunder in the midst, and of his bowels gushing out. This falling, doubtless, occurred after the hanging. Instead of being taken down after he was hanged, he fell down and burst asunder, etc. So there is no sort of contradiction here. E. G. S. CONTRIBUTION, THE LORD'S-DAY. What is the proper time during the Lord's-day meeting to make the contribution? 2. What is the proper or right way to make the contribution? 3. Is it right to appoint a brother to take the contribution and hold him as treasurer and pay it out as the congregation orders it done? In short, is it right to put in our contributions publicly or give them to our treasurer privately? Some of our brethren think that we ought to lay by in store, but not hand it out till the church orders it. We are somewhat divided on the last point. 1. There is perhaps no better time to make the contribu- tion than just after taking the Lord's Supper. We know many congregations which do this, and we think it very ap- propriate. 2. As to the manner of making the contribution, we think it does not matter whether the members walk up to the table to contribute or whether the deacons carry bas- kets around to them as they do the bread and wine. The contribution, as we understand it, is a part of the worship of Christians on the first day of the week ; and it should be done decently and in order as worship of Christians on the first day of the week. Christians need not be afraid to handle money on the Lord's day if they do it with the proper 142 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, motive. The doing of what God has commanded to be done is worship to him, and he has commanded the contribution on the first day of the week, and to attend to it is worship. 3. It is certainly right to appoint some faithful brother to serve the church as treasurer, to keep a strict account of all money paid into the treasury, and to pay out as the elders may direct, and keep an account of all that is paid out also. In this way all that is done is done by the congre- gation. And surely the money ought to be paid in regularly on the first day of the week, so it will be ready when needed and not have to be gathered when the time comes that it ought to be paid out. Paul told the Corinthians to have their means by the time he should come and not have to gather it up after his arrival. CONTRIBUTION, IS IT BINDING ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK? Are we doing our duty when we refuse to contribute on the first day of the week? I meet with brethren almost every day who take the position that this was only binding in the apostolic age. If this is so, cannot we with the same propriety say that the command to for- sake not the assembling of ourselves together on the first day of the week has reference to the same period of time? There can be no mistake but that the command to con- tribute of our means to advance the cause of God on the first day of the week is as binding now as it was when Paul uttered it, and all who love the Lord well enough to esteem it a privilege to give of their means for the good of his cause will so regard it ; but those that love their money and property more than they love the Lord will always find some excuse for not giving. Arguments will not convince such, for they will not listen to them. The first thing to be done with such is to work upon their hearts and get them to love their Savior, to love his cause, and to love the souls of men, and to be willing to sacrifice their own personal inter- est in behalf of others, and then there will be no further trouble. Let them once realize that it is more blessed to give than to receive, and they will seek opportunities to give instead of waiting to be convinced that it is right. Those that love the world more than they love the Savior and his religion are deceiving themselves if they suppose that they are on the road to heaven ; and the sooner they know it, the better for them. E. G. S. CO-OPERATE, HOW CHURCHES. It is clear that the teachers sent messengers to the churches to make known their needs and to stir the churches to activity in the work of God. Paul not only did this, but BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 143 with Titus as a messenger, sent by Paul to the church at Corinth, was sent another brother, whose praise is through- out the churches. "Whether any do inquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellow helper concerning you [in stirring you up to activity in the grace of giving] : or our brethren be inquired of, they are the messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ. Wherefore show ye to them, and be- fore the churches, the proof of your love, and of our boast- ing on your behalf." These messengers were sent by the churches which were raising this fund for the poor to aid Titus in stirring them up. This shows plainly that churches, seeing the necessity of a work that they were not able to accomplish, did send messengers to other churches to induce them to engage in the work. But in carrying out the work of the joint cooperation of these churches, they did not lose their church identity, did not form a joint organization, did not send delegates to a common meeting to act for the churches. They did not surrender the control and dispensation of their bounty to a joint committee, not even to the apostle Paul. All worked in harmony and cooperated together, but each church raised its own funds by each member contributing as the Lord prospered, on the first day of the week, into the treasury. Then each church appointed its own messengers to carry and distribute its own funds, and each church wrote letters commending its own messengers to those to whom the ben- efit was sent. It was the farthest possible from an organized association of churches through delegates or from a voluntary associ- ation formed of the individuals willing to work from dif- ferent churches into one new organization. A messenger differs widely from a delegate or agent. A messenger bears a message to and returns a response. A messenger carried a message as to what the church sending desired to do and what aid it needed, and received and re- turned the response to the church which sent him. When this was done, his mission to the churches expired. He had no discretionary authority to suggest, discuss, or advise plans. The church acted as a whole in sending the mes- sage, and the other church as a whole in receiving, acting on, and responding to it. The whole work was carried on as between churches or an individual and a church. A messenger differs from a delegate as a page in a legis- lative body does from a member of a conference commit- tee, as a bearer of dispatches does from a minister pleni- potentiary between nations. A messenger is one who sim- ply carries a message. A delegate is one who is delegated 144 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, or invested with authority to consider, investigate, and counsel with the body to whom he is delegated, or with fel- low delegates, and decide what is best. He is authorized to recommend and act for the body which delegated him. One has authority to devise and determine for the body dele- gating him; the other conveys the wishes or decisions al- ready made by the body. A delegate is authorized to act for the church; a messenger bears an account of actions already taken by the church. A meeting of delegates is a meeting of persons invested with the conjoint authority of the churches or bodies send- ing delegates. A meeting of delegates represents the con- joint authority of the churches who sent the delegates. It possesses the authority of all the churches combined. This, of course, is an authority greater than that of any one sin- gle church represented in the body. There never was a meeting composed of delegates from a dozen bodies that did not feel itself possessed of greater authority than any one of the single bodies represented in the matters concern- ing which they were delegated to act, simply because there is more force and weight in twelve than in one. Where these delegate meetings continue, they gradually engross more and more of the authority, and in all points of doubt as to where authority is lodged the higher body exerts the authority or power. No better example of that can be found than in the Congress of the United States in relation to the States. It takes no theory to cause this to be so. Men the most strenuous in theory for States' rights, when elected members of the general government, have been al- most as ready to assume power for the greater body as those who theorize differently. It just means that in the nature of every human being there is an instinct that prompts the stronger to overrule and control the weaker. Human nature will have to be more radically regenerated than it ever has been yet to prevent a delegation from a dozen or more congregations feeling that it possesses more authority than any one of the churches sending a delegate. Every body as naturally and as surely magnifies its office and extends its authority and power as human nature works for self. Now, the messenger was used by the preachers in send- ing to the churches to let them know their condition and wants; was used by the church in sending help to the preachers; was sent by the teacher to the churches to stir them up to their duty in helping the poor saints in a dis- tant country; was sent by one church to excite others to aid it in a work which it was not able to do alone. The BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 145 examples and proofs of this are clear and unequivocal. And this style of cooperation answered all the needs of the early churches — weak, few in numbers, and poor, yet scat- tered all over the known world. Through these simple means of cooperation, in an age without facilities for travel or intercommunication between nations, and with narrow, but strong, race prejudices to hinder the spread of knowl- edge from one tribe, nation, or country to another, with but little knowledge of each other's language, the gospel spread from tribe to tribe, from city to city, race to race, country and nation to country and nation, until within the lifetime of an individual the known world was permeated with a knowledge of the gospel of the Son of God. He who denies that the same means will spead the gospel in this or any age to people ready to receive it lacks faith in God. D. L. CO-OPERATION, CHURCH. Brother Lipscomb: Do you regard the movement among our churches which are becoming "living-link" churches — that is, those churches which support missionaries direct — as scriptural? If you object, on what ground? If you favor it, then would it not be a good plan to urge upon all the strong churches? Where no single church is able to send a missionary, would you object to two, three, four, or five churches uniting and sending one? Would it not be a good plan for the brethren opposed to the society to adopt? What we ought to do is to endeavor to have this work done. We may not agree as to the methods of doing the work, but we all agree that the work should be done. It seems to me that you could work along this line. If not, why not? I believe each church able to do so should sustain a mis- sionary or missionaries, both home and foreign. There is no distinction as to these in the Bible. But when churches go into associations so as to build up these human societies that take the work out of the hands of the churches, they so do it as to make it support evil. The idea that honors and trusts, office and authority, are to be given to men by virtue of the money paid is so abhorrent to all the teachings and principles of the Scriptures that it amounts to a rejec- tion of God. Suppose the State were to sell its offices and posts of honor to the highest bidder, what would be thought of it? What corruption would it work! It is ten thou- sand times more out of harmony with the Christian religion. What is the difference in principle between selling indul- gences to sin and selling positions of trust and influence in the church for money? Any association that does this is antichristian in its fundamental and leading principle. This whole effort to amass sums under the control of a few men who pay for the right to direct and control it is cor- 146 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, rupting in its influence and must work corruption so long as human nature remains as it is. If Brother Kinkead is a reader of the Gospel Advocate, I do not see why he should ask this latter question. We have repeatedly and, continually advocated this cooperation of churches ; have given the example time and again of the three churches in Nashville, Tenn., agreeing to support Brother A. Paul in Armenia; and have given the example of the South College Street Church and the church at the Nashville Bible School carrying on the tent work in the sections around Nashville, by which seven churches were planted last year and other weak ones were strengthened, and an interest was aroused in still other places that will doubtless result in planting other churches. This year additional tents have been purchased, and the Tenth Street Church will cooperate, and we trust that greater work will be done. We have always urged this cooperative work on the churches. We did it at Chattanooga, Tenn., when the State society was first formed, and besought them to work in this way, in which unity and harmony would be pre- served. They refused to heed us and introduced the soci- ety, which has produced alienation, discord, and division among the people of God. I do not believe there has been a greater sin committed against God and his churches in Tennessee in the last fifty years than was the introduction of this unauthorized society, with its division and strife. One extreme begets another. In running from this or- ganization, others have run to the extreme of refusing all cooperation among churches in supporting missionaries. There is not the same danger in relying upon public ap- peals from and to individuals, because there is no organiza- tion formed; but such work will be always irregular and desultory. Two or three men can be supported by general public appeals ; but there ought to be hundreds of them en- gaged in such work, and there would be if the spirit of Christianity were active and alive. What a jargon it would be for a hundred men to be presenting each his separate claim to all the churches! Paul seems to have communi- cated with certain churches "as concerning giving and re- ceiving." I do not believe the work of sustaining mission- aries will be effectualy done until each congregation selects and sustains or helps to sustain its own missionary and makes his support its work, to be regularly and conscien- tiously attended to. Let each church as it is able support a preacher of the gospel. If one is not able to support one within itself, let it or them confer with one or more neigh- boring churches, and let so many as are needed to support BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 147 a man do it by regular contributions ; but by all means avoid associations that ignore and take the work out of the hands of the churches. In addition to the work mentioned, the Tenth Street Church encourages Brother Larimore to devote his time to the weak churches and destitute places in Nashville by supplementing what they may lack of giving him a support. This, with the individual sacrifices., is the work that has planted the churches all over the land. In Missouri, con- taining the largest number of churches and members of any State, out of fifteen hundred churches, over eleven hundred do not work through the societies, so the society publishes. There is a specious and misleading fallacy in the last paragraph. The devil always finds a specious reason when tempting Christ, whether in the fleshly or the spiritual body. Christ's work cannot be done through human inven- tions and devices. They may make a show of this work in some points ; but they so change and corrupt it in its vital point that it is not the work of God, but of man. God must do his own work. He does it through his own men and ap- pointments. For him to do it through human devices is to encourage men to set aside his institutions, laws, and appointments for those of man. He may overrule the hu- man so as to promote his honor ; but his honor comes only through the failure and destruction of the human, which he overrules to its destruction and to the honor of his king- dom and appointments. The success of the human is the overthrow of the divine; the success of the divine is the overthrow of the human. The two cannot grow together; we ' 'cannot serve two masters." D. L. CO-OPERATION, A PLAN OF, CHURCH. Brother Lipscomb : I have been an elder of the congregation at this place for twelve months. The church has been divided over the society question for two or three years. One of the elders is in sym- pathy with the society. He says he is willing for a society preacher or one that is not to preach, and thinks that the members ought to ac- cept a preacher from either side of the question. I was asked this morning by the elder if I would support a society preacher. I told him that I could not conscientiously do so. Please give me your views through the Gospel Advocate. I was told by a brother this morning that you said you had a scriptural plan; that you had been asked seven years ago to publish it, but had been silent. The plan spoken of is for spreading the gospel and raising money. When that brother or any other states that I failed to give a plan for scriptural cooperation, tell him he either will- fully or ignorantly misrepresents. If ignorantly, he is without excuse in it; for I presented a written plan to the first State convention the society folks held in Tennessee, 148 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, at Chattanooga. The convention appointed a committee of seven to hear and report on it. Not one of them raised an objection to it, save that it was not the only way author- ized. But I freely state that I have no faith in any plans or efforts to formulate a plan except to fill men's hearts with the Spirit of God, infuse a love for saving souls into the hearts of Christians, and let each, under the providence of God, do the work in the way that his own talent leads him. Men cannot be hired to preach the gospel. If they will not preach it without hire, they will not with it. So the work of churches and Christians is to encourage and help all who show determination to preach the gospel. On the subject of inviting persons to preach, as a rule, those who favor societies may say they favor all preaching, but they say and do not. I never knew of them inviting a preacher to preach for them that they do not consider fully identified with them on this subject. We have only a few churches in Middle Tennessee committed to the socie- ties. Most of the preachers in this section are opposed to them. If one of these churches ever invited a preacher op- posed to the societies, I have never heard of it. Sometimes, when a church is divided in sentiment, they will agree to those they regard as noncommittal on the subject, but sel- dom agree to a man who is known to oppose the societies. Yet they stand in an attitude entirely different to the ques- tion from those opposed to them. None of them believe it wrong to preach the gospel without the societies, yet they oppose those who do it. Those who believe the societies sin- ful cannot encourage those building them up without par- taking of what they regard as sinful. "To him that esteem- eth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." (Rom. 14: 14.) Not now arguing whether the society is sinful or not, how can a man who believes it so encourage those who are urging it and dividing churches to build it up? No greater evil now exists among men than the disposition to compromise the truth of God to please men. No man can be true to God unless he is true to what he believes God re- quires. It is a sin, a terrible sin, for a man to divide a church of God ; but when standing firm for the truth of God divides a church, God divides it. He divides it because part of it, by departing from his order or adding to his appoint- ments, has ceased to be of his church. Those who stand by his order constitute his church, if there be but one. The faithful adherence to God's order makes a man a member of God's church. Conscious and willful departure from his order puts him out of his church, if a million are guilty. Be true to your convictions of duty to God, and he will bless BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 149 you. Then all forbearance and kindness should be exer- cised in the discussion and settling of these questions ; but for a man to give up what he believes to be the truth of God or in any way to approve and encourage what he be- lieves to be not of God is to give up God. CORINTHIANS, FIFTH CHAPTER OF FIRST. Brother Sewell: My class at the Lord's-day worship requested me to write you and ask you to give some instruction on 1 Cor. 5, as we could not all come to the same conclusion as to its teaching. This chapter gives the case of a member of the church at Corinth that had his father's wife, a sin that Paul says was not in practice even among the Gentiles. He, therefore, tells them to withdraw from him, or, as he expresses it, to "turn him over to Satan," which evidently means with- drawal. No church can allow such wickedness to be car- ried on in it and hold the respect even of the heathen. He intimates that even heathen people themselves would not tolerate such a course and commands them emphatically, as an inspired apostle, to put that wicked man away from among them. At that time the church at Corinth had just come out from heathen idolatry, and they were not as wide awake against such things as they should have been, and needed a positive drilling on the subject, and Paul gave it with no uncertain sound. The object to be accomplished was not to be regarded as simply a punishment inflicted, but as an effort to save the one that had sinned. And such should be the design of all church discipline now. The apostle also gives them to understand that his instruction as to their action in such a case meant a member of the church, as they could not deal with outsiders. They were even forbidden to eat with a church member that would do such a thing. As to whether this eating meant the Lord's Supper or only a common meal is a question with many. Some apply it only to the Lord's Supper ; but most likely it was intended to include all social intercourse with such members as this offender was, and that would include not only the Lord's Supper, but common social meals. Faithful members of the church cannot afford to associate with such a vile member as the above, even to eat a social meal with him ; for to do this would be to encourage such a one in his wicked course. It shows that the church of God must be kept pure by all its members, showing also that the whole church would soon become corrupt if wicked members were to be treated as if they were all right. This chapter, there- fore, is a very fine lesson on practical Christianity, both as to the private lives and relationships of the members and 150 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, as to the general purity of the whole church as the body of Christ in that community ; and if all Christians would care- fully study and practice the lessons of this chapter, the cause of Christianity would certainly advance rapidly and many more souls would be saved. CORNELIUS AND THE JEWS' RELIGION. In your article on "What Shall I Do to Be Saved?" in the Gospel Advocate you say of Cornelius: "He worshiped according to the Jews' religion." Are you not mistaken in this? I have always been of the opinion, for various reasons which I cannot give now, that he wor- shiped after the patriarchal religion, which God did not abrogate when he called Abraham, but which he left to the Gentiles, while he gave the Jews a new religion. I find no evidence of a worship perpetuated among the Gentiles after the Mosaic law was given. The whole drift of the Scriptures is that the Jews alone were accepted wor- shipers of God. And every one who worshiped the true and living God must enter into the family and worship as a Jew. There was no such worship as the patriarchal wor- ship, save as God spoke directly to the father and he guided his family. If God, all through the Jewish age, was speak- ing directly to the fathers of any families, the Jews en- joyed no advantage over them, and the Jews did not pos- sess the oracles of God. I think the idea that there was an acceptable worship of God through patriarchs down to the coming of Christ entirely without foundation. Of course for a time there were corrupted forms of the worship of God maintained among the nations, but even before God called Abraham his family had gone into idolatry. He called Abraham out and separated him from these influences that he might deliver him from idolatry. The others waxed worse and worse. Some Gentiles, from their contiguity and association with the Jews, retained more or less of the knowledge of the true God and kept up a form of worship of him derived from the Jewish Scriptures without entering into or becoming proselytes to the Jewish family. Corne- lius was one of these. God saw his earnestness and sincer- ity, and chose him on this account and of his prominence to in him settle the question of the admission of the Gen- tiles into the church of God. Cornelius was not the first Gentile brought into the church. Those scattered abroad at the persecution of Stephen went everywhere preaching. "Some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 151 the Lord." Of this work the apostles seemed to take no cognizance until after the admission of Cornelius. When this was done, they sent Barnabas to look after them. Thus it seems to me. D. L. COVENANT, WHEN DID THE OLD, END? Brother Sewell: Does the Bible teach that the covenant of works or ceremonial law ended at or soon after Pentecost? Is it not a fact that the Abrahamic covenant and the ceremonial law were valid A.D. 58? If the law ended A.D. 33, then how will you harmonize that view with Acts 21, in which the apostles and elders instructed Paul to keep the law, pointing out to him that all believing Jews were keeping it? They also pointed to the fact that the Gentiles should not keep it. If the law covenant was binding to the Jew as late as A.D. 58, then how much of the teaching of the apostles prior to A.D. 58 shall be regarded as safe precedent to-day? If it was not binding then, why did the apostles and others insist on keeping it? Dates are not expressed in the New Testament, and hence we are not specifically told when things were done. But Paul makes it very clear that the old covenant was taken away at the death of Christ by saying that he "took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." (Col. 1: 14.) Then the word of the Lord shows clearly that the new cove- nant, the church, the kingdom of God, was established on the day of Pentecost. It is a fact, also, that the early Jewish Christians for a long while still regarded the law of Moses as in force and tried to keep the law in connection with the gospel. This fact accounts for the advice of the Christians you name, as they were still clinging to the law of Moses. Up to the death of Christ the kingdom of heaven was all the time spoken of as at hand, but not yet estab- lished. After the day of Pentecost it was all the time spoken of as present. The following passage sufficiently settles the fact that the church, the kingdom of God, was set up on the day of Pentecost : "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matt. 19: 28.) The word regeneration does not mean some mystical, inner-working, converting power ; it means a new creation, a renovation, a new order of things. In this passage it means the church, the kingdom of God on earth. When Christ ascended to heaven, he sat on the right hand of God, sat upon his kingly throne, where he now reigns, and where Paul says "he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet." (1 Cor. 15: 25.) So on the day of Pentecost, Christ was sitting on his throne, and on that day the apostles were given their 152 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, seats on twelve thrones, for on that very day they were miraculously endowed with the power of the Holy Spirit to give laws by which the Jews and Gentiles as well should be judged. It was on the day of Pentecost, therefore, that the church, the kingdom of God, was set up. And the very same law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus that initiated three thousand souls into the kingdom that day is still the law by which all enter the church of God and become mem- bers of the kingdom, the spiritual body of Christ on earth. Christ was about thirty-three years old when he was cru- cified, and the day of Pentecost was about fifty days after his death. Hence it must have been somewhere in or near the year 33 when Jesus was crucified and when the day of Pentecost came, when the church of God was set up in its fullness. Hence the year 33 of the Christian era is about as near as we can locate the time of Christ's death and of the end of the law of Moses and the setting up of the king- dom of Christ. I see no necessity of any trouble over the year 58 in settling these questions. CUP, THE, AT THE LORD'S SUPPER. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: For the benefit of myself and oth- ers, please explain Luke 22: 17: "And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves." Did the cup spoken of here form any part of the holy supper? Omitting verses 18 and 19, the writer goes on to state (verse 20) : "Likewise also the cup after supper." Then does not this teach that he took the cup before supper? Our judgment is, there was but one offering of the cup. The first is a statement of the facts concerning the institu- tion to be attended to ; the second is a reference to the actual attendance upon the ordinance. The first is a general state- ment of the institution, its design and purpose ; the second is a specific statement of the items as the institution was observed. D. L. CUSTOMS, PAUL OBSERVING JEWISH. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In Acts 21: 20-24 we read: "And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him [Paul], Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: and they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their chil- dren, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together : for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concern- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 153 ing thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law." We do not know the exact point of difficulty of our brother. Paul observed the forms and national institu- tions of Judaism. We are not sure there was ever any ob- ligation on a Jew to denationalize himself in becoming a Christian. The controversy was: Shall others than the Jews become Jews in becoming Christians? The apostles decided they were under no obligation to observe the na- tional mark of circumcision. No objection was made to the Jews perpetuating circumcision among themselves, and with it all the institutions peculiar to the Jews as a nation. The Jewish Christians maintained all the observances of the Jewish nation not of a religious nature. The Jews were more sensitive in reference to family ob- servances than the religious service. Paul, in his free as- sociation with the Gentiles, excited the enmity of the unbe- lieving Jews. They started reports that his enemies in the church took up against him — that he had forsaken and betrayed the whole Jewish nation, rejected circumcision, was disposed to break down distinction between Jew and Gentile. To remove this prejudice, they requested him to take these Jews, pay the charges connected with their vows, purify himself according to the Jewish custom, and so show that he observed all the national or family institutions of the Jews. Paul did this, and so satisfied them that the ac- cusations were false. He conformed to Jewish customs and prejudices as far as possible without doing violence to his duties as a Christian. D. L. DANCING, IS IT WRONG? Brother Lipscomb: Is it wrong for members of the church of Christ to dance? Without entering into any argument of the case, the solid judgment of the world, both religious and irreligious, in both heathen and Christian lands, has been that the dance arouses the lascivious and lustful feelings and has a tendency to lead into wrong. That many can engage in it without apparent injury goes for nothing, so long as many of the excitable and weak are led astray. That this is true, none can doubt who will observe the facts. The chief of police in New York City, a number of years ago, investi- gated the causes that led the fallen women to their condi- tion. He decided a large majority — four-fifths, I think — were led there through the dance. No prudent Christian, even though he felt he could engage in it without danger to self, would be willing to countenance that which leads so 154 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, many astray. The true Christian principle is: "If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no meat while the world stands." The Christian should do nothing to lead others astray. DANCING, EVIL EFFECTS OF. Brother Seivell: What are the evil effects of church members' dancing? We have some members who participate and who say there is no harm in it. Dancing is worldly and fleshly in its whole tendency and in all its effects upon those who engage in it. There is nothing in it to elevate, ennoble, or purify the heart or life of Christians. No child of God was ever led to be more spiritual-minded, more devoted to Christ in any sense in the world. There is emphatically no sense in which a Christian can be brought nearer to God, to Christ, to holi- ness, or heaven, by it. Dancing is not in any sense con- nected with the will of God, nor does it in any sense belong to godliness. It never leads any one to love Christ more, to do any more service to God. It never gave to any one a cleaner, purer, or a more virtuous life. It never led any Christian to be a more devoted and faithful member of the church, nor has it ever been any help to any child of God in denying the flesh with its affections and lusts. It never adds anything to a Christian's joy when he thinks of death, of the judgment, or of eternity. So there is no permanent good in it to any child of God on earth. No devoted child of God believes that dancing is in harmony with the will of God or that it is any credit to any church of Christ on earth for its members to dance. We never hear any danc- ing member of the church advocate dancing as a Christian duty or any sort of a good work, or that it will help in any sense to take them to heaven. No, they never do anything of the kind. The very best they try to present in support of it is to say they do not think there is any harm in it; and even in saying that much for it they are trying to blind and deceive themselves. One young lady who was strongly contending that there was no harm in it said, when we asked her if she was willing to go from the dancing room to the judgment seat: "No, indeed; I would want to pray a long time after dancing befo/e I would want to go to the judgment seat." But why would people want much time to pray between their last dance and the judgment? Surely because in reality they themselves think it a sin that needs to be forgiven before they can pass through the pearly gates. It is an exceedingly poor argument for anything to say that there is no harm in it. Why not ask: What good is BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 155 there in dancing? How will it help in the formation of a pure and holy Christian character? The truth of the mat- ter is that dancing is a work of the flesh, and not a fruit of the Spirit. Read in Gal. 5 the catalogue there given of the fruit of the Spirit, and try your hand at placing dancing in that list. Every one knows better than to attempt such a thing. All know it belongs to the works of the flesh as given also in that same chapter. That dark catalogue ends thus: "Envyings, drunkenness, revelings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." There can be no doubt but that dancing is one spe- cies of reveling, is emphatically a work of the flesh; and the doom is emphatically fixed that such "shall not inherit the kingdom of God," and none can possibly change the de- cree of the Almighty. Certainly any course that brings such a decree from the Lord can only have a deleterious ef- fect upon any church that will allow such a practice to go on unrebuked among its members. And any church that would encourage such a course is helping to carry its mem- bers down the broad road to ruin instead of carrying them in the narrow way toward the heavenly home. To dance, therefore, or to encourage it, is to encourage the works of the flesh, which drag people downward spiritually instead of upward. No man or woman noted for piety ever dances or in any way encourages it. No child of God, therefore, can dance without a loss to his spiritual interests. If he dances through life, he will lose his soul. If he ceases to dance after a while and turns to a devoted life, it will then be a source of regret that he was ever so inconsiderate as to dance. The white robes of the righteous are formed of the righteousness of the saints. Can dancing be called "righteousness," and is it possible for it to furnish any part of that beautiful robe? By no means. It will blur and spot and darken the robe instead of making it clean and white. Nothing but the blood of the Lamb can wash these robes and make them white. Surely it will take much penitence and prayer to secure the washing of danc- ing out of the Christian's robe so as to make it clean and white; and yet it must be clean and white to be ready for the marriage supper of the Lamb. Why, then, will Chris- tians indulge a habit that can bring to them no possible good, but evil, and only evil? Why will Christian fathers or mothers or churches encourage anything that so thor- oughly endangers the eternal interests of the soul ? 156 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, DANCING, THE, TO BE CONDEMNED. Brother Lipscomb: (1) Webster's Dictionary says that marching to music is dancing. Where I have been going to school we marched to the music morning and evening, single file, not in couples. Is that wrong? According to Webster, it is dancing. Our teacher required us to march. If you say it is wrong, I will not march any more. Some folks here say it is wrong, but you are more of a Bible scholar than we are. (2) Is it wrong to march at any time or on any occa- sion. (3) Are there any scriptures forbidding dancing? I am against it. I do not thin it right. (1) The word dance has been used in a bad sense in the world. Some dances are not sinful. David danced as an act of praise to God when he brought the ark up to Jeru- salem. Filled with joy and gladness, he danced as the pro- cession advanced. "And David danced before Jehovah with all his might." (2 Sam. 6: 14.) So a man may dance by himself or with other men without sin. In Judg. 21: 23 we are told that the girls had a yearly dance all to them- selves, not a man with them. The children of Benjamin caught them wives on such an occasion. There would be no sin in that kind of a dance confined to one sex if such were had now. The dance of this age and country is a dance in which both sexes unite and hop around and handle each other in such way as to excite the sexual, lustful feel- ings, and they accustom each other to be handled in such way that it is liable to lead to lewdness. Committees ap- pointed by the rulers in one of our large cities are examin- ing into the influence of these evils now. They report that in one small section of the city they found fifteen thousand lewd women, the great mass of which were brought to that condition by the dance house. With these facts before us, it is worse than foolish to get an uncommon meaning of the term dance and try to justify the evil practice from this out-of-date definition. (2) Every passage of scripture that commands us to avoid temptation and the excitement and gratification of the lusts prohibits dancing, because it always does this. (3) To show the folly of this parleying, we ask another question. There was a class of religious people in Europe two or three hundred years ago that insisted that men and women should get such absolute control of their passions that unmarried men and women might sleep together in the same bed without sin. One who favored the practice might ask for a scripture forbidding it. Could he find it? Where we are told they could do that, the next verse tells them not to arouse their passions and lusts by the dance. It is the lust-exciting dance that is condemned. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 157 DAY, THE, OF THE LORD. Brother Sewell: In 1 Cor. 5: 5; 2 Cor. 1: 14; 1 Thess. 5: 2; 2 Pet. 3: 10, we have the words, "the day of the Lord." (1) Has this day yet come? If not, when will it come? (2) Does this mean a day of twenty-four hours or a longer time? (3) Will the righteous come into judgment? (John 5: 24-29.) (4) What is meant by the expres- sion, "the saints shall judge the world?" (1 Cor. 6:2; Rev. 2: 26, 27.) (1) "The day of the Lord," as used in the passage named, has not come yet. The passage named from 2 Pet. evi- dently has reference to the close of time, the judgment, and the new heavens and earth. The other passages per- fectly agree and harmonize with it. The first one men- tioned (1 Cor. 5:5) was in reference to a man to be disci- plined by the church that he might "be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." No man has the promise of eternal life, except as he holds out faithful to the end of life. The man that does this, and he only, will be safe at the judg- ment. Hence, in this passage "the day of the Lord" means the day of judgment. And this day will come just when the Lord is ready to send it ; that is as near as we can tell about it. (2) We do not know how much time will be consumed in the judgment. The word day does not always mean twelve hours nor twenty-four hours, but sometimes many such periods. (3) The Savior shows plainly that they will in Matt. 25. Other passages show the same. (4) It pos- sibly means that the same principle that saves the right- eous in their obedience will condemn the world, the wicked, in their disobedience. The passage in Revelation may mean about the same thing. In Heb. 11 : 7 we are told that Noah condemned the world by his obedience to God in preparing the ark. In our obedience to God we show our approval of the judgments of God in saving the righteous and con- demning the disobedient. DAY, THE, IN HEB. 10: 25. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: What day does the apostle have reference to in Heb. 10: 25? There is quite a difference of opinion as to what day is pointed out in the expression. Some think it refers to the judgment; some, to the first day of the week in which they assembled — as the day approached for assembling, exhort more and more that they forsake not the assembling. We can give only an opinion. A day of fiery persecution was coming upon them, to which allusion had been made. Paul admonished them to forsake not the assembling of them- selves, but, when assembled, to exhort one another to fidel- ity and holiness, and to do this the more earnestly as this day of trial approached. 158 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, DAY, WHY MEET EVERY FIRST? Will you please give us through your paper some of the many rea- sons why we should meet every first day of the week to break the loaf? The first reason is that God has required his people to meet on that day to remember his death. Paul says : "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the man- ner of some is." (Heb. 10: 25.) This assembling, with- out doubt, was the assembling of the saints on the first day of the weak to break bread. Those that refuse to thus meet and break bread violate this positive authority and command of God. Another is that in Acts 20 we find the disciples meeting on the first day of the week to break bread. These had certainly been taught by the apostles to do so, and the apostles were inspired by the Spirit of God to so teach. Hence, by the teaching of the Spirit of God the early Christians met on the first day of the week to break bread. And by the teaching of the same Spirit it is the duty of all Christians now to meet on that day to do the same thing now ; and, besides, it serves as a kind of spirit- ual food upon which the child of God is to grow and strengthen, and without which he is sure to grow weak and sickly spiritually and ultimately lose all spiritual life and interest in the cause of Christianity. DAYS, LENGTH OF CREATION. Brother Sewell: Please answer the following question and oblige several of the brethren here: What was the length of days of cre- ation as spoken of in Gen. 1? The days of creation were the same length of our twenty- four-hour days at the present time, so far as we know. The language of the Bible, in giving the account of creation, after telling what was done in each period, says : "And the evening and the morning were the first day." And the length of all the days is expressed in the same way; the evening and the morning were the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days. The word evening expressed the dark part of the twenty-four hours, while the word morning expressed the daylight part of the day. The seventh day is not divided into the dark and light parts, but is just called the "seventh day," which evidently included the same time as the other days in which the work of creation was done. Then, when the Sabbath law was given to man, we have this language : "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 159 and hallowed it." (Ex. 20: 11.) These passages show clearly that the Bible count of days at the creation was just the same as we count time now. Some people imagine that a day in creation meant a long, indefinite period of time. But this is only guesswork. Our only way to be right is to simply take what the Bible says about it and let that settle the matter. DAYS, THE "THREE," AND "THREE NIGHTS." Brother Lipscomb: (1) Will you explain through the Gospel Ad- vocate the last clause of Matt. 12: 40: "So shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth?" Does this correspond to Christ's having risen the third day? (2) You speak of your city as being leavened with seven preachers. What a pity that the leaven does not extend farther South! (1) Among the Jews, as in law among our people, a part of a day always counted for the day. Christ was in the grave a part of three distinct days, hence is said to have been in the grave three days and three nights. He is said by the same writers to have risen on the third day, show- ing they did not regard that there was any discrepancy between the two statements. The same style is used with reference to other periods. "After eight days" is used in Scripture clearly to mean the eighth day. This is true both of the Old and the New Testament. Language must be interpreted in the light of its use by the people using it. The Holy Spirit used the styles of speech common to the people, (2) It is not always a sign that the community will be leavened by the truth and the cause built up because a goodly number of preachers are in a community. Some- times they are a hindrance instead of a help ; but I do not believe this will be the case with any of our Nashville preachers. They all will keep free of personal envyings and jealousies and all work harmoniously in building up the cause of God, and, in doing this, will help each other, I am sure. It is rather singular how difficult it has been to build up and maintain the cause in Mississippi and other Southern States, as well as a number of Northern ones. Brother McCain has given one reason for this failure in Mississippi. No one should get hurt at him for telling a plain truth in this matter; it is just what ought to be told. But we are constrained to believe there is something back of his reason even that produces the hindrance he men- tions as well as others. One chief cause is, the churches there never learn to rely upon themselves. As a general rule, they have been planted by a preacher from a distance, 160 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, and they never learn that Christian worship acceptable to God is the meeting together of his disciples to worship him in his appointments. They depend wholly on the preacher. They must have a first-class one; they never develop from among themselves teaching or worshiping talent; so they are dependent upon preachers from a distance. A church of ten thousand members that cannot do its own worship, that develops no home talent, that makes worship consist in or depend upon hearing a preacher, will never be estab- lished on a firm basis. A church of half a dozen poor mem- bers, who are determined to meet together and worship God for themselves, and have faith to persist in it without an itching ear for entertainment or a longing eye for a fashionable crowd, is already firmly established for good. God never forgets to send such a band the teacher when he is needed. Again, God never permits a church to die that is worthy to live in a community in which there are souls worthy of salvation. God has something to do with churches, living and dying. Sometimes churches live that are not pleasing to God. They live to corrupt those not willing for God to lead them. A soul not willing for God to lead it is not worthy of salvation ; but a true church, faithful to God, never dies in a community so long as there is a single soul in that community worthy of the salvation of God. In some com- munities none are worthy of salvation; none are willing to give up all for Christ. It was so in Christ's day ; it is so yet. There never has existed a community in which all could be saved, because some would not obey Christ. It is not always the fault of the church that all are not saved, any more than it was the fault of Christ that all were not saved in his day. Many churches and church members think it is incumbent on them to save everybody in their community, and think it is some fault of theirs that all are not saved ; so they go to work to try to become popular and pleasing to the public, hoping to save others thereby. They only show their own unworthiness of salvation and make their destruction sure. The simple thing for the Christian and the church is to be true to God ; to obey him in private and public worship ; be faithful in maintaining his worship ; meekly, kindly, def- erentially, but immovably, steadfast; using our means, as well as our time and talent, in sowing to the Spirit by sus- taining the teachers of the religion of Christ ; in all the re- lations of life showing the Christian example by practicing the teaching of Christ and leaving all else in the hands of God. If in our communities others are not converted when BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 161 we act thus, the fault is theirs, not ours. They are not worthy of salvation. But if we change and neglect the wor- ship of God or act untrue to our profession, fail to show the true spirit of Christ, we fail to save others and bring de- struction on ourselves. D. L. Brother Sewell: In your reply to William J. Morrison you seem to forget the fact that Christ was in the heart of the earth three nights as well as three days. (Matt. 12: 40.) You do not seem to understand the Bible on that subject. If your count is correct, please tell me what three nights, or a part of what three nights, Christ was in the heart of the earth. I am surprised at the above. I recognize the perfect right of any brother that sees me in error to criticize me on it. But it seems to me that brotherly love and brotherly kindness should have led him to show me plainly how to get out of the difficulty; but he has left me just where he found me. He gave me no sort of information. He men- tions the passage where Jesus says that "as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." I have been often hit and knocked about on the three days and three nights that Christ was to be in the grave, and especially as to the time of his betrayal, trial, condemnation, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection; and I have shown on more occasions than one how the Jews counted time, and that with them the expressions "after three days" and "the third day" are both applied to the same events, and, therefore, to the Jews meant the same. In 2 Chron. 10, Rehoboam said to the people when they were appealing to him: "Come again unto me after three days." Then in the same chapter it says of those same people: "So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king bade, saying, Come to me again the third day." (See verses 5, 12.) Such was the indefi- nite way the Jews had of counting and applying time. And yet the king and the people acquiesced in "the third day" of verse 12 as filling the expression "after three days" of verse 5 as shown above. So now when one verse says that Christ should be "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," and another verse says that "after three days he shall rise again," and nearly a dozen others say plainly that "he shall rise again the third day," all these expressions certainly refer to the time that elapsed between his death and his resurrection. The divine record also tells us that the day on which he rose was the first day of the week. Hence the first day of the week is positively shown to be the third of the three days. Then, counting 162 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, back from that, Saturday would be the second of the three, and Friday would of necessity be the first of the three, and no man can go any further back than Friday without mak- ing a wreck of the whole record. Now, count as the Jews did, letting any part of the time occupied during a twenty- four hour day count for a day, and everything fits. A large part of Friday was included, all of Saturday, and nearly twelve hours of Sunday, so that a part of three successive twenty-four-hour days were included. As Friday did not begin till Thursday closed, which was at sundown by Jew- ish count, you cannot take in any part of Thursday without putting the resurrection on the fourth day, and that would knock out the divine record. Further, in order to sustain your criticism, we call upon you to explain fully and clearly how it would be possible for Christ to lie in the grave three full days and nights and yet rise from the dead the third day; for if he rose one minute before the three days and nights were out, that spoils your application of your pas- sage forever. If you prove that he did lie in the grave all of the three days and nights, then you make him palpably contradict his own statement, so often and so definitely ut- tered, that he would "rise again the third day." So give us your solution of the whole matter and make everything fit up so as to make no conflict. DEACONS, THE WORK OF. What authority have we for considering the deacon's work to be attending to the temporal affairs of the church? I remember that Brother Fanning, in the Religious Historian, took the position that the deacon's work was, I believe, even more extended and more spirit- ual than that of the elder. Such would seem to be the case from their respective characters as marked out by Paul. I have never seen this position controverted by any of our brethren, but it is ignored by them all the time. What is the deacon's work? Deacon means a servant, a helper. Its use is frequent in the Scriptures, and always means a servant, a minister, one that works for or in behalf of another. "Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister J' (Matt. 20: 26.) "Then said the king to the servants:' (Matt. 22: 13.) "Greatest among you shall be your servant:' (Matt. 23 : 11.) "Be last of all, and servant of all." (Mark 9: 35.) "His mother said unto the servants:' (John 2: 5.) "The servants which drew the water." (John 2:9.) Christ is said to be their minister. Deacon means simply a servant. The word minister is very frequently the trans- lation of the word deacon. Deacons are servants — those who serve. The seven appointed to attend to the Grecian widows at Jerusalem are usually regarded as deacons, BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 163 though they are not so called in the Bible. The work of the deacons is gathered from the work these seven were ap- pointed to do. Their work was temporary, and soon they were found preaching in the dispersion. If these be the typical deacons of the church, the work of looking after the poor of the church and of seeing that their wants are sup- plied is clearly their duty. Paul addressed all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons. To Timothy, Paul says: "Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre ; holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved ; then let them use the office of a deacon [literally, "let them serve"] , being found blameless. . . . For they that have used the office of a deacon well [served well] purchase to them- selves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." The word translated use the office of a deacon is frequently used in the New Testament, but is always translated serve or minister to. These are the only allusions to the deacon in the New Testament. It means a servant; it indicates, from the letters to the Philippians and Timothy, a special class known as servants. The char- acter of service is drawn from the supposition that the seven were the class of servants referred to as deacons. This idea is somewhat strengthened by the example of the early churches as it comes to us through church history. Still, the ground is not as clearly defined as we would suppose from the certainty with which it is usually regarded. Brother Fanning regarded any work done under the di- rection of the Spirit as spiritual work. Feeding the poor with the contributions of the church is just as spiritual work as preaching the gospel. If they attend to all the temporal interests of the church according to the direction of the Spirit, they do an extended spiritual work. I have never been able to speak with the confidence in reference to the position and work of these servants as I would like. DEACON, OFFICE OF. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Will you please give us the full import of the term let in this sentence: "Then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless?" Who now is to do the letting? . Let in this sentence has the sense of must. It frequently has this force. The connection is : "Let these also first be proved ; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. . . . Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." Let is here used as implying obligation or duty or neces- 164 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, sity rather than permission. The meaning is: These also must first be proved; then they must, or should, use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. The deacons must be the husband of one wife. In chapter 2 : 11 he says : "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection." Here also it means obligation or duty. The word let is fre- quently used in this sense of implying obligation, necessity, or duty, instead of permission, in the New Testament. It means: Let them do it if they will be Christians. D. L. DEACONS, MUST THEY BE MARRIED? There is a good, faithful brother belonging to a church in this sec- tion. He is about forty-five or fifty years of age. It was proposed to appoint him a deacon of the church, but another brother objected on the ground that he had no wife. He is a bachelor. Is the object- ing brother right? We do not think that language intended to require they should be married and have children; but as that was the common state of man, directions were given as to what kind of wives and children they should have. If it was prohibitory, Paul was unfit for a deacon, and he recom- mended that those who could restrain their passions should refrain from marriage that they might devote themselves exclusively to the service of God. The deacon is a servant of God and the church. That construction would present the case that Paul (1 Cor. 7: 30-35) recommended them to pursue a course to fit them for service of God; yet the course that he recommended prohibited their doing the serv- ice in some most important functions and positions. D. L. DEAD, BAPTIZED FOR THE. Brother Lipscomb: Please explain (1) 1 Cor. 15: 29; (2) 1 Cor. 14: 22-26. (1) Persons are baptized to prepare and fit them for the state of the dead. Why do you do this if there is no future for or to the dead ? The question is asked in an argument in behalf of the resurrection. It has been told that per- sons were sometimes baptized for and in place of the dead, and this is a reference to that practice ; but the supposition of such a state or condition grew out of this passage and was fixed up to meet it. Its standing here as a part of the argument in behalf of the resurrection of the dead fixes its meaning, it seems to me. (2) This is a part of the scripture defining the miracu- lous powers, or charisms, bestowed on the early churches before the revelation of God's will was completed. I use BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 165 the term miraculous power, or charisms, to draw the dis- tinction between the Holy Spirit as a gift from God and Jesus Christ to the church as their representatives in the churches and the marvelous powers, or gifts, bestowed by the Spirit on the members of the churches. Look at your dictionary and see the meaning of charism. This verse tells that these gifted persons attended church with a psalm, a teaching, sl revelation, something in a new tongue, or an interpretation. He then tells how they shall conduct them- selves in delivering these messages. These are the gifts that were to be taken away when the will of God was com- pleted, as told in chapter 13. After that will is fully made known, the gifts that were marvelous and partial would be done away and give place to the will of God, which promotes faith, hope, love, the greatest of which is love. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Will you please give us your views on 1 Cor. 15: 29, which reads thus: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" Who are "they?" I have never seen this question asked through your valuable paper. When Paul used the above language, he was arguing the resurrection from the dead ; and the language was intended by the apostle as a part of his argument on that subject, and we must so interpret the passage as to give it that bear- ing if we would understand it correctly. The passage is confessedly a difficult one, and is certainly elliptical to us, although it may have been very clear to the Corinthians. As Paul was arguing the subject of the resurrection of the dead, we think it could do no violence to the passage to sup- ply in our interpretation of the passage the word resurrec- tion just before the words the dead and after the preposi- tion for. The Greek preposition huper, rendered for in this passage, means on account of, and might be so rendered here. Then we would have it thus : "Else what shall they do who are baptized on account of the resurrection of the dead?" All who are buried with Christ in baptism de- clare by that act that they believe that he was buried and rose again; and in believing that he rose, we at the same time believe and by our action declare our faith in a res- urrection of all the dead. In our immersion, therefore, we declare by that action that we believe in the resurrection of all the dead, of Christ first and through him all others. If Christ did not rise from the dead, burial with him in baptism would be meaningless ; and if he rose not, then no others will rise, and the religion of Jesus is a failure at last. And this is what Paul meant to impress upon them — that in having been buried with Christ in baptism, as he 166 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, told the Romans, they had by that act declared a resurrec- tion from the dead by being raised up from baptism, as Christ was raised up from the grave. He meant to im- press upon the Corinthians that their baptism was utterly meaningless if there be no resurrection of the dead. The word dead is plural number of the Greek, and we can find no authority for regarding it in the singular. If it were singular, then it might be regarded as referring to Christ only — that is, what shall they do who are baptized on account of Christ, who did not rise if there be no resur- rection? — and thus put the argument that way; but the word being plural makes it refer to the dead in general as well as Christ ; not only that he rose, but that all will rise. And with this idea there is meaning in the passage. The argument or illustration is a very forcible one. As the apostle was arguing the resurrection, the interpretation we have given cannot possibly do any violence to the connec- tion. But if we undertake to conclude, as some do, that Paul here teaches that living persons may be baptized for, or in the place of, dead ones, then we make him introduce a new subject entirely in that one sentence that has no con- nection with the subject he was on ; and not only that, but a subject that is nowhere else mentioned in all the Bible. And is it reasonable to suppose such a thing? Certainly not ; for there is not the least allusion to such a practice as that in all the oracles of God. We insist, therefore, that Paul used the passage in connection with his argument on the resurrection, and insist that it is very forcible. In the substitution of sprinkling and pouring for baptism the apostle's argument is utterly destroyed. But under- standing immersion, which represents a burial and resur- rection, and there is meaning in it. In accepting baptism, we accept the truth of all the Christian religion teaches. We accept the truth that Christ arose and that we also shall rise from the dead, and in being baptized we declare that much to the world. And why do that if we do not believe in a resurrection, as some of the Corinthians did not? He shows them their inconsistencies in having been baptized and then denying the resurrection. E. G. S. DEAD, THE QUICKENED. Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Please give a full exegesis of Eph. 2:1: "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins." Also, Phil. 2: 13: "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." Are these verses to be un- derstood as teaching the same as John 5: 25: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live?" Also please explain John 5: 21. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 167 In Eph. 2 : 1, where it says, "You hath he quickened," the word quickened has reference to their conversion, or becoming Christians. In Acts 19 we are told exactly how this was done. Paul, an inspired apostle, went to Ephesus and preached two years and three months straight out, so that not only at Ephesus, but in all Asia, the people heard the word of God. The word quicken means to make alive. Those people were dead in trespasses and sins — that is, they were sinners ; but when the gospel was presented by Paul, they believed it, obeyed it, and by so doing were made alive by the gospel — were "born again ... by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." And this is all of it. When Paul wrote to the Philippians about God's work- ing in them to will and to do, he only meant that God worked in them through his word, through the motives placed before them in the gospel. God works by means and uses the gospel and its heavenly motives as a means of prompting them to act. These motives move some, and some they do not move. Hence, Paul said to the Thessalo- nians: "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." (1 Thess. 2: 13.) The word of God works effectually in those that believe; and as God is the author of the word, when the word works effectually, it is God working through the word — working in them to will and to do the things that will lead them to the promises of God. And thus one passage explains the other and shows how God works in them. But the passage in John has reference to raising the dead, and we have a literal illustration of it in the raising of Lazarus. He was dead. Jesus spoke to him and called him by name, and Lazarus heard his voice and came to life again. He goes on in the same connection and says the time is coming when all in their graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth. So in this passage in John the word dead means literally dead, and Jesus literally raised the dead — caused them to live again — in more instances than one. E. G. S. DEAD, GOSPEL PREACHED TO THE. Brother Sewell; I would be glad to see an article from you on 1 Pet. 4: 6. What dead do you understand the apostle to refer to? "For unto this end was the gospel preached even to the dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according 168 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, to God in the spirit." (Revised Version.) Is this any better or any- more according to the original than it is in the King James Version? In the discussion with Elder Brown (in the tract, page 29), I use it as proof that the "dead in sin" are capable of hearing the gospel. So far as the two translations named are concerned, there is very little difference. Possibly the Revised Version conies a little nearer being precisely literal than the Com- mon Version, but I do not see that it helps much so far as understanding the meaning of the passage is concerned. The difficulty is to understand who the dead are that are spoken of. The Greek word nekros means dead, but does not at all indicate what dead are meant, nor is there any- thing in the connection that explains that. The word nearly always means those literally dead. One time it is used in connection with sin, as when Paul says to the Ephe- sians that they had been "dead in trespasses and sins." But there is nothing in the connection to indicate that it means that in the passage you name ; but one thing is very certain about it, and that is that if it does mean that in this passage, your claim that those dead in sins are capable of hearing the word of God and of obeying it and of coming into the church of God without the aid of any abstract op- eration of the Spirit to enable them to do it is correct. So your teaching on that subject is correct, whether the pas- sage you name means dead in that sense or those literally dead. The passage lends no favor to the idea that sinners are incapable of hearing and obeying the gospel, because, who- ever they may be, the preaching was done that they might be judged according to men in the flesh. Plainly it means they were to be judged according to their treatment of the gospel that was preached to them — that if they obeyed the preaching, they were safe; if not, they would be judged and condemned for their disobedience, as is plainly taught throughout the Christian dispensation. The gospel was sent to all. Those who would hear and obey were to be saved without a doubt, while all who refused to hear and obey were to be condemned. Beyond this teaching we af- firm nothing as to who the dead spoken of were. It may mean such as had heard and rejected or obeyed the gospel and had died before Peter wrote his letter; for from the day of Pentecost to the end of time those who obey the gos- pel will be saved, while those refusing to obey will be de- stroyed by it, which, is just the principle upon which all will be judged under the gospel dispensation at the final day of accounts. So if we knew precisely who the dead were and when they died, it would add nothing to our knowledge BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 169 of the matter of our responsibility to hear and obey God and of our final destiny, which is to be settled upon that principle. At the judgment the books are to be opened and all are to be judged according to their works. So de- clares the word of God. DEAD, WHO TO "BURY THEIR DEAD?" Please explain Matt. 8: 22: "But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead." There are more ways for men to be dead than one. The word dead has a literal meaning and may have many figu- rative meanings. A man may be literally dead, as when mortal life is extinct, or one may be dead in trespasses and in sins, or dead to anything in which he is not engaged or feels no interest. A man may be alive in the work of Chris- tianity or he may be dead to that work. He who neither works in Christianity nor feels any interest in it is dead to the cause and at the same time dead in sins ; while, on the other hand, he who loves the cause of Christ and works in that cause is dead to sin, but alive in righteousness. The disciple who asked permission to bury his father who was literally dead was himself alive to the work of Christ, while there were evidently many others who were dead to the work in which Christ was engaged, but fully alive so far as burying the dead was concerned, and he knew that they could and would attend to that. But he had immediate use for all his disciples that were with him. We think, there- fore, the passage means : "Let those who are dead to an in- terest in our work, and at the same time dead in sins, bury their dead ; but you, who have interest and life in my work, must be engaged in it now ; we have no time to lose." It may be worthy of remark, too, that these disciples were still under the law of Moses, and that law declared that any one who touched a dead body was to be unclean for seven days and had to go through the process prescribed by the law during that seven days to cleanse himself from that uncleanness, and the Savior did not want to spare one of his disciples that long. This may have had something to do with it. The passage also teaches at the same time that the Savior does not allow us to place anything earthly before his work — the duties that he requires at our hands. He did not intend to teach that his followers are not to show all proper respect for their dead relatives, their bur- ial, or any other necessary office connected therewith; but in that particular case he had another work for that disciple to do immediately, and he, therefore, required him to go 170 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, on in that work and leave the burying of his father to oth- ers who would not do his work. We should, therefore, learn from this that we are not allowed to let earthly consider- ations hinder us from the great work to which the Lord has called us. E. G. S. Brother Lipscomb : Please explain what is meant by, "Let the dead bury their dead," in Matt. 8 : 22. A Greek scholar here says that it means : "Let the dead in trespasses and sins bury their dead." Would not that exclude Christians from burying the dead, especially those who have died out of Christ? I do not see that Greek scholarship has anything to do with the interpretation of this passage. Greek enables a man to see it is properly translated. When properly trans- lated, an English scholar can understand it as well as a Greek scholar. This sentence is properly translated. It is spoken in connection with excuses for not following Christ, and is to be understood literally. Since a dead person can- not bury a dead one, it means : Better leave the dead unbur- ied than that one should not follow Christ. It only ap- plies to cases in which burying the dead would hinder the following of Christ. Devout men buried Stephen ; burying him did not hinder following Christ. It is a strong expres- sion, showing neither courtesies to friends or kindred, tell- ing them good-by, nor even burying the dead, should hin- der following Christ. (See Luke 9 : 58-62.) DEATH, DAY OF, BETTER THAN THE DAY OF BIRTH. Please explain Eccles. 7: 1. Why is the day of a man's death bet- ter than the day of his birth? Also please explain Eccles. 12: 7: "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." As these passages seem to have a general application to all men, Universalists annoy us with them. When does the spirit return to God — immediately after death or at the day of judgment? What of Hades? Is it proper for Christians to be anxious about the investigation of this subject — as to whether the spirit sleeps in the grave, goes to Hades or to heaven? We think if Christ or the Holy Spirit had laid any im- portance upon the condition of the dead from the grave to the judgment, one or both would have plainly revealed it to us. We have never seen a sentence that appeared to us to be written for the purpose of explaining this. So we never have troubled ourself enough to form an opinion on the subject. Nor do we think anybody's opinion is worth the ink and paper with which it is written. The spirit returns to God at judgment to be judged by him according to the deeds done in the body. The day of a man's death is better than the day of his BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 171 birth, because his work is then done, perfected, accom- plished. If he has done well, it is a day of rejoicing and triumph to him. It bears the same relation to the day of his birth that the end of harvest does to the day of plant- ing, the completion of a work does to its beginning. DEATH, IS THERE BUT ONE IN ROM. 5: 17? Rom. 5: 17: "For if by one man's offense death reigned by one; much more they which received abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." Is there but one death referred to, and which one? One death brought both physical decay and spiritual ruin; or, rather, both spiritual ruin and physical decay are results from one cause. Life and death were used orig- inally in a sense different from their present use. Life meant freedom from corruption or suffering, both spiritual and material. Death was the opposite of life; subjection to corruption, to suffering, to decay. "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" w T as literally ful- filled in the sense in which the word die was used. It is frequently used in the same sense in the Bible. Paul says : "I die daily." Our existence here is but a continued death, a continued suffering and decay. What we call "death" is but the end of that continued death. In this sense the sep- aration from God is the death. The effect of that death upon man's material being is suffering, disease, decay, end- ing in the return of dust to dust ; the effect of that death on the spiritual man is anguish, sorrow, fear, spiritual woe, ending in eternal sorrow unless redeemed from this des- tiny by Christ, the Savior. It is one death, but one bear- ing fruit in the material and spiritual world. DEATH, BETWEEN, AND THE RESURRECTION. Brother Lipscomb: Did Christ's spirit go to Joseph's new tomb with his body and remain there until the resurrection of his body? If so, will all spirits remain in the grave until the resurrection of their bodies? If not, why not? If so, will the spirit be conscious while in the grave? I have great respect for you and confidence in your Bible knowledge, and come seeking information. I have never found a sentence in the Scriptures intended to tell what is the condition of the spirit of man between death and the resurrection. If it is a matter not of suffi- cient importance in the word of God to cause him to reveal it to man, it is not of sufficient importance to man to jus- tify his studying the question. It is a question in which I have never felt a particle of interest. I "have never seen any good come of the discussion of the question. I have 172 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, seen much evil come out of it, as comes out of the bringing of all untaught questions into discussion among the people of God. No greater evil afflicts the church to-day than this disposition to bring in things not taught by God. "Fool- ish and ignorant [untaught] questions refuse, knowing that they gender strifes." (2 Tim. 2: 23.) "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputa- tions." (Rom. 14: 1.) There is nothing in these ques- tions to help a soul or to honor God. Let us seek to save the lost, not to drive them off with discussion of questions to no profit. DEATH, SIN UNTO. Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: You will please explain through the Gospel Advocate 1 John 5: 16: "There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it." We suppose the "sin unto death" spoken of by John is the sin against the Holy Spirit spoken of by Christ. He says : "All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." (Mark 3: 28, 29.) This passage shows- that all sins, ex- cept the sin against the Holy Spirit, may be forgiven ; and as John speaks of "a sin unto death," a sin not to be par- doned or even prayed for, it must be the one Christ spoke of. E. G. S. DECEMBER, THE TWENTY-FIFTH OF. Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: I was not aware that any doubts were entertained about Christ's birth occurring on December 25. I saw recently a work, written in 1840, stating that it was more prob- able that he was born in October or November. The arguments were as follows: "It is a fact that the Jews sent out their flocks into the mountainous and desert regions during the summer months and took them up in the latter part of October or November, when the cold weather commenced. As the shepherds were out tending their flocks when he was born, it is clear that it occurred before December 25." By giving your opinion in the matter you will greatly oblige a reader of the Gospel Advocate. We were not aware that any person thought that Christ was born on December 25, except probably those who rested their faith on the authority of the Romish Church, without any investigation on their part. We think it can be very conclusively shown that he was not born then, but we have neither the documents for reference nor the time now to show the reasons for this. We made the investigation years ago, and fully satisfied our mind upon the subject. One of the popes of Rome, in his anxiety to multiply reli- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 173 gious feasts and observances as a means of increasing the power and revenues of papacy, fixed December 25 as the day, and ordained imposing ceremonies in connection there- with. The Protestants, except the Episcopalians, rejected the day ; and for a long season it was regarded in New En- gland especially as indicating Romish tendencies. In Vir- ginia, where the Episcopal influences were more prevalent, the observance of the day became more general. The ob- servance of the day has grown more general, though not always in a religious or reverential manner. It is more a day of frolic and holiday sport than of religious observance. It comes at a season so near the end of the year, so near the time that endings and beginnings of the seasons would in- dicate as suited for holiday, that its observance is likely to be continued. But we think, beyond all question, it is not the day of the birth of Christ. It ought not to be observed as such. A week's rest and recreation at the close of the year and before the beginning of another is not objection- able, but in many ways desirable on social and economic grounds. It is always well to season these periods of rest with religious influences. D. L. DEGREES IN HEAVEN. Are there degrees in heaven? We do not know. Christ came to this world to break down middle walls of division and to make of the different families, tribes, and nations of earth one new man. We do not think that he has erected divisions or barriers be- tween the redeemed in the world to come. If there be dif- ference there, it will arise from different capacities for en- joyment. Some of the elite, the polished, the cultivated, think it a little hard to have to associate with the unculti- vated clodhoppers and unpolished working women of the country and the town in the world to come ; and so the idea has become rather prevalent that they will have a higher sphere nearer the heavenly throne than the horny-handed mechanics of the cities and the country boors who are Christians. But we have never found any Scripture au- thority for such an idea. It has its origin in the foolish ambition of some who have but little chance for a home in the better land. If there be differences in capacity for enjoyment there, the higher capacity will not be measured by intellectual culture, by polished manners or cultivated taste or high family here, but by self-sacrificing, self-deny- ing devotion to the honor of God and the good of man here. D. L. 174 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, DEMONS, POSSESSED OF. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I desire not to worry your pa- tience, but seek information. In the Gospel Advocate of June 22 I asked two questions in reference to Luke 4: 41, one of which I cannot see that you answered — to wit: How were the demons known or dis- tinguished from those from whom they were cast out? Physicians say they can tell diseases by the symptoms. We have persons who have symptoms similar to those of olden time who were possessed of evil spirits. For instance, those mad, spiteful lunatics — are they possessed of devils as those were of olden time? In explaining my former questions, you said that evil spirits took possession of the minds and bodies of men. Can they or did they do so without the per- mission of the individual? Can they take possession of the little in- nocent child? If men are now possessed of devils, who can cast them out as the twelve and seventy did? We cannot undertake to tell that which our brother wishes to know, for the very reason that the Bible does not tell us. We do not know how the demons were distinguished from the persons out of whom they were cast, nor do we know whether demons have possession of any now as they did in the days of Christ; but if they do, none are able now to cast them out as Christ and the apostles did, for the days of miracles ended with the apostles. We have no idea that they take possession of a little innocent child ; and if they take possession of grown-up people, it must be their own fault, because they make themselves fit temples for them to dwell in by refusing the gospel, the plan of salvation through Jesus, our Lord, refusing to serve God according to his word ; for James says : "Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." We do not think that demons take posses- sion of those who live to the honor of God. But if men will- ingly refuse to serve God, demons may then possess them, for aught we know ; but if they serve God faithfully, he will defend them from demons. E. G. S. DENOMINATIONS, CHRISTIANS IN. Brother Sewell: I am a young preacher, and would like some help on the following questions should you deem them worthy of your time: 1. Are there Christians in denominations? 2. If so, will they be saved if they love God and obey him as far as they have the light taught them? Does not their joining a denomina- tion cut them loose from God's promised blessings, as denominational- ism causes divisions among God's people? 3. Daniel prophesied that the God of heaven should set up a king- dom which should stand forever. I understand that this kingdom was set up on the day of Pentecost; but who composed that kingdom, or church, from the time of its departure from the truth until Camp- bell undertook to restore apostolic doctrine? I believe that after they hear the truth and refuse to accept it they will be condemned; but will God in his goodness and mercy save them in their ignorance? I find no promise for any one but those that are in Christ (his BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 175 church). If their ignorance will save them, would not there be more saved by our staying out of destitute places? These may seem only trivial questions to you, but I am unable to solve them alone and am seeking for information, not for pastime. 1. All are Christians that obey the gospel as it was preached by the Holy Spirit through the apostles ; but they will not remain Christians long if they unite with denomi- nations and practice according to man's wisdom instead of the plain word of the Lord. We find in the book of Reve- lation that some of the Lord's people were in Babylon ; but the Lord said to them: "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." (Rev. 18: 4.) So if any people obey the gospel among denominations, the voice of God is, "Come out from among them ;" and this they must do, if they ex- pect to be saved in heaven. People must not only obey the word of God in becoming Christians, but they must con- tinue to obey it in all things through life. The word of God knows no denominations and makes no promises to them as such. But the church of God, the body of Christ, is well known and approved in the New Testament; and in it many precious promises are made to all who are faith- ful servants of God in the body of Christ, of which body Christ is the head. 2. There is no love for God that will do any man any good that does not lead him to do God's will. Jesus says : "If a man love me, he will keep my words." (John 14 : 23.) Also in verse 21 he says : "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me." Again, in verse 24 he says: "He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings." These passages show plainly that God loves and recognizes only those who so love him so far as to keep his word. Denominations do not love God, according to the above passages, or they would cease to exist as such, for there is no authority in the word of God for any denomina- tions. Every one that obeys the gospel of Christ thereby enters the body of Christ, and then the only safety is to steer clear of all human wisdom and stick to the church of God as the word of God directs. All in Bible lands have the word of God, and can have its light if they will read and study it ; and if they do not, the responsibility will be theirs. 3. During the dark ages of apostasy from the truth there were some people all along, according to history, that in the main were guided by the word of God, and not by the errors of popular denominationalism ; but it would be an extensive task to trace them out, as they generally had to 176 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, keep hid away from popular religionists most of the time in order to exist at all. As to the matter of saving people be- cause they are ignorant of the word of God, there is noth- ing in the whole Bible that indicates such a thing. If that were true, the world would not have needed the gospel plan of salvation. Such a claim is a mere subterfuge and is not worthy a moment's consideration. Christ plainly laid down the whole principle of salvation and condemnation when he said : "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned." (Mark 16: 15, 16.) This settles the whole matter and leaves no room for exceptions. DENOMINATONS, RECEIVING PERSONS FROM. Brother Lipscomb : When we receive persons from other churches on their baptism, do we not admit that they are Christians? If so, then there are Christians in other denominations also. Please give your views on the subject through the Gospel Advocate. Our brother speaks of "other denominations" as though he belonged to a denomination. This, I take it, is inadver- tently done. All denominations are sinful; every one is formed by adding to the things God ordained. God or- dained simple churches of Jesus Christ. To convert these into a denomination is to form an institution of man over and above the churches or institutions of God, binding them into one organized party. The general organizations al- ways control the churches composing them. When a church does not please the Baptist association or conven- tion, it refuses fellowship to that church. When a church in Indiana displeased the General Christian Missionary Society, the society refused to receive its contribution, and so declared nonfellowship with it. When the General So- ciety met in Nashville, a sister requested of President Loos that Azbill might report what the churches were doing through him, and it was refused. The request was repeated by J. J. Halz at one of the succeeding general conventions, and President Loos refused again, and said Azbill and his work were the greatest enemies the society had. So Azbill reported to me. That is, to work through God's appointed agencies is to show enmity to human agencies. President Loos is right in this. "No man can serve two masters." If he works after man's order, he opposes God's order; if he works after God's order, he is an enemy to man's or- der. All denominations are sinful. I had about as soon belong to one human organization in religion as another. The adoption of any one of them subverts the order of God. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 177 We had as well be members of other denominations as of our denomination. When people were born and circum- cised among the ten tribes that seceded from the house of David and then wished to unite with the Jews faithful to the Lord, they were not rejected by the Jews for fear in receiving them they would own there were servants of God among the ten tribes. Whatever had been done among the ten tribes in accordance with God's will was accepted ; what was not according to his will was left off ; what God required that they had not done was added on. These things were types of divisions that would occur in the spir- itual kingdom. Whole bodies of the followers of Christ would fall away from fidelity to the practices required by God. I do not know any better way than God's way. Re- tain what has been done in accordance with the will of God; drop what they have practiced not required by him; add on what God requires that they have not done, so they will conform to the perfect will of God. There are Christians in many places that I think they ought not to be. They are in politics, in the various soci- eties of the age; they are in the missionary societies. I think a Christian should belong to but one society, that the church of the living God. He cannot serve two mas- ters. But if he has become a Christian and gone wrong, I will not ask him to repudiate what he has rightly done to make a Christian, but to turn from the wrong steps he has taken. A Methodist or Presbyterian may believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. After believing, he has taken a wrong step in becoming a Methodist or Presbyterian. When teaching him what is right for him to do, I would not ask him to disbelieve or deny faith in Christ for fear I would own people believe in Christ among Methodists or Presbyterians, for they do. If a man believed in Christ and repented of his sins among Methodists, I would not ask him to turn from his repentance and go to sinning again because he had come to believe in Christ and repent among these people. If he had learned to believe, repent, and be baptized for the remission of sins or to put on Christ or for the answer of a good conscience toward God or to fulfill all righteousness among Methodists, Presbyterians, or Bap- tists (they can learn all these things among them), I would not ask him to undo or repudiate his faith in Jesus or his repentance toward God or his baptism or any part of the will of God he had learned and performed among these peo- ple ; but I would ask him to cling to all he held or practiced in obedience to the will of God, and to turn from things in these churches not according to the will of God, and to add 178 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, whatever the word of God requires that he has not done; and I am just as sure that I would have the approval of God in this as I am that the Bible is the will of God, for the Bi- ble teaches that God dealt with men in this way. This rule would draw every Christian out of these sects as it drew Alexander Campbell, B. W. Stone, the Creaths, and others from these sects to the church of Christ. There is just a little danger that we get a little more righteous and strict than God. Then, people must act on their own faith, not mine or yours. If, after they are taught the will of God, they have a good conscience that in doing the things God commanded they obeyed God, none can gainsay it. I am glad for all these sects to preach just as much of the truth of God as they can; and, when they do so, we should ac- knowledge and encourage them in all the truth they teach and help them into more truth. I would like to own and fellowship every truth that every human being teaches, if I could do this without indorsing his errors. When he quits his errors and clings only to his truth, I can do this gladly by accepting him in his truth and helping him to more truth. I know this is God's way of dealing with the ignorant and the erring. It is a presumptuous, "holier- than-thou" spirit that says repudiate what truth you have and accept all truth I have, or you are rejected. None of us understand the full truth of God and will not compre- hend it all until we know as we are known in the glorified state. Let us help, not kick back, those struggling to gain truth. DENOMINATIONS, "OTHER." Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I see in the Christian Standard of November 24, current volume, in answer to the query, "Is it right to speak of 'other denominations,' as is sometimes done? Is this pure speech?" Brother Errett says: "The Christians at Antioch were a denomination, distinct from all other religious denominations known among men; and we are a denomination." He gave Webster's defi- nition of the term: "A class or collection of individuals called by the same name." Is it true that the church of Christ is a denomination in the common acceptation of the term? The church of God is certainly not a denomination in the modern acceptation of that term ; and we think the expres- sion "other denominations," as contrasted with the church of God, is highly improper. First, because the expression is Ashdodic, is not pure speech, is not Bible language, and for that reason alone is liable to mislead and bewilder. When we mean the church of God, it is better to say so; and when we mean the denominations, better say it that way. And, secondly, because when we compare the church BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 179 of God with "other denominations," it implies that the church of God is a denomination in the same sense that others are; and this is lowering the church of God to the level of denominations established upon human creeds and confessions of faith. The sooner we confine ourselves to pure speech, to Bible language, in designating the church of God, the body of Christ, the sooner will we restore the an- cient order of things. E. G. S. DEVIL, WAS THE, AN ANGEL? Brother Lipscomb : Please answer through the Gospel Advocate these questions: Was the devil ever an angel in heaven? If so, when? It is generally accepted that the devil was once an angel. It is inferential rather than positive. Peter says: "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment," etc. (2 Pet. 2: 4.) Jude (6) says : "The angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." John says : "And there was war in heaven : Michael and his angels fought against the dragon ; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which de- ceiveth the whole world : he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." (Rev. 12: 7-9.) These, as now occur to me, constitute the scriptures which suggest the idea. Other passages would indicate he was wicked when in heaven. John (8: 44) says: "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth." (See 1 John 3:8.) Putting these scrip- tures together, it seems to me the devil was in heaven with a number of servants, or angels, who sinned, as it is now on earth, and the heaven underwent the same kind of purify- ing process that the earth is now undergoing. When sin is cast out of earth, it will be annexed to heaven as part of heaven. DEVIL, CONDEMNATION OF THE. Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Paul, in speaking of what a bishop ought to be, says: "Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil." The condemna- tion of the devil was certainly eternal. Then if one fall into it, surely his fate must be fixed forever. We believe that erring ones can be "converted from the error of their ways." We believe also that there is but one thing unpardonable — the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. 180 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, What is the difference between the condition of the one who is in "condemnation of the devil" and the one who "has neither forgive- ness in this world nor the world to come?" We are not sure that our brother is right when he con- cludes that a man being under condemnation of the devil is eternally so. The sinner before he believes is under con- demnation of the devil. He is not so eternally, unless he is eternally a sinner — that is, if he repents, he passes from under the condemnation of the devil into the justification of our Lord Jesus Christ. Whenever a man sins, he is by that act and for that act under the condemnation of the evil one. If he repents of it, he ceases from this condem- nation. We do not see why a man falling under the con- demnation of the devil after he becomes a Christian, or even a "bishop," may not repent and do his first work. A man may fall so far away that he will not repent ; then his con- demnation is eternal. But if a novice is unduly exalted and uplifted with pride of his position, acts foolishly, and falls under condemnation of the devil, we do not see why he may not learn wisdom and repent. When one is delivered to "Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus," we take it that he is under condemnation of the devil. But he will be brought to repentance if the spirit is saved, and then he will not be under condemnation of the devil. All under con- demnation are under condemnation of the devil. They may pass from under that condemnation by turning to God. We have believed for many years that the sin against the Holy Ghost is the rejection of the testimony of the Holy Spirit since his advent into the world. He completed the will of God to man; he perfected the testimony. Those who reject this will never have more testimony. D. L. DISCIPLINE, CHURCH. Brother Lipscomb: I wish to ask you a few questions on church discipline — i. e., on the manner of dealing with an offending one. The common custom is for the elders to go or send some one to see the offender and try to get him to return. If this fails, they bring the matter before the church; and after all means calculated to re- store him have failed, as a last resort they withdraw fellowship from him. This seems to be right if we take the Savior's instructions in Matt. 18 as applicable to the church now. Others, taking Paul to the Corinthians as their guide, first put away that wicked one from among them, as he directs in 1 Cor. 5. Then they try to bring him to repentance, so that they may confirm their love to such a one, as directed in 2 Cor. 2. I will be glad to have your views on this subject. Which of the above modes of acting is most in accordance with the Bible? We cannot think that there is any difference between the Savior's teachings and Paul's. It is true, the one seems to BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 181 be more particularly a personal offense; the other, a gross sin against morality. Yet there is but little difference be- tween the character of the violations of God's law if we study the cases closely. Then the same end is certainly kept in view in both cases — the salvation from sin of the sinner. The Savior advises to remonstrate privately; and only when private remonstrance and exhortation fails to bring the erring one to repentance is the matter to be brought to the church, and then after the admonition of the church has been resisted he is to be withdrawn from. I do not think Paul teaches a different order, but intro- duces a case in the middle of the discipline. The case had evidently been before the congregation at Corinth. The church had not properly mourned over and condemned the case. The sinner persisted in glaring, gross sin. He was, doubtless, encouraged to this by the course of the church. Paul commanded that they promptly withdraw from him, that the spirit might be saved. The spirit is saved through repentance. If the man through strong temptation had been led into the sin, and so soon as remonstrated with, or under the severe condemnation of the church, had sorely mourned and deeply repented of his sin, certainly then Paul would not have given the command that he did. The object of the withdrawal is to bring to repentance; if the object is accomplished without the withdrawal, then there is no need of the withdrawal. This withdrawal is the se- vere and final measure of God's disciplinary course. If the individual is healed of his sin by the milder and earlier measure of the course, certainly it is wrong to administer the severe medicine after the patient is healed. Good brethren take the position that the withdrawal must be gone through with in cases of gross immorality for its effect on the world. This would be merely theatrical act- ing for effect. We do not believe God ever does this. Yet there is such a thing as withdrawing from a man, keeping no company with him, yet admonishing him as a brother. (See 2 Thess. 3: 6-15.) The churches within our knowledge have all been too quick to cut their members off and give them up. Be prompt to condemn the sin, slow to give up the sinner. D. L. DISCIPLINE, A CASE OF WRONG. Brother Lipscomb : I write this private letter to get your judg- ment in a certain matter of church discipline. The church at A withdraws fellowship from Brother B on a charge of adultery. B pleads "not guilty," and says his case was not placed before the church in any way, only that the elders took the case to themselves 182 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, in a private manner against his consent and simply reported his ex- clusion to the church. B afterwards applied for membership at C, and said he was willing to have his case fully investigated, with all the proof from both sides. The church at C asked the church at A to grant B a reinvestigation, as he claimed innocence, and that he believed he could bring rebutting testimony to establish his innocence of the charge. The church at A refused to grant a new trial. B then requested the church at C to investigate his case and take all the proof, calling on the elders at A to furnish the proof upon which he was excluded. The church at C agreed to his proposition and fixed the day, requesting the elders from the churches at D and E to meet them in counsel in the investigation of the case. The day came, but no delegation came as such from the two churches applied to. The elders at A ignored the case. The church at C took no action in the case on said fixed day, more than an indefinite postponement to get further counsel. I advised the church at C, where I preach, as to the above-stated course. Now, have I done right in such advice? Has the church at C a right to investigate the case of B and act accord- ing to its own decision, admitting all the proof before the elders at A at its worth according to the judgment of the church at C? The man still avows his innocence of the charge, and it has been several years since the case first came up. B remains out of any congrega- tion of worship against his desire. Is there no remedy, or what is it, or must all our congregations forever submit to the decision of the church at A? The action of the church at A was wrong. It is the duty of the elders of a church to see that a thorough investi- gation of every case that comes up is had. It is not their duty alone to investigate, but to direct the investigation and see that it is just, full, and fair. We do not see that it is always necessary to investigate a matter before the boys and girls of a congregation. But discreet and prudent men of experience ought to investigate the case and put it in such form that every member of the church will be satis- fied of the justice of the decision. It is utterly impossible that men and women can act earnestly and heartily in a church when they believe it guilty of injustice and wrong to its members. An eldership that assumes such authority assumes to be the church and lords it over God's heritage. An eldership that refuses to satisfy by investigation a sin- gle member of the church proves its unfitness and incom- petency to rule a congregation of disciples of Christ. While every congregation ought to respect the action of every other one and act on the presumption that its acts are under direction of the word of God, still, if it has reason to believe that any act was not, especially an act that affects the rights of a disciple of Christ, that is brought before it, and is led on reasonable ground to think that wrong has been done to the least member of the body, as little as it could do would be to ask the congregation to review its ac- tion. A refusal of a request so simple and fair is a dis- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 183 courtesy to the congregation requesting it and an exhibition of a self-sufficiency, if not bigotry, that is not favorable to justice. If a congregation is satisfied that another congre- gation violated the law of God, this is certainly no reason why A should do it also. Remember always that not the action of the congregation, but the violation of God's word, unfits the person for membership in the church of God. Remember, too, the question should be, not whether you are in favor of this individual's exclusion or retention, but, Has he violated the law of God? Is he willing to conform to that law, or does he persist in his course of violating di- vine law? We have never seen why the wrong of one con- gregation should bind others to the same wrong. D. L. DIVISIONS, HERESIES, ETC. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In your remarks in answer to a "Disciple," page 97, No. 5, of this year, you say: "The Holy Spirit never intimated that a circumstance could arise that would justify division." Well, now, my dear brethren, it does seem to me that you may be mistaken, or I fail to understand the apostles in 1 Cor. 11: 19. Here the apostle says: "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." Are we to understand heresy to be division? If so, we are at a loss to know how to make your statement comport with the above quo- tation. The remark referred to had reference to the people of God as such — that there is no intimation by the Spirit of God that the people of God should be divided against each other; and this is true. Against division Christ prayed, and to this end Paul said: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you ; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." This gives the positive testimony of the Holy Spirit that there must not be divisions among the Lord's people. But when Paul speaks of heresies, which means schisms or sects, he has reference to wicked, unruly members, and that such ought to be divided or sep- arated from the true members of the body of Christ. It is always a blessing to the cause of truth for insubordinate members that will not obey the truth to slough off and get out of the way, or that they be withdrawn from, that the purity of the church of God may be seen and appreciated by those around them. And this is what Paul had refer- ence to in the passage mentioned in the above query. He had no reference to those who have a desire to do the Lord's will being divided ; this he condemns. There is no author- ity for a congregation of Christians to divide. Wicked men 184 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, should be separated if they cannot be reclaimed, but never array Christians against Christians. Purify the body, but do not divide it. E. G. S. DIVORCE AND MARRIAGE AGAIN. Brother Sewell: I desire to ask some questions concerning mar- riage. Suppose a man who is not a member of the church marries a woman who is a member of the church. They separate for the rea- son that they do not live peaceably together; they both get a divorce; the man afterwards becomes a Christian. Would he then have the right to marry a woman who is also a Christian? Acording to Brother Smith's argument, his first marriage was not according to Scripture; and if his first marriage was a violation of God's law, was he not living in adultery? Would his first wife have the right to marry again, as her first marriage was not lawful? In the case as presented above, the first marriage is a real, binding one. A woman that is a Christian would do wrong to marry a man who is not a Christian; but that wrong on her part would not prevent their marriage from being a real, actual one, and their disagreement could not vitiate or dissolve their relationship of husband and wife. Getting a divorce by human law cannot dissolve a marriage in the sight of God ; and there is but one cause that can, while both live. There may be reasons on account of which husband and wife might separate and cease to live together ; but this sort of separation does not break the marriage tie, and so long as they both live neither one can marry again without violating the New Testament. Whichever one mar- ries commits adultery, as also the one that marries the sep- arated one; and in case one of them does marry, and thus commits adultery against the other, this act releases the other. If it be the man that marries, as in the question, the fact of his becoming a Christian cannot possibly authorize him to marry some other woman, Christian or not Chris- tian. If he becomes a Christian, that is only a stronger reason why he should either remain single or be reconciled to his living wife again; then, both of them being Chris- tians, they ought by all means to be able to live together. But while the first wife remains single he has no sort of right to marry, because the fact that he was not a Chris- tian and she was does not and cannot vitiate the marriage tie ; therefore they were neither one of them living in adul- tery to live together as husband and wife. Hence his be- coming a Christian after they separate cuts no figure in the case, and has nothing to do with his right to marry again while his first wife remains single and chaste. The first wife did wrong in marrying a man outside of the church, as I understand the New Testament; but that wrong could in no wise dissolve the marriage or prevent it from being a BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 185 veritable marriage. When a Christian marries one not a Christian and they set in to live together as husband and wife, there are but two causes on earth that can break that marriage; one is the death of one of the parties, and the other is adultery on the part of one or the other. The sort of marriage as supposed above would neither be a cause of separation nor of another marriage, nor would the parties be in adultery to live together. Separation after marriage on the part of a Christian with one not a Christian would in no wise undo the first wrong of marrying such a one. Either keep out of the first wrong in marrying such a one or seek forgiveness for the wrong in some other way. Many people are only too anxious to find an excuse to sep- arate; but the above offense never can break a marriage deliberately entered into. The only way to avoid the diffi- culty is not to enter into such a marriage. Young Chris- tians often fail to study the New Testament before mar- riage and go contrary to it ; but that sin does not break the marriage and they must stick to it or both live single till death separates them. If either one marries another party, it will simply be an entrance into a sin that will destroy the soul if persisted in. Paul plainly teaches that a believing husband or wife is not to put away an unbelieving one on that' account. DIVORCE AND SEPARATION. A brother and a sister married and remained together six years. They could not agree. He left her, sued for divorce and obtained it, and now has married another sister in the church. They are in good standing in the church, excepting this case. Please give me your views about it in the next Gospel Advocate. Can they be retained in the church by making acknowledgment? The whole subject of divorce was discussed not long since in the Gospel Advocate. The Scripture teaching was pre- sented. All we can or ought to do is to present the simple teaching of Scripture. We have no opinions or views on any subject that ought to weigh with any person. Some- times cases become complicated, and those who study the Scriptures more closely may assist in properly applying the law of God, just as a lawyer or a judge who makes the law his study may understand applying it to cases. But this case presents no complication. Any one who has mind enough to be responsible can apply the law. Jesus says: ' 'Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her." (Mark 10: 11.) In Matthew he adds, ''save for the cause of fornication." No fornication is alleged. He is said to have left her. We 186 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, cannot make the language plainer. The church that can- not act on Jesus' word is unworthy of him. If the man put away his wife for any cause, and the woman her husband, save for adultery, and married another, he is guilty of adul- tery. He and the present woman with which he cohabits (she is not his wife) are living in adultery. No acknowl- edgment that does not undo the wrong is scriptural. D. L. DOCTRINE, THE FORM OF. Brother Lipscomb: In Rom. 6: 17 we have these words: "Ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you." Do you understand "form of doctrine" to include anything but bap- tism? If so, what is it, and when and how obeyed? In 2 Thess. 1: 8 we have : "Vengeance on them that . . . obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." Is there included in the words "obey not the gospel" anything more than (1) faith, (2) repentance, (3) con- fession, and (4) baptism? In other words, do you understand that the gospel is obeyed in full when a believer is baptized? If not, what additional obedience is required to obey the gospel, and is there any promise of remission of sins without full obedience? No religious service can consist in or include baptism alone. Scriptural baptism cannot be alone, cannot exist by itself; scriptural baptism cannot exist without faith in Jesus Christ, without repentance toward God. Unless the heart is purified by faith in Christ Jesus, and unless a godly sorrow works a repentance unto life, there can be no scrip- tural baptism. "To obey from the heart" emphasizes the same truth. The heart means the inner, spiritual man, em- bracing the will, the intellect, the affections. The obe- dience from the heart requires that the mind, the will, the affections, should all enter into the service. The mind must be enlightened, the will should be guided and the af- fections enlisted before the "form of doctrine" can be obeyed. When baptism is spoken of, all these essentials to baptism are included. Baptism is not scriptural baptism, save as it is the expression and the embodiment of faith in Jesus Christ and the declaration of repentance toward God. Dr. Hackett says: "Submit to the rite in order to be for- given. . . . It is the sign of the repentance and faith which are the conditions of salvation." This is a correct statement of the relation of baptism to repentance and faith and to salvation. In the vocabulary of Paul, "ye are justified by faith" and "we are baptized into Christ Jesus, are baptized into his death," mean the same thing. He explains : "Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal. 3: 26, 27.) Faith per- fects and declares itself in baptism. So we are justified BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 187 by faith, by being led by faith to put on Christ, by being baptized into him. "Baptism for the remission of sins" means justification by faith that works through love. The doctrine, or teaching, was that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and raised again for our justification. The form of the doctrine includes the dying to sin as well as the bur- ial and resurrection to life. We die to sin, and are quick- ened to life by faith ; we are buried, and rise in Christ Je- sus to walk in the newness of the life imparted through faith in Jesus Christ, just as the principle of life is im- parted by begettal, but it can enjoy no distinct and per- sonal life until it is delivered into the new state suited to the development of life. Obedience to the "form of doctrine" includes the death to sin, the quickening through faith, the burial and resurrection through baptism to a new life in Christ. "Gospel" is good news. "The gospel" is, by emphasis, the good news of salvation in Christ Jesus. To obey the gospel is to do the things required to enjoy the blessings promised in the gospel. Unless something was required that the blessings might be enjoyed, there could be no obe- dience to the gospel. In its wide and general sense the gospel embraces all the blessings, temporal and eternal, that come through the mission of Christ to earth. They all constitute a part of the good news to man. Used in this broad and general sense, obedience to the gospel would be obedience to all the laws and regulations that train and qualify man to enjoy the blessings that come through Christ either in this or in the world to come. "Gospel" is used in a more specific sense to apply to Christ and his mis- sion, to the great facts of his life that establish his claims to be the Christ — his death, burial, and resurrection from the dead — which especially proclaim him the Son of God. It applies to these because these procure and open all the blessings of heaven and earth to men. So to preach Christ is to preach all the blessings brought through Christ and enjoyed in him. In this specific sense it is most frequently used in the Scriptures ; but when thus used, it is used as leading to and including all the truths and blessings grow- ing out of the mission of Christ. Corresponding to this specific use of the term "gospel," the obedience of the gos- pel means obedience to those acts which commit men to Christ and bring them into him. Being in Christ commits him to walk in all the requirements of Christ and opens to him the promise of all blessings brought by Christ to man. In ordinary language of the Scriptures, obedience to the gospel means a belief in and acceptance of Christ in his ap- 188 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, pointed way. It binds to an obedience to all the laws and regulations of the Christian religion that fit men for enjoy- ing the blessings of heaven. Then obedience to the gospel means doing the things that bring us into Christ and com- mit and obligate us to do the whole will of God. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance from sin, and a burial out of self to arise in Christ Jesus put us in Christ and bind us to a life of service to him, and are the obedience of the gospel. What is the doctrine and its form found in Rom. 6? The doctrine in the passage referred to represents the gospel of Christ, the plan of salvation prepared by the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The form of doctrine is something that is like the doctrine ; and as the doctrine is death, burial, and resurrection, so must the form be in some sense. The alien in. becoming a Christian dies to sin, both to its love and its practice. This is accom- plished through faith and repentance. Then, upon the con- fession of the name of Christ, he must be buried with him in baptism and raised up therefrom to walk in newness of life. This is a very forcible form of the doctrine, and it is very clear that any one who has not thus died to sin, been buried and raised up to walk in newness of life, has not obeyed the form of doctrine as the Romans had. E. G. S. DOCTRINE, THE PRINCIPLES OF THE, ETC. 1. What are "the principles of the doctrine of Christ" that the apos- tle would have us leave, and where may we find them — under the old or new institution? (Heb. 6: 1, 2.) Please be plain, so that the class may understand what the apostle really meant. 2. In the letter of Paul to the saints at Philippi (Phil. 1: 6) he says: "That he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." Some are of the view that it was God who began the work; others think the apostle referred to Timothy; some think it was the Savior ; and some think he referred to some one in the congregation. Will you please give your views as to who it was that began the good work among them referred to? 1. We understand the "principles of the doctrine of Christ" to be the requirements of the gospel by obedience to which people become Christians. When people obey the gospel and become Christians, they have then sub- mitted to the first principles of the doctrine of Christ and have made a beginning in the great work of Christianity. But they must not stop at this, but go right on in the prac- tical work required in our daily lives, adding all the Chris- tian graces to their faith; must go on to perfection — that is, perfect the Christian character by attending to all things BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 189 that God has required of Christians. These Hebrew Chris- tians to whom Paul wrote were still attached to the law of Moses, and were disposed to keep up its practices in their daily lives instead of going on with the practices of Chris- tianity. The ceremonial works of the law were all dead, were all taken out of the way, when Christ died ; and yet they were disposed to cling to these old ceremonies, these dead works, such as the doctrine of baptisms, the various washings of the Jews, the laying on of hands, such likely as the laying their hands upon their sacrifices when they were going to slay them, and of resurrection of the dead, refer- ring to the fruitless controversies between the Pharisees and Sadducees on that subject. The question of the res- urrection to all that believed on Christ was fully settled by his resurrection from the dead, and Paul wanted them to leave all those controversies in which they had been en- gaged as Jews under the law. We are informed in the last part of Heb. 5 that they had failed to advance in their knowledge and practice of Christianity; that at the time they ought to be teachers they had need that one should teach them again the first principles of the oracles of God. Paul's requirement, therefore, is not that they should for- get the first principles, but that they should advance on, learning and doing the practical requirements of the church of God, and not stop when they had become Christians and spend their time discussing and working over the dead principles of the law, and thus laying again the foundation of repentance or reformation of life from these dead works. They had turned away from those things when they obeyed the gospel, and he taught them to carry on their begun work in Christianity and let the law alone. 2. The one spoken of in Philippians who had begun a good work among them, and who would perform it to the day of Christ, we doubt not, is God, who was the author of all that had been or would be done for them, no matter through what agencies or instrumentalities it had been ac- complished. E. G. S. DOOR OF THE SHEEP. Does the expression, "door of the sheep," in John 10: 7, mean the same thing as "door into the sheepfold," in John 10: 1? We have no doubt whatever but that in both these verses the door spoken of means the same thing. Many of the things the Savior said were prophetic in their character, as was the case in this chapter. He even foretells the calling of the Gentiles in this chapter, and says: "There shall be one fold, and one shepherd." (Verse 16.) The sheepfold 190 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, means the church of God, and the word sheep in verse 7 is a figurative expression, which is here used to signify the church, which is composed of Christians, which are here by figure called sheep. And no man can enter into this fold except by Christ, who is the door. E. G. S. DRAWING ALL MEN TO HIM, CHRIST. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please give us an explanation through the Gospel Advocate of John 12: 32. When and how will he draw all men unto him? We do not think it means literally that he will draw all men (every one) unto him. It is an expression like this: 'Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan." 'That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." "I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." It means that all — that is, a great por- tion — of those living in Judea and Jerusalem and in the region round about Jordan who would accept of him came and were baptized by him. Jesus came into the world to enlighten the whole world, and all who would open their eyes to the light might be benefited thereby. His Spirit was poured out upon those of all nations and families who received Christ. And this means that by the resurrection from the dead and the ascen- sion on high he would provide means that ought to draw all men after him, and that would draw all who would open their eyes and hearts to the light and warmth of the gos- pel. These styles of speech are common in the Bible and among men. They are easily understood by those who care- fully attend to habits of speech. D. L. EATING FLESH, BREAKING BREAD, ETC.? Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Please answer the following que- ries: 1. "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life." (John 6: 54.) What does Jesus mean by this language? 2. "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." (Acts 2: 42.) 3. "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart." (Acts 2: 46.) What is meant by the "apostles' doctrine?" Can it be the fellow- ship, breaking of bread, and prayer, seeing they are sometimes spoken in connection with the doctrine and separated by the conjunction and? Does the "breaking of bread" in each of these verses mean the same thing, or does either allude to the Lord's Supper? "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them." (Acts 20: 7.) How do we know, or where is our proof, that this language has reference to the Lord's BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 191 Supper? Do we infer it from the phrase, "to break bread?" If so, could we not infer it to be a daily practice from the same language in Acts 2: 46? 1. The first passage, regarding eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of God, is a figurative ex- pression and has reference to all the requirements of the gospel ; for it is only by doing the requirements that eternal life is obtained. No one thing alone will take men to heaven. That it includes the Lord's Supper, we have no doubt; but that it embraces more, we are equally certain. A certain character is requisite to eat the Lord's Supper. This character is attained by living a godly life, by doing the commandments of God in the new institution. Who- soever, therefore, continues to eat bread and wine, his life in other respects being devoted to God, will certainly ob- tain eternal life ; but a man whose life is not consecrated to the service of God might eat the bread and drink the wine every Lord's day through life and it would not bring eter- nal life to him. By eating we take into the system that which sustains natural life ; and as bread is one of the lead- ing items of food, the whole of our living is often spoken of as bread, both in the Bible and out of it. The Savior in the immediate connection of this passage represents him- self as the bread which came down from heaven, which if a man eats he shall live forever. But the eating of this bread includes all that Jesus would have us do to gain eter- nal life, the Lord's Supper and all things else. He that doeth the will of the Father shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. 2. The breaking of bread spoken of where they are said to have continued in the apostles' doctrine has reference to the Lord's Supper. They broke bread in this instance by the teaching of the apostles. The word doctrine means teaching. The apostles were commanded first to make dis- ciples and to teach them to observe all things Christ had commanded them. On the occasion referred to the apos- tles had just made three thousand disciples by preaching the gospel and inducing them to obey it. They then began immediately to teach them all the things they were to ob- serve. Among these things were fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers. All these things were done according to the doctrine — the teaching of the apostles. This break- ing of bread, therefore, is something the apostles taught to be done. It never was necessary for the apostles to teach the disciples to eat their daily bread; they attend to that without any teaching; their own appetites will lead them to that. But taking the Lord's Supper is something the 192 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, apostles taught by the Spirit of God to be done by the disci- ples. From other passages we learn that it was to be done on the first day of the week. Putting these different pas- sages together, we learn that the apostles taught the first Christians to meet on the first day of the week to break bread — to eat the Lord's Supper. This is plainly the mean- ing of the passage, and the disciples at Jerusalem continued steadfastly in the work. 3. As to the breaking of bread from house to house, the indications are that this means the partaking of ordinary food. The passage says: "Continuing daily with one ac- cord in the temple." This continuing in the temple was done daily, every day ; and as the breaking of bread in this instance is immediately connected with something done daily, and as the Lord's Supper is done on the first day of the week, we conclude that this breaking of bread from house to house means partaking their ordinary food. The disciples then had all things common, and it was but nat- ural that they should eat first at one house and then another, as circumstances might require. The expression break bread may refer to partaking ordinary meals or it may re- fer to the Lord's Supper. The connection must always de- termine which is meant. When they broke bread by the teaching of the apostles, that was the Lord's Supper ; when the disciples came together on the first day of the week to break bread, that was the Lord's Supper ; but when they broke bread from house to house, connected with something done daily, the indications are that this meant ordinary meals. The teaching of the word of God regarding the Lord's Supper, we think, is very plain, not something to be inferred from uncertainties. E. G. S. EATING, WHAT MEANT BY IN 1 COR. 5: 11? Brother Seivell: I would like for you to explain 1 Cor. 5: 5, 8, 11. Does the eating mean the Lord's Supper? Verse 5 is where the church at Corinth was required to withdraw from a man that had taken his father's wife. The church was paying no attention to the case, and was thereby encouraging a great sin. Paul commands them in the name of the Lord Jesus "to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." This means that the church was to withdraw fellowship from that man, thus turn him over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. This shows that the discipline of the church is intended for the good of the erring member — that the design of church discipline is to save the erring one from his sins. Disci- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 193 pline, therefore, is not a mere matter of punishment, but an infliction enacted upon him to show that God will not recognize sin, and that men that persist in sin in this life will be lost in eternity. To withdraw from a member is the last resort of the church in its efforts to save a mem- ber. If that fails to turn such members from sin, they will surely be lost. But in this case the infliction had the de- sired effect. When the man was withdrawn from, turned over to Satan, he waked up and repented of his sin, and in the second letter the apostle admonished them to restore him, lest he be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Hence, all churches should realize that all discipline must be administered with the one pure design of reforming and saving a member from his evil ways. It is a grand work to thus save a soul. In verses 7 and 8 allusion is made to the Jewish passover. During that feast, which lasted seven days, they were not to have any leaven about their houses. So in allusion to that custom he says in verse 7 : "Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump." 'Tut away that evil member from among you" is the idea. Then he also says: "For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ." So the church has a paschal lamb all the time, and its members need to be pure all the time. The great feast of Christian- ity lasts all the time, and the church ought to be pure all the time. The word "feast" in verse 8 is likely used figura- tively to indicate that the church of God is a lasting feast that ought always to be pure and clean. If not this, then it may mean the Lord's Supper ; but more likely it refers to what the church should be all the time. The eating spoken of in verse 11 we do not understand to be the Lord's Sup- per, but rather a common meal. It indicates that Chris- tians shall not associate with one called a brother, who is guilty of the things named in this verse, in any way that will seem to recognize him as a Christian. To go and eat a friendly meal with a disorderly member would be to recog- nize him as all right, when he is in reality all wrong; and such a course would encourage him in his wrong course, when he should be rebuked. If we in any way associate with a member guilty of the things mentioned in that chap- ter so as to encourage him in wrongdoing, we to that ex- tent become parties to the wrong; and all should scrupu- lously avoid that. On the other hand, if we make this eat- ing mean the Lord's Supper, it would make the apostle in- dicate that we could eat the Lord's Supper with a man guilty of these things in case he is not a brother ; for in the preceding verse, in regard to associations, he makes ex- 194 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, ception of a man guilty of the wicked things named, pro- vided he is not a brother, for he says we would have to go out of the world if we avoided associations with such. In our business associations with men we are sometimes com- pelled to be with, and in a measure associate with, men of the world, and eat with them, when guilty of such things. This would not be wrong when business requires it ; but it would be wrong, of course, to eat the Lord's Supper with such. Therefore the eating mentioned is certainly, as we think, an ordinary social meal, and not the Lord's Supper. ELDERS. 1. How and by whom should elders and deacons be appointed? 2. How long, as a rule, should a church continue to meet before such an appointment is made? 3. Does the term elder always carry the idea of advanced age in years or advanced in Scripture knowledge? 4. Are there two classes or more of elders? It would appear so from 1 Tim. 5: 17. The Holy Spirit has described the qualifications of eld- ers in the first letter to Timothy and in that to Titus. None are perfect in their character. So none will have in per- fection these qualifications laid down — that is, all will pos- sess them in a human way. In describing such as elders, the Spirit appoints all who possess these qualities to do the work of elders. They will be found doing the work of eld- ers to some extent of themselves, else the qualities would not all be manifest. The congregation will see these quali- ties thus manifested. The multitude of the disciples, when a proper work was neglected by the church, were required (Acts 6:3) to "look ye out among you seven men" with the required qualifications. We suppose in any case where a work was neglected the multitude or body of disciples would select those among them possessing in a humanly practical degree the prescribed qualifications to do the work. The only work, so far as the Scriptures show, done by the church was to choose those described by the Holy Spirit. In the case of the seven hands were laid on them by the apostles. Whether this was to be done by others than inspired men has always been a question a little diffi- cult for me to decide. Hands were laid upon persons oc- casionally during the ministry of the apostles. In all cases except two, this one and Barnabas and Saul (Acts 13), it is specifically stated it was done to impart the Holy Spirit or that the Holy Spirit was imparted in doing it. This is not stated in these two cases. Yet the parties in both cases on whom hands were laid did manifest a power to work miracles, of which no account is given previous to the im- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 195 position of hands. This truth, together with the consider- ation that all the other cases were intended to impart spir- itual gifts, raises the doubt in my mind if this was not the object in these cases also, inasmuch as almost every one called to do special duty before the New Testament was given was endowed with a spiritual gift to guide him in that work. If so, laying on of hands was confined to the age and persons possessed of spiritual gifts. It is very certain, at any rate, that men did discharge all the duties pertaining to the work of the church of God without having hands imposed on them. With this cer- tainty and the doubts as to the matter of imposition of hands, I have never been willing to have laid or to lay on hands. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." I do not think there was any rule or custom regulating how long a church should exist before elders should be ap- pointed. In the Jerusalem church, it seems, the neglect of a proper work was the occasion of their being set apart. A daily ministration to the widows and the poor was going on before these persons were set apart to attend to the work. This, we take it, was done under the offering of the disciples, excited by the love of the gospel and teachings of the apostles. In that ministration the widows of the Greek-speaking people were neglected. They were stran- gers, foreigners — spoke a foreign language. They were, doubtless, isolated from the others ; and although they were all Jews or proselytes, there was a prejudice against them, and they were neglected in this daily distribution. Then the apostles called the whole multitude of the disciples to- gether, told them of the neglect that had come to their knowledge, told them they could not give time to attend to it, and asked them to select seven men, "full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this busi- ness." "Full of the Holy Ghost" did not necessarily mean miraculously endowed, but fully under the influence of the teaching of the divine Spirit. This work that they were to be set over was the seeing these Grecian widows were not neglected, not the whole distribution that took place to the Hebrew widows. This was already attended to. The Hebrews, as distinct from the Grecians, being at home with their wealth, doubtless gave the principal part of the means distributed. Each one of those selected was Greek, as the names show. Now, the apostles did not take the means from these Hebrews and give to foreigners to dis- tribute among the widows and poor of the Hebrews; but they gave to these Greeks means to distribute among their 196 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, poor widows, not leaving either class dependent upon for- eigners for their support. The point in all this is, the appointment was made only when the necessities of the case demanded it, and was made only to meet the existing need. So a neglected duty in a church would seem to indicate the time and purpose for which men are appointed to duties. This accords with Tit. 1:5: "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou should- est set in order the things that are wanting [neglected], and ordain [set in proper place] elders in every city." It seems Paul had preached there, according to the accepted chronology, in 63. Titus, I presume, was with him. He was familiar with the proper development and work of a church. Paul left him that he might wait to see their working, guide them into anything they might neglect, and to properly place the elders in the work to which each was fitted. The letter was written in 65. All the references to the elders and deacons indicate that they were to be men of age and experience — not necessarily old men, but men of established character ; men not novices, to have their heads turned with the idea of authority; men in whom the pas- sion and fervor of youth had subsided into sobriety, self- control, gravity, earnestness, and firmness; men of expe- rience and success in guiding their families, well grounded and well established in the truth. While no special age is given, they must have sufficient age to have established their characters in these several different relations to have shown aptitude in training families. I do not understand that a failure to have wife and children disqualified for the work ; but as most men have wives and children, they were to be such as had guided them well. We do not understand there were two orders of elders, but all elders have not the same talent. One may do one kind of work ; another, a different one. D. L. ELDERS, THEIR QUALIFICATIONS. Can a member of a congregation act as an elder except he pos- sesses all of the qualifications that Paul speaks of to Timothy? It appears to my mind that if a man should assume the office of elder without the proper qualifications, as set forth by the apostle in 1 Tim. 3, he would be a self-constituted elder, and that his actions as such would be void. While I am of this opinion, there are many good brethren who differ from me and say that if we have not the proper material we must do the best we can and appoint to the work the best material that we have, whether they possess all of the qualifications or not. (1) The first qualification, it seems to me, is that a man must desire the office; (2) he must be blameless; (3) the husband of one wife; (4) vigilant; (5) sober; (6) of good behavior; (7) given to hospitality; (8) apt to teach; (9) not given to wine; (10) no striker; BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 197 (11) not greedy of filthy lucre; (12) patient; (13) not a brawler; (14) not covetous; (15) one that ruleth his own house well; (16) grave; (17) not a novice; (18) moreover, he must have a good report of them which are without. Now, the apostle says that a bishop must possess these prerequi- sites. The question is: Can we place a man in the office, under any circumstances, who does not possess all of these qualifications? Please answer at length, as our congregation has dispensed with the eldership in consequence of not having men who possess all of the requirements. Do you mean that your congregation has dispensed with the work that elders should do? That nobody instructs the congregation or looks after the weak members? That you have no rule or discipline in the church? Do you mean that nobody leads in the worship? Nobody asks an- other to give thanks at the table or to lead in prayer ? No- body urges other members to meet to worship God, or to live honestly, uprightly, deal justly and fairly in the world? If you have given up these things, you have given up being Christians. A people cannot live Christians without doing all the work for one another and the community that God requires. They cannot do this without doing the work of elders and deacons in a community. You cannot live as Christians in a community without looking after the spiritual interests of the church and the public, without helping the poor and the needy, without teaching the ignorant and reproving the wrongdoers. When this is done, the work of elders is done; and it is much more important that the work of the elders than that the office of elders should be looked after. We often so pervert the religion of Christ that we esteem the office of more importance than the work. This is the world's order of things. It is only in one sense that the word office is applicable to the work in the church. It is not used in the church as it is in the government of the world. In this it means that when a man is inducted into office he is authorized to do certain things that it would be a crime for him to do if he were not in this office. Now, in the Scriptures it has no such meaning. The man's becom- ing an elder authorizes him to perform no act that he was not authorized to do before. It only makes it his business especially to look after the work now. He is to be chosen because he has shown his fitness for the office by doing the work beforehand. This shows it is not an office in the sense of an office of a civil government. But it is a duty imposed, growing out of a fitness developed for the work needed to be done. Any one who does this work of an elder is, in fact, an elder, whether he is appointed to it or not. The appointment gives him confidence and assurance in the 198 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, work and makes him feel it especially his duty to do the work. Sometimes men are elected that have no fitness for the work, and others do it who have a natural fitness for it, but are not elected. A church in this condition has two sets of officers — a man-made set and a God-made set. The man- made ones are always a curse and a hindrance to the church. Better not select any if you will not select the God-made ones. These will do something of the work with- out appointment from men ; and when the work is done, the office is filled. But our brother says they have none fitted for the work. If so, there are no Christians there. A number cannot live the Christian life and not develop the characters needed to do Christian work. It is frequently said nobody fills this bill, when it is not true. You occasionally find a wicked man who says there is no Christian; and it is just about as hard to find a Christian, according to the faultfinder's standard, as it is to find one fitted for an elder. When the Holy Spirit requires qualifications, he specifies them as they develop themselves and exist among men, not as they exist among angels. The man who expects perfection among men is an impractical visionary. God does not ex- pect it. When he says they must be blameless, he means they are blameless as weak human beings. Abraham was a model of God's men. We form visionary ideas of Abra- ham's excellence; but when we come to solid facts, he was a weak, erring human. Twice under fear of his life he lied. He occasionally went without God's direction. He and his family suffered for it. I have no doubt we have thousands of Christian men and women who are the equals of Abraham and Sarah in fidelity and trustworthiness be- fore God and man. Peter was not faultless. He prevari- cated. I have no doubt our very exacting brethren, had they been in the days of Peter, would have said : "He is not fit to open the doors of the kingdom ; he denied the Savior ; he is not fit to teach or be a leading apostle." When the Jews came to Antioch, Peter dissembled and refused to eat with the Gentiles, although God had taught him by a mir- acle that he must receive and treat them as brethren. Yet God accepted him as the leading apostle. God held him blameless as a man, with human weakness and infirmities, when as an angel he would have been blameworthy. It is not blameworthy for a human being to err sometimes. It is for him to persist in the wrong. I have no doubt we have thousands of men, probably some in that very church, who are or may be the equals of Peter in firmness and fidel- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 199 ity to truth. Inspiration gave knowledge, but not moral strength. When we dispense with the elders, we dispense with the work of God; and many Christians are in moral character the equals of Peter or Paul or John or James or Abraham or Isaac or Jacob. This faultfinding and depre- ciation of everybody else usually arises from undue exal- tation of self. It is not a healthy state. The old hypocritical sinner who stands off and carps at everybody in the church as wicked means to say he is very righteous and very perfect. He is usually a self-deceived hypocrite. The same spirit in the church belongs to the self-righteous. It is not healthy to be overmuch righteous nor to demand it of others. Acknowledge your own and your fellow men's humanity, your liability to err ; get clear of the foolish idea that men with faults and human weaknesses are unfitted for the service of God. He adapted his service to and for weak men liable to err. Be willing to confess your faults when you do err. I have noticed it in men, I have noticed it in papers. When one starts out to be over sweet-tempered, to keep out all humanity, it becomes one-sided, unfair, and the bitterest and most intolerant of men and papers. They do not show goodness in an honest, open, human, brave way. A paper that starts out to have no controversies, to be overly peaceable, is as sure to be filled with unjust in- sinuations and innuendoes as that to-morrow's sun will rise. You cannot crush the humanity out of men. Do not look for perfection in human beings nor dispense with the work of God while pretending to be Christians. When you do the work, you fill all the offices of his servants. ELDERS, THEIR APPOINTMENT. Brother Sew ell : I beg your pardon. I did not think it was wrong to ask you how you appointed elders in the churches; but when you say it does not matter how you do things, I beg leave to differ with you there. I think it does. Knowing you had been a Bible student all your life, and a teacher of it as long as almost any man I could think of, I did not expect to get anything but a Bible answer; but when you say what was done away and what was not when the reve- lation was completed, and that before that time the apostles were made in one day into the grandest preachers the world ever saw, and that Adam was made a full-grown man by miraculous power, I do not know what to think. I had thought without the seed there was not anything made that was made; that Adam was not made a grown man any more than Jesus was; that there never was an oak before there was an acorn; that man must have seed in him before he can become a newborn babe, or a Christian; and that an elder must have the qualifications Paul says he must have, or you cannot make an elder of him by appointment. However, we are agreed on that point. You admit that in some cases it might be best to go by Paul's direc- tions. If in some, why not in all? You say: "I have found that 200 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, when a new congregation begins to meet and worship, there are some better fitted than others to take the lead in the work and worship of the congregation." Then why not appoint them and keep out the kind of men you speak of? If we have the right kind of elders, they will not let them push themselves forward. It is my belief that these are the kind of men of whom Paul said that their "mouths must be stopped," and he knew that was the only way to do it. Now, I want to ask you one more question, and if you will answer this, I never will ask or write anything more on this subject. The question is this: Where does the Bible say anything should ever be done away that was ever commanded to be done or not to be done in the churches? The trouble with Brother Holt in this whole matter plainly is that appointment to a work in the New Testa- ment involves a divinely prescribed ceremony or formula; and this whole idea of a formula of appointment has arisen from the idea of office and official authority in the church. Our brother is certainly under the influence of these no- tions to some extent, or he would not be so earnestly con- tending for a specific form of appointment. His question above shows that he thinks the appointment of the seven and others was by a specific form commanded of God, given in the New Testament, and that it must not be dropped out of use. If this be true, Brother Holt is right ; but the trou- ble is, he assumes the thing to be proved. That is just the thing I have been calling in question all the time, and the very thing which neither he nor any other brother has proved. The assumption in the matter is that fasting, prayer, and the laying on of hands, as mentioned in the New Testament, constitute the formula of appointment or ordination. If we grant the assumption, then the conclu- sion very easily follows that these things must be done in order to an appointment; but the trouble is that no one has yet made the proof. The word appoint is the word especially to be examined, because the word ordained, as connected with workers in the church, has been entirely left out of the Revised Version of the New Testament. The word appoint, as found in the New Testament, is a translation of at least ten different Greek words, no two of which have precisely the same meaning; while in the Old Testament the word appoint is from about twenty dif- ferent Hebrew words, all with a little different shades of meaning, but all of which were thought in some sense to involve the meaning of the word appoint. It may certainly be seen from these facts that the word appoint cannot mean a specific formula or ceremony. I will here give a few examples of the use of the word, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Sol- omon said to Hiram, in regard to hewing cedar trees for the temple: "And unto thee will I give hire for thy servants BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 201 according to all that thou shalt appoint." (1. Kings 5: 6.) Instead of the word appoint in this passage the Revised Version has the word say. In 1 Kings 11 : 18 it is said of Pharaoh : ' 'Which gave him a house, and appointed him victuals, and gave him land." In Dan. 1 : 5 we have the expression : "And the king appointed them a daily provi- sion of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank." These may suffice from the Old Testament to show T that the word appoint involves no specific formula, but simply what certain men said or directed to be done. In the New Testament we have: "After these things the Lord ap- pointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two be- fore his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come." (Luke 10: 1.) When the apostles were about to appoint another apostle in the place of Judas, "they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen." The word shoiv is from the same Greek word that appoint is from in Luke 10: 1. The Greek word is anadeiknumi, and means "to show anything by raising it aloft, as a torch; to display, manifest, show plainly or openly; to mark out, constitute, appoint by some outward sign; and in this case the choice was shown by lot. When the Savior sent out the seventy, he showed or indicated to them by word whom he wanted to go before him — likely called them by name and told them to go — and that is all the word indicates. It involves no sort of fixed ceremony, but a simple designation as to who should go, and they went. Again : "Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen." (Acts 7: 44.) God appointed the taberna- cle by telling Moses to make it, how to make it, and how they should use it ; but it was by no fixed formula that God appointed the tabernacle, but simply by speaking and tell- ing Moses what to do regarding it. The Greek word here for appoint is diatasso, and is defined: "To arrange, make a precise arrangement, to prescribe, to direct, to charge, to command, to ordain." This word occurs sixteen times in the Greek Testament, but it is rendered appoint only four times. It is rendered command seven times; ordain three times, in the sense of direct or command; and once set in order; and there is not a single instance of the use of this word that admits of a fixed ceremony. One of the occurrences of this word is : "And we went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul : for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot." (Acts 202 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 20: 13.) When Paul appointed that they should take him in at a certain place, it only means he directed or told them what to do. In Acts 28 : 23 we have this : "And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God." This is where they appointed — that is, named, specified — a day for Paul to preach at Rome. This, of course, required nothing more than for them to name or designate a day for him. In Acts 6 the word rendered appoint means "to place, set, constitute, appoint; to con- duct ; to make, render, or cause to be." So the word means set, place, appoint to do this work — simply that they as- signed the seven men to do the work of serving tables. There arose a necessity for that work to be done, and these men were selected as required and directed to do that work. The prayer and laying on of hands are not involved in the word appoint, and were, therefore, for a different purpose. Prayer and fasting are individual acts of devotion to God, and to reduce them to a fixed formula or ceremony is to pervert them and take all the life and meaning out of them. Laying on of hands was always by men miraculously en- dowed and for miraculous ends, and never an ordinance of the church to be continued after the age of miracles. The word appoint, therefore, means to command, to direct, assign, or set, or place a man over, or to do a certain work, as in the case of the seven; but the form of so placing or directing men to do certain work is not laid down, just as the matter of going to the place of assembling on the first day of the week. We are required to go, but not told how we must go ; hence we may walk, go on horseback, in a buggy, on the cars, on a wheel, or any way we may choose ; but if Brother Holt were to undertake to force all to walk, or go on horseback, or in a cart, he would find trouble. So in regard to the matter of appointment. The apostles appointed the seven, and Titus was directed to appoint eld- ers in every city; but no formula of appointment is laid down. To direct, request, assign, place, or set one to do the work needed fills the bill. Just as well may you require that every one shall walk to the place of meeting on the first day of the week as to require a fixed or specific for- mula of appointment of workers in the church; and since God has not specified how we shall go to meeting, it would be preposterous and presumptuous to require all to go one particular way. It would be exalting human requirements into the place of divine commands. Washing the hands is a good and harmless way to keep clean, and about the only successful way to get rid of dirt BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 203 and filth, and it has always been right, therefore, to wash the hands; but when the Pharisees began to require the Jews to wash their hands at certain specified times and oc- casions as a religious service, then they made void the com- mands of God by their traditions. I think brethren do pre- cisely this very thing when they require or practice any specified formula of appointment in the church. When men fast and pray and lay on hands as the formula of ap- pointment, they act upon the same principle they would if they were to lay down the law that all the members should walk to the place of meeting on Lord's day. Hence, where the Lord has not laid down the manner of doing a thing, we have no right to lay down any specified form. It is wrong, a matter of rebellion against God, to do so. I would about as soon enter into a demand that all the mem- bers of the church should go to meeting one fixed way as to require that the workers in the church should be ap- pointed by fasting, prayer, and laying on of hands. Now, as no fixed form of appointment has been com- manded or laid down in the New Testament, there is no such thing as laying it aside; therefore the principles of the above question do not apply in this matter at all. This is the reason why it is not a matter of importance as to how I do these things. It is true that I have been studying the Bible a long time — about half a century; but in all that time I have not been able to find any formula laid down for appointing men to do work in the church of God, and no one else has been able to show it to me. Any way that a congregation may give an elder to understand they want him to act as overseer for them is an appointment suffi- cient. It is the duty of every child of God to read the Scriptures regularly, learn all he can about the work of the church, and do all that he can do, anyhow, and thus grow up into the work ; and if a man grows until he can fill the bill as an overseer, and then fails to go on in the work, the congregation should certainly urge upon him to persevere in doing his duty. This would be appointment enough. As to prayer and fasting, these may be voluntarily done at any time and by any Christian who may in a very hum- ble and earnest way implore God's favor. Hands cannot now be laid on by divine authority, as we understand the New Testament. Work, service, earnest devotion to God, is what we need, and no sort of appointing or ordaining service can take its place. 204 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, ELDERS, MUST THEY AND DEACONS BE MARRIED? Brother Sewell: Please answer the following question: For a man to hold the office of elder and deacon in the church of Christ, should not he be a married man and the head of a family? Does not the Scriptures so teach? The third chapter of Paul's first letter to Timothy plainly says of both elders and deacons that they must be husbands of one wife. There are differences of opinion as to whether the apostle meant they must really be married or simply meant to teach that they must not have more than one wife. It was customary in those days for men to have more than one wife at the same time, and some think this passage was intended to break that up. But we cannot explain away the fact regarding both elders and deacons that they must be the husbands of one wife. Why not conclude, then, that the passage was intended to accomplish both ends at the same time — that they should each have a wife, but only one? I am sure it is safe to so understand and to so apply the passage to both elders and deacons. But in the Greek, regarding elders, bishops, there is no word for office. This has been put in by the translators without a particle of authority for it that I know of. Elders and deacons are necessary workers in the church, but not officers in any sense, but as workers. All authority in the church is through Christ, the great head of the church. But all con- gregations need well-informed men to take oversight, to teach the word and see to it that all conduct themselves as the word of God requires. The work of scriptural dea- cons is also necessary ; but they are not officers in any sense further than the work they are required to do. Brother Lipscomb : Can a man be a bishop or a deacon that has no wife? (See 1 Tim. 3: 2, 12.) We believe an unmarried or childless man, if otherwise qualified, may be a bishop or a deacon. I think where the Scripture says "the husband of one wife" it means he must have but one wife and be true to her. Then he speaks of his having children. It means, since the rule was to have children, if he has them, he must rule them well. "But if a man knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:5.) This shows the end of the wife and children was disciplinary to teach and train the persons for the work of caring for the house of God. Now, if a man gets his training in some other way and shows his fitness of ruling, even though he has no family of his own, shall the church be deprived of his proved talent? BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 205 ELDERS, THE DUTY OF. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I would like for you to give a sketch through the Gospel Advocate on the duties of elders. Is it their duty to decide in matters of difficulties in the church? Or, to be plain, shall they decide whether a member is walking disorderly and the church be subject to their decision, or is it the duty of the whole church to vote on the subject? Some of the most intelligent members in the church here disagree on the subject. We do not know how to make this subject any plainer than the New Testament makes it ; and if we tell anything that it does not authorize, we shall tell something that will do harm. The elders are properly the overseers of the congregation, and that would necessarily put them in the lead in searching out all matters of difficulty. But, then, the elders, the overseers, are to do everything of the kind according to the word of God. They are not to do these things by their own wisdom. They must ascertain whether the party or parties under investigation have violated the word of God or not; and if they ascertain that they have, then such party or parties must make amends, must place themselves right, or they should be withdrawn from; and the word of the Lord, not the vote of the church, must de- cide all these matters. A brother from Giles County asks whether it is the eld- er's business to conduct the Lord's-day meetings or not. It is certainly his business to conduct such meetings or to see that it is done. An overseer must always see that the work is done, either by himself or some one else that is competent. ELDERS, EVANGELISTS, APPOINTIVE. Brother Setvell: Can a man be an evangelist according to the New Testament, live a Christian, and go to heaven when he dies, without the appointing ceremony of laying on of hands? And, upon the same grounds, can one be an elder? If so, why the practice? We are well aware of the fact that some very earnest, good brethren think it the scriptural order that evangelists, elders, and deacons should be ordained by fasting, prayer, and laying on of hands. But good men's thinking a thing is so does not always prove it to be so. We shall have to see it in the word of the Lord in a light in which we do not now see it before we can accept it as true. The first case in the New Testament relied upon as an example of laying on hands in ordination is the case of the seven in Acts 6. There are some facts in regard to the matter of laying on hands in the New Testament that we need to consider. Early in the ministry of Christ hands began to be laid on people to work miraculous power, as in the case of healing 206 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, diseases, and one case in pronouncing a blessing upon lit- tle children. Christ laid his hands on large numbers and healed them. Later on the apostles laid their hands on people to heal them and also to confer spiritual gifts. But in all that is said in the New Testament preceding the case of the seven there is not one word said about laying hands on men to ordain or to appoint them to any sort of work or office in the church. Nor is it either said or intimated in Acts 6 or any other passage in New Testament times that hands were to be, or ever had been, laid on to ordain men either to office or work. Whence, then, the idea that it ever was done? We can see no origin for it but the as- sumption of those who claim it. Not only is it a fact that hands were laid on extensively to exercise and to impart miraculous power, but it is a fact that the apostles were the ones that laid hands on the seven, and it is certain they were able to impart and work miraculous power. It is also a matter of fact that Stephen, one of the seven, began work- ing very wonderful miracles immediately after hands were laid on him. Now, since hands were all along laid on for miraculous purposes, and never one time laid on to ordain people, nor a word said in this case that the laying on of the hands of the apostles was for the purpose of ordaining the seven, who has the right to say hands were laid on to ordain them? We claim no one has a word of authority for any such a thing, and that it is assumption pure and simple for any one to so affirm. The next case claimed as a case of ordination by the lay- ing on of hands is in Acts 13 : 1-3. In this case also, as in that of the seven, those who laid hands on Paul and Bar- nabas were men miraculously endowed. It is also true that Paul began the working of miracles as soon as he started out on his evangelizing tour from Antioch. Hence, all the facts in connection with both these are in perfect harmony with the idea that hands were laid on to impart miraculous power, and not one word to indicate that hands were laid on to ordain them. Nor is there one case in the New Testament that says any such thing was ever done. All the testimony of the word of God is to the effect that hands were laid on in all cases to work or to impart mi- raculous power and never to ordain men. ELDER, IS THE PREACHER OF A CHURCH ONE? Brother Seivell: Is a preacher a scriptural elder of a congrega- tion by reason of his having received a call to preach for it? Not unless he possesses scriptural qualifications when he is called. The mere fact that a man is called to preach for BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 207 a congregation has nothing to do with making him an elder. It takes a number of things to make a scriptural elder. In the first place, the word elder means older, and is, therefore, a term relating to age and not to office. The word elder (older) is in the comparative degree. It does not necessarily mean an old man, but it means one older than the ones with whom he is compared. A man must have a good degree of age — of maturity — before he is ready to be a scriptural elder; and yet not every man of mature years is an elder in the New Testament sense of that word. A man must not only have age, but he must have wisdom and discretion, and must also have Bible knowledge, that he may know how to teach and enforce the word of God; for an elder is not to be a mere figurehead, but must be a man that can not only teach, but can feed the flock with the word of life, and must have a good degree of skill in the matter of influencing the members to do the will of God. He must not be an arbitrary man that will lord it over God's heritage. He must not be a partisan, with partisan views to subserve. His own life must be in harmony with the will of God also. He must be competent to rule his own house in harmony with God's will, or he will not know how to take care of the house of God. Many of the preachers of modern times are very largely destitute of some of these necessary qualifications. Many of them do not keep their own lives in harmony with God's will as written, but rather in harmony with some human opinion to which they are so wedded as to be ready to sacrifice the word of God rather than surrender their own opinions. And, unfortunately for congregations, preachers of this sort are called to con- gregations to be pastors, in the modern acceptation of that term, and at once made elders. They then assume control of things and introduce human inventions, such as hu- manly devised societies, the organ, festivals, and such like. Then follows a split in the church, some siding with the preacher and glorying in what has been done, while others who have conscientious scruples against such things are driven out in order to worship God and carry on the work of the church as the word of God directs. Many are the congregations to-day that have been rent in twain that way. And it is quite common for congrega- tions that employ young men and make them elders be- cause they are preachers, and allow them to take the lead and boss things, to find themselves pretty soon in the midst of a big church trouble of some sort and finally in an in- curable split. Congregations should be thoroughly on their guard in these matters; and if they employ a young man 208 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, to preach the gospel to their neighbors and to teach the word of the Lord to the members, then let him devote him- self to that work and not assume to boss the congregation. Let the elders attend to that. There are very few young preachers that are competent to such a task ; and, in fact, there are many older ones that are not. It is altogether out of harmony with the word of God for a congregation to employ a young man as pastor and put the management of things into his hands. The elders, and not the young- ers, are God's divinely appointed rulers of his people; and any perversion of this inspired rule brings trouble sooner or later. There may be congregations where there is no teaching elder and where it becomes necessary to call in some one to teach the word, both to the members and to the world ; but, as a rule, he should adhere strictly to that business and not interfere with the control of the church. Young men make good evangelists to bring people into the church ; but not many of them are suited to do the work of elders, and should not be put at such work. A preacher that would split a church for the sake of a human opinion is not fit to be either elder or preacher for a congregation, and woe be to the congregation that employs such a man and puts the control of the church into his hands. Such a man and a few thoughtless women can split any church in the land. ELDERS, WHISKY, AND DANCING. 1. Can elders in a congregation rent their property for the pur- pose of selling whisky without violating scriptural authority or bring- ing into disrepute the church of which they have oversight? 2. Can an elder, as an overseer of a congregation, tolerate dancing by allowing it at his own residence? Does he not cease to be an elder in a scriptural sense? We have frequently given our conviction of the sinful- ness of Christians in any manner becoming partakers in the sins of the saloon. There is not a more degrading in- fluence in society than the saloon. Its work is to degrade and destroy men, to debase and pollute the youth of the land, to beggar women and children, and to despoil women of their virtue and purity and change them into demons to corrupt and deprave society. Certainly no Christian in any manner should become a partaker in such work. He is commanded to "labor, working with his hands the thing which is good." (Eph. 4: 28.) Here the Christian is re- stricted in his labor to that which is good. He cannot use his property to promote that which he cannot work to pro- mote. An elder is to be an example to the flock. While things may be borne with in private members, hoping to BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 209 train and save them from their sins, it is not right to bear with these in a bishop or elder. He is put forward as an approved example of a Christian. A man who is so in- sensible to the demands of purity and good morals cannot be a scriptural elder. On the same ground, a man who tolerates dancing in his own family or at other places is not fit for an elder. His own sense of propriety ought to teach him not to occupy a representative position when he misrepresents the faith of a great number of the members. Things may be borne with in a private member to save him that could not be tolerated in a representative man. Paul (1 Tim. 3:2) says: 'The bishop therefore must be without reproach," or "blameless." No man can be with- out reproach with all good, true, and prudent men and women who uses his property to forward the work of whisky selling or encourage the licentiousness of the dance. "Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without." No man who uses property to forward the whisky interest ever had good report of even whisky men. Wicked men have no respect for a Christian who shows a willingness to compromise morality and right for the sake of gain. A man who encourages dancing and jeopardizes the virtue of his daughter is never respected as a religious man by the wicked themselves. Men who rent their houses for the work that degrades men and encourage the dance that demoralizes and destroys the modesty and endangers the virtue of both men and women cannot be elders or bish- ops in a church governed by the word of God. D. L. ELDERS, THEIR JURISDICTON. Brother Lipscomb: How far does an elder's jurisdiction extend? In other words, suppose we have a congregation here and meet every Lord's day and a member moves into our midst and meets with us occasionally; do the elders here have jurisdiction over him, even if he refuses to let his name be put on the book commonly called the "church book?" What does it take to make a man a member of a local congregation? If a man is a member of the church of Christ, he is such wherever he is or goes. The Bible says not a thing of joining local congregations. Wherever Paul went, he was a member of the church of God there, whether at Ephesus, Troas, Corinth, Jerusalem, or Rome. If a Christian comes into a community where there is a church of God, he is a member of that church. He became so when he became a Christian, and wherever he goes he is a member of the church of Christ; and if he fails to do his duty, he ought to be admonished, exhorted, and disciplined. 210 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, ELECT, THE. In the second Epistle of Paul, the apostle, to Timothy, second chap- ter and tenth verse, we have this language: "Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." I do not understand who the elect were, unless they were those that were called at that time by God to preach to and teach the Gentiles. We think there can be no doubt but the elect were the Christians — those who had professed faith in Christ. They were God's elect. Paul endured all things that these might be faithful unto death and be saved in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. D. L. ELECT, GOD'S. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please give me your views on 2 Tim. 1: 8, 9, but more particularly verse 9, which reads thus: "Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." Also please explain Tit. 1: 1, 2, which reads thus: "Paul, a servant of God, and an apos- tle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the ac- knowledging of the truth which is after godliness; in hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began." What is meant by "God's elect," and who did God promise "before the world began?" God's elect are his obedient children. The word elect means chosen. His people are chosen through the gospel when they obey the gospel. Peter, in the first chapter of his first letter, calls his brethren "elect according to the foreknowledge of God ;" and in the latter part of the same chapter he tells how they were chosen, or elected, of God: "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth: . . . being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." These people became the elect, or chosen, of God by obeying the truth, which is the word of God, by which they are born again. When born again, they are Chris- tians — God's elect; and if you desire to know what word they obeyed in purifying their souls, in being born again, turn and read Acts 2, for Peter was writing to those who obeyed the gospel at Jerusalem and were afterwards scat- tered abroad. Any man or woman may be one of God's elect by obeying the gospel, which is God's power for sal- vation ; but no man can be one of God's elect who will not obey him, for the disobedient will all be lost. Peter says of Christ: "Who verily was foreordained be- fore the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you." Thus Christ was foreordained and in the mind of God promised before the world began. But all BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 211 we know about the promises of God is what the Bible re- veals regarding them. In a very short time after the world began the Lord began to promise a coming Savior, and in this passage Paul speaks of God promising eternal life before the world began. And this statement of Paul we must believe, whether we can explain it or not. There are many things in the Bible that are to be believed that the wisdom of man may not be able to explain any further than the plain expression of the words used. The word world does not always mean this earth. It may mean age or in- stitution, and it may mean that in this passage ; and if so, then it may mean the promises of God pertaining to eter- nal life through Jesus, which were given before the church of God, the last age or dispensation of God's grace on this earth, began. But of this we speak not positively. ELECTION, FOREORDINATION, PREDESTINATION. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I would like to see your explana- tion on Rom. 8, where it speaks of election, foreordination, predesti- nation, etc. We understand the passage to refer to what takes place in this life in connection with the church of God. Here are the verses as they stand : "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things ? If God be for us, who can be against us?" In most places in the New Testament — we might, perhaps, say in all— where the words foreordain, foreknowledge, predestinated, and such like, are used, they simply refer back to the Old Testament, where God not only foreknew, but foreordained and predestinated, all things pertaining to Jesus Christ and the salvation to be provided through him. To foreknow means to know before. So to foreordain means to ordain before, without intimating how long before. God foreordained, after man sinned, to pre- pare a plan of salvation for his rescue from sin. He fore- ordained also that when he should send his Son into the world he would put his words into his mouth, and he pre- destinated that all that would not hear his words should be destroyed, while those that would hear him should be saved by him. But he never foreordained that certain ones should believe and be saved and that certain others should disbe- 212 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, lieve and be lost. That was left to the choice of men. And Christ put the destiny of man precisely upon that ground when he commanded the apostles to preach the gos- pel to every creature, saying : "He that believeth and is bap- tized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." All of God's decrees are based upon this prin- ciple. This is but the expression in the New Testament of what God foreordained in the Old Testament. But the words foreknowledge and foreordain are not found in the Old Testament at all ; but in former ages God foreknew and foretold certain things that were to happen afterwards, and the New Testament develops these things and speaks of them as foreordained, etc. He says to those Christians at Rome, "All things work together for good/' etc., speak- ing to them in the present tense, expressing to them what was true of them and of all Christians. He then says to the same persons : "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son." This we understand to refer to becoming a Christian. In becoming Christians we obey the form of doctrine as ex- pressed in chapter 6. The doctrine is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. When we obey the gospel, we come into the similitude of that. We die to sin, are bur- ied with him in baptism, and arise to walk in newness of life. So also at the same time we are conformed to the image of the Son of God. Obeying the form of doctrine and being conformed to the image of his Son represent one and the same thing. Then the expressions justified and glori- fied are strong expressions, indicating the entire remission of all past sins and their acceptance as the sons and daugh- ters of the Lord Almighty, and glorified by being admitted into the church, the temple of God, the body of Christ, here, with the promise of eternal life to all who continue faithful till death. It is thought by some that the expression glorified cannot lawfully be applied to Christians in this life ; but we can see no reason why not. Men are glorified by the Lord in being permitted a place in his temple, wherein his Holy Spirit dwells. And, besides, the same Greek word rendered glo- rified in this passage is elsewhere applied to members of the church. In 1 Cor. 12: 26 we have the following: "And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it ; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it." The word honored here is the same Greek word rendered glorified in Rom. 8, and in the passage in Corinthians there can be no doubt about its referring to members of the church. So that difficulty is out of the way. We, then, BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 213 regard the whole passage as quoted above from Rom. 8 as being only a strong figurative representation of what takes place in men called by the gospel of the grace of God. When they obey the gospel, they are pardoned, justified, and glorified with a place in the body of Christ. E. G. S. EMBLEMS, WHO MUST PREPARE THE? Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Will you be so kind as to tell us through your paper who should prepare the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper (I mean whether saint or sinner) ? Of what and how are both composed? My reason for inquiry is that some of our breth- ren sometimes use the common cracker and blackberry wine at the Lord's table, and I object to it; but if I am wrong, I want to be righted, and I believe that you can give me and others some light on the subject. We have no instruction whatever as to who shall sow the wheat, plow it in, reap it, thrash it, grind it, or make it into bread for the Lord's Supper. So we can give none. It always seems to me a careless, indifferent way to take a cracker or something that just happens to be at hand. That used by the Savior was bread made or used during passover week — unleavened bread. It is safe to use this, and it is well to be on safe ground in all religious service. It is worth taking some trouble about, or it is not worth at- tending to at all. The Lord used the juice of the grape, the fruit of the vine. He set it apart as the memorial of his blood. Nothing else has been set apart as the memorial of his blood to men. God alone in Christ could consecrate a memorial of his blood. For any one to displace the fruit of the vine with anything else is for man to assume the prerogative of God and substitute his devices for God's appointments. I could take nothing as the memorial of his blood but what he appointed — the juice of the grape. END, FROM THE BEGINNING, DOES GOD SEE THE? If God sees the end from the beginning and knows all that will come to pass, how can men change that order or be responsible? It is not my business to tell how God can do this or that and be consistent with the ideas we form of right and jus- tice. I may fail utterly to comprehend how he can do it, but that does not alter the facts as to what he knows and does. Some one propounded this difficulty to Paul, or he saw that it would be asked and forestalled the trouble oth- ers would have in answering it ; so he gave the answer, ap- proved by the Holy Spirit: "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? 214 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?" (Rom. 9: 18-21.) That is precisely the question: If God foresaw it as it is, who hath resisted his will? How could it be helped ? I am not called on to give a different answer from Paul's. If our faith rests on our understanding of how God does this or that, it is not acceptable. But why should not God know all things from the beginning? Did he order affairs that he did not know how they would work? Does he foreknow anything? If he sees one thing in the future, as we call it, why not everything? What hinders? Man foresees some things, but not all things. Why? Be- cause his vision is feeble; he has only one-sided views of premises; some things are too high for him to see over them, some difficulties too dark for him to see through them. But are any of these things true of God? Is his vision feeble? Does he have to take one-sided views of things? Are hills too high for him to overlook them? Are not all the premises and conditions laid bare to him? What hinders him from seeing the results that flow from the causes he has himself set in motion? We must not attribute human weakness to God. God has foresight ; he did foresee and foretell many things that would come to pass. If he could foresee one thing in the future, why could he not foresee everything? Man can fore- see some things, and not others, because his vision is weak, partial, one-sided, and he understands but few of present conditions from which future results flow; but none of these weaknesses are true of God. He sees the end from the beginning, and our not seeing how to reconcile it with other things that we think are true is not sufficient ground for denying these qualities and this power. Man can see everything within the range or scope of his vision, save what imperfection or weakness of that vision hinders; God can see everything in the range or scope of his vision, time, and space, unless imperfection prevents. Is God's vision weak? If God can look down the vista of time and see one thing that will happen one thousand years hence, what can hinder his seeing everything that can happen dur- ing that thousand years? But God is an eternal I Am. Time and space with him are nothing. Study these things, and do not measure the perfections of God by our frail and weak senses and imperfect reasonings. D. L. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 215 ENDOR, WAS SAMUEL CALLED UP BY THE WITCH OF? Brother Lipscomb: In 1 Sam. 28: 7-20, do you think that Samuel was summoned from the other world through the power of the woman with a "familiar spirit?" If so, do you believe we have people to-day who have these "familiar spirits?" The woman was a pretender and a deceiver. The whole class of them were severely condemned by God as deceiv- ers and pretenders. The soul forsaken by God sought com- fort and assurance through her. She called for Samuel, not expecting him to appear, but that she could make a representation that would satisfy Saul and secure a fee from him. The appearance of Samuel was unexpected to her, and greatly frightened her ; so she cried out with fear. God raised Samuel unexpectedly to her to reprove her and Saul. I do not think she had power to raise any one ; God interfered and raised Samuel on this occasion. I do not think any one has power to call up the dead now. There are persons with familiar spirits who may produce appear- ances on those under their spell that deceive them. EPH. 4: 13-16. Brother Sewell: Please explain Eph. 4: 13-16. The passage, including several verses preceding it, is as follows: "Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. . . . And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craft- iness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the meas- ure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." These gifts were the inspired men that were given to reveal the religion of Christ and to teach and edify the church in the first age of it, when there was no New Testament to look to for the full devel- opment of the gospel plan of salvation. These were to continue until a full presentation of the whole matter of 216 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, Christianity should be revealed and put to record. This was accomplished in the giving of the New Testament, which fully furnishes the man of God unto all good works. When this should be done, these miraculous gifts were to cease, and did cease. The ushering in of the New Testa- ment gave the entire plan of salvation, with all its require- ments, furnishing the means to the whole church of coming into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God ; so that now, with the New Testament in hand, there is no need for people to be tossed about with all sorts of errors and opinions of men ; but with that in possession, all can speak the truth in love and can grow up in Christ, their Head, and can edify one another in love. A wonder- ful blessing was conferred upon the church when the New Testament in full was given to it. These miraculously en- dowed men were not given as permanent officers in the church, as some people claim; they were given only to es- tablish and teach, edify the church, till something more permanent should be established. So soon as that was done these miraculous gifts ceased ; and since that time the church is not to look to men, but to the New Testament, the last gift of the Holy Spirit to the church and for the world. The written words of the Holy Spirit serve the same purpose now that the apostles and all miraculously endowed men did when they were present; so the church can now edify itself in love without the aid of any other inspired men. While inspired men were a necessity then, they are not needed now ; yet the church is better equipped for its work now, both in converting sinners and in edify- ing saints, than when these gifts of miraculously endowed men were here. Hence it is not the fault of God that the religious world is so divided. The fault is in the people, and not with God. If they would go by the word of truth furnished to them by the Holy Spirit through those in- spired men, they would all be one; but the trouble is that many of them will not be governed by this word. Hence, divisions have arisen and still continue to exist. EVANGELISTS, AUTHORITY OF. Has an evangelist any power as a ruler in the church? Has he any right to call in question the decision of elders in case of disci- pline? Evangelists have no rights in congregations of which they are not members. above the humblest Christian in the land. Any Christian, when he sees elders or others going wrong, has the right and is under obligation to try to con- vince them of what is right. But that is the end of his au- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 217 thority. Paul sent Titus and Timothy — inspired men — to direct the churches that had never had elders set to work to see that this was done. This does not authorize unin- spired men to interfere with any congregation having its elders to oversee it as the Scriptures direct. It is their duty, as it is of every individual Christian, to try to show elders or others what the Bible teaches — what is right and what is wrong. Further than this they have no rights. EVIL, DID GOD CREATE? Brother Sew ell: Please explain Isa. 45: 7, in which God says: "I create evil." Did God ever create anything bad? In our sense of the word bad and of the word create, he never did ; but in a Bible sense, he has and still does. The ancient Persians are said to have believed in two opposing deities or powers, one of which always brought good to men, while the other brought evil; and they attributed all the good things that came to them to one of these, and all the evil to the other. But God lets them know in this verse that he is the author of all things. The full verse says: "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things." God was talking of Cyrus, the Medo-Persian king that was later to capture Babylon on account of the wickedness of that great city, and he would have Cyrus and others know that he did all these things. He also said, as if talking to Cyrus, and after calling him by name, more than a hundred years before it came to pass, that he would go before him, and make rough places smooth, and break the doors of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron, and give him the treasures of darkness, all indicating that he would enable him to capture Babylon, and that Cyrus should know that it was Jehovah that should do all these things. And though this prophecy was uttered more than a hundred years be- fore Cyrus was born, it was all literally fulfilled, and Cyrus was led to see that it was the work of the God of heaven, and not the work of his imaginary deities, that all those won- derful things were to come to pass. The sense, therefore, in which God created evil in this passage is that he would stir up Cyrus, the Mede, to destroy Babylon when the time should come for it. This was actually done, and God opened the way for it to be a success. When the Jewish people became so wicked that God would not endure their rebellion longer, he stirred up Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, to humble them by capturing them, destroying their great city and country and carrying them captives to Babylon. And when Babylon became too wicked to be 218 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, longer endured, he stirred up the Medes and Persians, who, led on by Cyrus, accomplished the prophecy in full. War is a great evil on any country, and God only brings it upon people to accomplish necessary ends. But because God uses one nation to destroy another is no proof that the na- tion he thus uses is a righteous people. It only means the wicked are the sword of the Lord to punish and humble an- other people more wicked than they. Men originated war- fare, but God turns it to accomplish his ends. He also uses famines, pestilences, earthquakes, great storms, and such like things, for similar ends. But he never brings bad things into existence for evil ends. He only uses evil things already in existence to fulfill his will, his purposes, just as he did in the destruction of Babylon and other wicked nations. All the judgments God brings upon men seem evil to them; but these judgments are only brought upon men for their good, not bad things for bad purposes. "EVIL SPIRIT," HOW "FROM GOD?" Brother Lipscomb: Please explain 1 Sam. 18: 10. What I want commented on is the evil spirit going out from God. The Scriptures in many places teach that when a man sins against God persistently, God sends an evil spirit upon him to lead him on to his ruin. Take 1 Kings 22: 20-22: "And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead ? . . . And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so." Ahab was one of the most wicked and idolatrous princes of Israel. God desired he should be slain at Ramoth-gilead, and so a spirit went forth to mislead these prophets of Baal, whom Ahab worshiped, that he might be slain. The same principle is set forth in Isa. 66 : 4 : "I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them ; because when I called, none did answer ; when I spake, they did not hear : but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I de- lighted not." This means that when we refuse to hear and obey God, he sends such delusions upon us as will bring us to ruin. The same is set forth in 2 Thess. 2 : 11, 12 : "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that, they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unright- eousness." When men will not believe the truth, but have pleasure in unrighteousness, God sends such a delusion on them that they may believe a lie that will lead them to their own destruction. God never sends an evil spirit or a BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 219 delusion upon a good man, or upon one willing to obey him ; but he sends these upon the wicked and disobedient that they may go down to ruin. All spirits are subject to God, the evil as well as the good. He sends the evil spirits to afflict the wicked and lead them to deeper ruin; he sends the good spirit to lead and comfort the obedient and faith- ful. God leads those who seek to know and obey him into the fullness of all truth and into the blessings flowing therefrom. The disobedient, those not willing to obey God, he sends into the paths of darkness and death leading to a deeper ruin. EVIL, HOW "RESIST NOT?" Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: You will please explain what is meant in our Savior's Sermon on the Mount as recorded in Matt. 5: 39-41: "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." Does this apply to us; and if so, are we to observe it in this way? When we are smitten by our fellow man, regardless of cause, are we to return the blow with double force if possible? And if we are to apply these verses in the way that Christ gave them, certainly other passages of scripture will strengthen it. I remember the first literary school my parents sent me to. The teacher impressed upon my mind a rule which I shall never forget. He told me if any difficulty were to happen between any of my school- mates and myself, though they maltreated me, not to return the same to them, but come and lay the trouble before him, he being the proper one to reprove and punish the unruly. I have studied the will of my Heavenly Master enough to learn in some of his teachings where he said : "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord." The full passage is: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth : but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil : but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." Most of the Sermon on the Mount is taken up in laying down the general prin- ciples of the religion that he had come into the world to establish, and the language of it must be understood in this way. This sermon was not intended to give the spe- cific precepts of Christianity, but to express the general light in which we are to regard all precepts or commands of the New Testament and the spirit we are to cultivate as Christians. The law of Moses in many respects allowed retaliation for injuries, as expressed in the above, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," etc. ; but Jesus says : "I say unto you, That ye resist not evil." He thus intro- 220 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, duces a principle entirely different from that contained in the law. He here forbids violence in every particular and gives three illustrations of it, as in the above passage. The whole idea is: We must not resist evil by doing evil in return, must not resist violence by doing violence in re- turn. Paul says, in applying this principle: "Recompense to no man evil for evil." (Rom. 12: 17.) And again: "If thine enemy hunger, feed him ; if he thirst, give him drink : for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." (Verses 20, 21.) These passages explain and apply the principle laid down by the Savior when he forbids us to resist evil. The three items of turning the other cheek, giving up the cloak, and going two miles when forced to go one, are put in by the Savior to illustrate what he means by telling his disciples not to resist evil. Perhaps in our whole lifetime just these things mentioned here will not occur; but many things of like character will occur, to which we can apply these illus- trations and know how we ought to act in the premises. The life of Christ himself is a good illustration of this prin- ciple ; and if we will study his life, what he did and how he acted under all the trials through which he passed, we can then very well understand what he meant. Peter, in pre- senting Christ as our exemplar, says: "For even hereunto were ye called : because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his footsteps : who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth; who, when he was reviled, reviled not again ; when he suffered, he threatened not ; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously." (1 Pet. 2: 21-23.) Christ never did any violence, never resisted any evil by force, or by doing evil in return for evil, but acted upon principles of kindness, of love and mercy, and thus left us an example that we should follow. We must, as Christians, learn how to live out the princi- ple of nonresistance taught and lived out by the Son of God and taught also by the Holy Spirit through the apostles; and if even the very things mentioned by the Savior should occur with us, we must act as he enjoins and trust God for the result, and all will be well with us. E. G. S. EXTORTION. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: If there is a brother who asks three dollars per barrel for his corn, and at the same time many good brethren and widowed sisters have to buy, and they come and offer him the customary price — say, two dollars and fifty cents per bar- rel — and he turns them off, saying, "No, I will wait; next summer I BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 221 can get three dollars," is he not committing the next thing to extor- tion? Or if a brother in good circumstances has corn, and corn is scarce — can hardly be had even for the money — and what he has, and more, too, is needed in his own neighborhood, and he sells it, or a good part of it, to a big merchant, thus depriving his brethren and neighbors (who have not the money as this merchant) of the benefit of that they must have or starve, is he not doing as bad? Now, dear brethren, what think you? Those above mentioned will cry out: "Deal with the drunkard, with the dancer, and with the adulterer." Which is the worse? We cannot undertake to decide questions involving the character of brethren without having all the facts on both sides. If there are no mitigating circumstances in the above cases, the brethren alluded to have both done wrong. But it may be that if we could hear their statement of the matter and hear all the facts on their side, their case might prove to be a very different one from the above. So we cannot and should not undertake to give a definite answer to such questions. The very effort to do such a thing would be doing injustice to ourselves and might do a very serious injustice to the parties. Wrongdoing ought to be rebuked everywhere, and covetousness and extortion ought to be dealt with as rigidly as lying or theft. But congre- gations of which such men are members are the ones to de- termine their guilt and pass the sentence, not those who are far away and know nothing of the particulars or reasons for such action. Christian character is a very delicate thing to deal with, and rigid justice should always be done in such cases. E. G. S. EZEK. 37. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Will you please explain the teach- ing of Ezek. 37, especially verses 14, 15, and 16? Was the Spirit given to enable them to know the Lord, or were they to know him because of their chastisement for sin? When this prophecy was uttered, the Jews were in cap- tivity; and the Lord, by strongly figurative language, was foretelling their restoration to their own land. In verses 12, 13 he speaks of them as if they were in their graves, and promises to bring them out of their graves and bring them into their own land again ; and then verse 14 comes in, saying: "And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land : then shall ye know that I the Lord have spoken it, and performed it, saith the Lord." The giving of his Spirit is put in to carry out the figure of restoration to life, and has nothing to do with their knowing the Lord. They were to know him by his dealings with them, by his carrying into effect what he had foretold. He first foretold to them that the would 222 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, carry them into captivity on account of their sins, which he did. Now he tells them he will bring them back into their own land, and that when they were thus brought back, as he prophesied they should be, they should know that he is the Lord. The two sticks spoken of in verse 16 were simply to illus- trate to the Jews that when they should return to their own land they should be one nation, and not divided any more, as they had been. Verse 22 fully expresses the end of the matter as illustrated by the two sticks: "And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel." E. G. S. FAITH, HOW "THE SUBSTANCE OF THINGS HOPED FOR." Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In what respect could the apostle say that "faith is the substance of things hoped for?" (See Heb. 11: 1.) Is the present rendering correct? The word substance means, literally, that which stands under, as a support, or stay, just as a pillar stands under and supports whatever is placed upon it. The things that Christians hope for are the blessings of eternal life, and no man can hope for eternal life that does not believe all that is said in the Bible regarding it. As well think of building a house in the air, without any pillar or foundation for it to rest upon, as to think of having a hope of eternal life without faith. Nor is faith alone a sufficient foundation; it requires a faith perfected by obedience to be sufficient. When a man believes the gospel and obeys it and continues to live the Christian, that man has a faith that will do for a foundation for hope, and nothing short of that will. Hence the verse might be correctly rendered something like the following: "Now faith is the foundation of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." A living faith lays hold of the promises of eternal life as realities, and rejoices in them, and patiently bears the toils and trou- bles of life, looking forward to a home where troubles and afflictions can never come. E. G. S. FAITH, THE, THAT HEALED THE CRIPPLE. Please give your understanding as to whose faith it was that healed the cripple at the beautiful gate of the temple; also the reason for your opinion. It was the faith of the apostles in Christ, not the faith of the man that was healed, for he had no faith till healed. There was in those days a faith that enabled its possessor to perform miracles. Christ referred to this kind of faith BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 223 when he said to the apostles: "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." (Matt. 17: 20.) The same sort of faith is spoken of in 1 Cor. 12: 9, where Paul, in speaking of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, says: "To another faith by the same Spirit." This kind of faith, or power, was the gift of God for the special purpose of per- forming miracles that is not now possessed. But if Chris- tians will cultivate firm and unflinching faith in God and his word, they can do almost anything through Christ, ex- cept to perform miraculous power. The faith, therefore, that healed the lame man was in the apostles. Hence, Pe- ter said: "And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect sound- ness in the presence of you all." This is the way Peter explained this case of healing. Since the days of miracles there is none of this sort of faith, because God does not be- stow it now. But by earnest faith Christians can accom- plish much now; but this is a faith they must exercise in their own hearts and practice in their own lives by doing the Lord's will. FAITH, THE, THAT PURIFIES. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I have always entertained differ- ent views from the brethren in regard to the faith spoken of by Peter in Acts 15: 9, when he said: "And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." I understand the faith spoken of in this connection to be in contrast with the law, and that obedience to the faith (or gospel) purines their hearts. It is plain to any to see that faith in Christ purines the heart, but I cannot see how faith on the outside can. Peter says: "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth." I cannot see any difference in this connection between the soul and heart, for it was obedience to the truth that caused the purification. In fact, I have known many per- sons who had strong faith who stood aloof from the church. We cannot conscientiously say their hearts were purified by faith, and they believed that God would pardon their sins if they would obey the form of doctrine from the heart; but their souls were not puri- fied because they did not obey the truth. John says: "The pure in heart shall see God" (enjoy God). Now, let us compare Peter and John, and we will have people enjoying God without baptism. Hence we will have to admit that the sects have pure hearts, for they have faith and honest purpose; but they would hoot at the idea of being baptized for the remission of sins. We say faith is what they need. Yes, they need faith in the conditions, but not in the facts. The Savior said: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Be- lieves what? The death, burial, and resurrection. In that day, when any believe this, it would abrogate the law in their mind, and should have produced motives as high as heaven to obey the command from so divine a being. I believe when we put full confidence in the word 224 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, of God and renounce self and are baptized, we then have the purified heart that Peter spoke of. I believe our hearts are as pure before baptism as after — that is, in motive, but not in a scriptural point of view. We have very good evidence that Cornelius' heart was as pure before he believed as after, for he was a "devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway." Surely he proves an exemplary character. Jesus Christ was the Son of God before he was baptized; yet God did not acknowledge him as his Son until after. Right there I think God will acknowledge our hearts to be pure. We think our brother is making a distinction where there is no real difference. We have not heard any of our breth- ren claim that any man's heart will be pure for one mo- ment after he willingly disregards any requirement of God's word. If at any period of the Christian's life he re- fuses to do what God commands, his heart ceases to be pure. When Simon, the sorcerer, believed and was bap- tized, his heart was pure till he thought the gift of God might be purchased with money. Then Peter said to him : "Thy heart is not right." His heart got wrong in that thought. From the time any one becomes a believer in the gospel of Christ and resolves in his heart to obey the Lord, we think his heart is pure till he falters in yielding that obedience. If he refuses to repent, his heart is no longer pure ; if he repents and refuses to be baptized, his heart is no longer pure ; and if he goes on and is baptized, and then after becoming a Christian willingly refuses any command of God, his heart that moment becomes impure. No man can keep his heart pure except by a willing and hearty sub- mission to all that God requires. A pure heart is always ready and anxious to do everything that God has com- manded, and no man need talk about a pure heart who does not obey the will of God. We do not think our brethren generally differ on these points. E. G. S. FALLEN WOMEN, DUTY OF THE CHURCH TOWARD. Brother Lipscomb: A young lady who is a member of the Chris- tian Church went astray about a year ago, much to the surprise and grief of her many friends. She had always borne a good name and was highly respected. Now some of the members, including myself, are trying to induce her to attend Sunday school, as she used to do before her downfall. She wants to go, but she fears that she will be looked down upon and perhaps insulted. If she goes, she will have to take her little child, a few months old, with her, as she has no one to leave it with who will take care of it for her. Now, the trouble is this: Several of the members say that if she comes to Sunday school and brings the child there, they will leave; that she is a brazen-faced thing, with no sense of shame about her, if she does so. I and some others cannot see it that way. We think she should have a helping hand and be lifted up. She is nowise "brazen," as they BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 225 term it, but feels her disgrace most bitterly, and has shed many bit- ter tears over the loss of her good name. We want you to tell us through the Gospel Advocate what you think is right. What should we do about it? Should she partake of the Lord's Supper? That woman's soul is as precious in the sight of God as the soul of any one of those who object to her attending church. She needs and is entitled to the help and strength derived through waiting upon God in his appointments as much as any other human being. The sin she committed is no greater in the sight of God than many sins com- mitted by others that are considered lightly. The sin she committed is no greater than the sin of those who deny her the right to repent and enjoy the privileges and blessings of the church of God. Jesus died to save that child as much as any other child living. It needs and is as much entitled to be brought up in the nurture and training of the Lord as any child living. The attempt or disposition to deny either shows a lack of the spirit of Christ and exhibits the self-righteous, Pharisaical spirit that God despises above all others. A case of this kind was brought before Jesus — the woman taken in adultery. You know how others were ready to stone her. He said to them : "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." None did it, but, self-condemned, they slunk away in shame, because Jesus had laid bare their hypocrisy, and said to the woman : "Go, and sin no more." That case is before Jesus again. The church is the body of Christ to deal with this woman and all other erring ones as Christ would deal with them. How does she act? These brethren and sisters, claiming to be possessed of his spirit and to represent him, instead of en- couraging the woman, as Jesus did, to sin no more, join the hypocritical crowd in crying, "Stone her," and push her off from help to repent and leave her in the ways of sin. 0, no ! If the woman repents of her sin, she is not half so bad in the sight of God as those who refuse to forgive and encourage her to a life of holiness. The special mission and work of the church is to rescue and save such souls from sin. Of course, a woman that repents of her sin would not be brazen and forward, and she must expect and be willing to bear reproach. The trouble is that the greater number of them are so abashed and discouraged that they allow themselves to be driven into sinful courses. It was in ref- erence to just such a case as this that Paul said : "Ye should rather forgive him and comfort him, lest by any means such a one should be swallowed up with his overmuch sor- row." It is no greater sin for a woman to fall in this way 226 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, than for a man. I think it probable that Mary Magdalene, as tradition tells, had been a sinner in this direction. I think it probable because Jesus had cast seven devils out of her. Devils occupied only sinful hearts ; yet she became one of the nearest and best beloved of the companions of Jesus. To her he first appeared after he arose from the dead. "FALLING AWAY," MEANING OF. Brother Lipscomb: Please explain Heb. 6: 4-6. We would like to have an explanation of the entire three verses, but more particularly of verse 6, as to what the writer means by "fall away." "Fall away" from what? The whole letter to the Hebrews was written to warn and encourage the Jewish converts against turning back from Jesus Christ to the Jewish religion. It is difficult to tell what is meant by the "first principles of Christ" that they were to cease to speak of. It seems to me the context and scope show it was the Jewish law that is called the "first principles of Christ" that they were to cease to speak of or teach. The "dead works," I am sure, meant the works of the Jewish law, in which the Hebrews had once walked, of which they had repented ; and he tells them not to go back to these dead works, and so lay again the foun- dation for repenting of them and of renewing faith in God and baptism and these other acts of obedience. They had once repented of these things. If you give up Christ and go back to Judaism, they will have to be repented of again. Do not turn back, so as to have to do these first steps over again. This course the apostle promised they would do if God permitted. Then he tells as touching those who were once enlightened (by knowing Christ), had tasted of the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, had tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance; which means that the Hebrew Christians who had believed in Christ and en- joyed the privileges of the gospel, and had then given up Christ, had fallen away from him and had gone back to Judaism, could not again be renewed to repentance, for in thus repudiating Christ and going back to Judaism they crucified the Son of God afresh and put him to an open shame. I think there can be no doubt but this is the mean- ing. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 227 FAN, WHEAT AND CHAFF. Brother Lipscomb: What was the "fan" that Jesus had, and how did he use it? (Matt. 3: 12.) John the Baptist told that "he that cometh after me is mightier than I, . . . whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with un- quenchable fire." (Matt. 3: 11, 12.) The fan was a win- nowing fan that was used to separate the chaff from the wheat. Jesus came under the law of Moses. He came to fully obey that law, fulfill it, and take it out of the way. Like all laws and institutions touched and used by man, it had been defiled by many additions and changes by men. In the very beginning of his public ministry Jesus began to separate the true laws of God from the teachings and modifications of man that had been added to this law by man through tradition handed down from the elders. The Sermon on the Mount is a separating the true teachings given by God from the additions and changes by man. Even the things not approved by God, but tolerated on ac- count of the hardness of the hearts of the people, were purged out from the law of God. These all constituted the chaff that was purged out and burned up by the un- quenchable wrath of God. The truths that were pleasing to God and that were eternal were brought over by Jesus Christ in the kingdom of God. He purged and purified the law from all human additions and obeyed the undefiled law of God before he presented it to his Father as fulfilled and to be taken out of the way, nailing it to his cross. "Unquenchable fire" declares God's wrath at adding to his order. The laws and institutions given through Christ, while being operated by man, will be contaminated by his touch and defiled by his additions, as was the law of Moses. This church will undergo the purifying process before it is given up to the Father. The "wood, hay, stubble" of man's additions will be burned up, and the "gold, silver, pre- cious stones" will remain — proved — "yet so as by fire." (1 Cor. 3: 11-15.) Of the same purport is 1 Cor. 15: 24- 28 : "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father ; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. . . . And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." Again, Jesus said: "Every plant, which my heavenly Fa- 228 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, ther hath not planted, shall be rooted up." (Matt. 15: 13.) God's wrath at changing his appointments and order is un- appeasable. FASTING, CHRISTIANS. Brother Lipscomb: Please explain through the Gospel Advocate what you understand the Bible to teach on Christians fasting. I think the Scriptures teach very plainly that it is the duty of Christians to fast. The Savior, in the Sermon on the Mount, gives directions for giving alms (Matt. 6: 1-4), for praying (verses 5-15), and for fasting (verses 16-18). The three duties are treated here exactly alike, as though they are equally binding. He does not here command ei- ther one of them, but assumes that they will all be observed by his disciples, and gives direction as to how they are to be observed. The disciples of John came to Jesus and asked : "Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy dis- ciples fast not? And Jesus said unto them, Can the chil- dren of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast." (Matt. 9: 14, 15.) While Jesus was with them to instruct and guide them, the occasions for fasting did not present them- selves ; but when he should be taken from them, they would fast. They would be tried and tempted and feel their need of spiritual help; then they would fast. Paul (1 Cor. 7: 5) tells the husband and wife that they may by agreement refrain from the sensual gratification for a time, that they may give themselves to prayer and fasting. Jesus told his disciples they could not cast out a demon because of unbelief, and added: "This kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting" (Matt. 17: 21) — that is, their faith might be strengthened by prayer and fasting, so they would have spiritual power to cast out demons. While the power they gained through increase of faith was miraculous, our faith may be increased by prayer and fasting, so our spir- ituality will be increased. These scriptures give no spe- cific time for fasting, yet they show that Christians should fast when tried and tempted, when affliction and sorrow come upon them, when they grow cold and lukewarm in the service of God, when the flesh gains the ascendency and they become forgetful of their duties to God and indifferent to their spiritual condition or that of the world. When they feel these states begin to approach, fasting and prayer will help them much. When trouble, lukewarmness, and sin come upon a church, they should fast and pray, that deliver- ance may come through an increase of faith and devotion. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 229 But fasting, whether of one or more, should never be done with ostentation or display; it should be done quietly, as a service rendered to God, not to be seen of men. FASTING AND PRAYER. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain Luke 5: 33-35: "And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink? And he said unto them, Can ye make the chil- dren of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days." Do you con- strue this passage into a command to us to fast? And if not, do we find any passage in the New Testament which so commands? I think "the children of the bridechamber" refers to the apostles, and that "those days" refers to the time elapsing between the crucifixion and resurrection. The "children of the bridechamber" are clearly indicated to be the disciples. The disciples of John fast ; your disci- ples fast not. He, in explaining why his disciples fasted not, said that the children of the bridechamber fast not while the bridegroom is with them. The disciples (includ- ing apostles) were the children of the bridechamber. While Jesus was with them, they would not fast ; but when he was taken away, they would fast. We know of no reason for limiting "those days" to the time between the crucifixion and resurrection. Indeed, we do not think it probable that the disciples (including the apostles) sufficiently realized the truth to fast during this time. We think it refers more specifically to the time after the ascension of Christ. This may not be a command to fast, but it is a recognition of the truth that the disciples of Christ would fast. He fasted; and if it was necessary as a disciplinary measure that his disciples should fast, why not other disciples? They were commanded: "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." The Savior, in the Sermon upon the Mount, puts prayer, giving of alms, and fasting upon the same footing. Neither is specifically commanded, but we are told in what manner each must be attended to. It is taken for granted that Christians will do all three of them. The command to pray is more an ex- hortation than a specific or statutory command. Chris- tian men and women ought to pray or fast and pray when in trouble, in difficulty, when tempted to do wrong, when the flesh is powerful in its passions or lusts, when we lack spirituality and devotionality. It is a means of attaining spiritual grace and strength. D. L. 230 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, FASTING AND AGREEING WITH ONE'S ADVERSARY. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please answer a few questions for me and all who are interested. In Matt. 9: 15 the latter part of the verse reads thus: "But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast." Does it mean that all Christ's disciples should fast? If so, when should we fast? Also Matt. 5: 25: "Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison." Does it mean in a property dispute the Chris- tian should give up to the worldly man without going to law? Some say it means in a talk of religion the Christian should agree with the sinner rather than enter an argument. Not being satisfied with that version, please tell me what it does mean. The precept certainly was to the disciples of Christ to fast. The object of fasting was to give spiritual strength in times of weakness, temptation, and trial. It even aided those miraculously endowed. 'This kind [of spirits] go- eth not out but by prayer and fasting." The disciples were to fast when the bridegroom (the Savior) was taken from them. When they felt in need of help, when they were tempted with sin and tried by persecution, when they found it difficult to do their duty as Christians, they fasted to gain strength, spiritual strength, to enable them to with- stand the wrong and to do faithfully the right. Much light can be gained from the Old Testament on the subject of fasting. In Judg. 20 we have a striking example. War was between Israel and Benjamin. Israel asked of God if they should go up against Benjamin; God replied that they must. They went up, but were defeated with great slaughter. They asked him the next day: "Shall we go up again?" The reply was: "Go up." They went up again, and again were defeated with a very great slaughter. It was evident God was displeased with them and was send- ing them up to be punished. Verse 26 : "Then all the chil- dren of Israel, and all the people, went up, and came unto the house of God, and wept, and sat there before the Lord, and fasted that day until even, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord." And they asked : "Shall we go up again against Benjamin?" God answered : "You must go, and I will deliver them into thine hand." When they humbled themselves with prayer, fasting, and offerings, God blessed them. The Israelites forgot God and took to themselves false gods. Samuel reproved them for their sins, and the Israelites gathered themselves to- gether to Mizpeh and drew water and poured it out before the Lord, and fasted on that day, and said there, "We have sinned against the Lord ;" and the Lord delivered them. Again, Saul and his sons were all slain and the Israelites BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 231 defeated on account of their sins. It is said: "They took their bones [those of Saul and his sons], and buried them under a tree at Jabesh, and fasted seven days." (1 Sam. 31 : 13 ; see also 2 Sam. 1 : 12.) God pronounced a curse upon Ahab and his family. "And it came to pass, when Ahab heard those words, that he rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted, and lay in sackcloth, and went softly." (1 Kings 21: 27.) Because of this God did not let the curse fall upon him in his day. (See also Ezra 8: 23; Neh. 1:4.) When David had been brought to realize his sin in taking Uriah's wife and the child was brought to death, he "be- sought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth." In seasons of sorrow and distress for sin, in temptation and trial, when we are deeply and earnestly seeking help from God, we should come and with our prayers fast. The only way to learn the truth concerning fasting, its benefit to the child of God, is to study it in the types God has given in the Old Testament for our instruction, together with the precepts found in the New Testament. A Christian cannot agree with a sinner who argues from a sinner's standpoint without making a hypocrite of him- self and surrendering the truth. We are commanded to contend earnestly for the truth. It meant certainly per- sonal difficulties and strifes of every kind. Christians are not to permit or cherish these. D. L. "FELLOWS," WHO "HIS," ETC. Jesus Christ was anointed with "the oil of gladness" above his fel- lows. Who were his fellows? In the parable of the unjust steward, why was the account of the first cut down fifty cents and the second cut only twenty cents? And what is the meaning of the latter part of this parable, where it says: "Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness?" Regarding the first question, we suppose the fellows spoken of were the angels, as in the passage Paul was con- trasting Christ and the angels and showing Christ's supe- riority over the angels. About the second question, we know nothing. As to the third, we understand the mean- ing to be about this : So use the mammon of unrighteous- ness — money and property — that you will make God and his Son your friends, so that when you die they may receive you into eternal mansions (heaven). "The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof;" and the Lord's people must use what comes into their hands in such a way as to honor God, make him their friend, and all will be well. E. G. S. 232 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, FELLOWSHIP, HAND OF. Please state through the Gospel Advocate if it is right to extend the right hand of Christian fellowship to members when they join the church and are baptized. There is no example of "this being done in the Scriptures. It is no part of the order for receiving members into the church of God. Evil has grown out of it by not sufficiently guarding the matter. People sometimes think this places them in the congregation ; and if they do not receive it, they think they are not in the church. This is the evil. Yet there is such a thing as the right hand of fellowship recog- nized in the Scriptures. It was given to Paul and Barna- bas at Antioch, when they went to the Gentiles, as an ap- proval of their work and the pledge of fellowship in the work. This is all it means. I could do this certainly to a new member just starting in the service of the Lord. But it would not be to make him a member of the church. While it is not obligatory, if the meaning of it were kept before the people, it certainly would be commendable to give the hand of fellowship as an approval and encourage- ment in the new life on which they have started. Yet, be- cause evil frequently grows out of it, the church of which I am a member has ceased to do it. D. L. Brother Lipscomb: Is there any scripture making it the duty of brethren moving from one congregation to another to formally re- ceive the hand of fellowship from the congregation to which they are moving before they can be regarded as members of the same and be entitled to the rights and privileges of the church as such? There is no such requirement in the Bible; and while I would not refuse it, with proper explanations, when it was customary, evil grows out of the practice when it is re- garded as essential to fellowship or membership in a church. When a person is in Christ, he is a member of the body of Christ wherever he goes and entitled to the privi- leges of the body. The fact that a man participates in any of the worship or privileges of the church is a decla- ration of his membership and identifies him with that con- gregation so long as he stays with them. The hand of fel- lowship was given to persons leaving a church on a mis- sion approved by the church, without any laws regulating the practice, so far as known. The circumstances indi- cate it was given as an act pledging fellowship in the work to which they were going. (Gal. 2: 9.) This is the only time it is mentioned in the Bible. As such, it might be given as a welcome and encouragement to persons coming to or leaving a church ; but as a condition of fellowship in a church, it is wrong. But there is looseness about church BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 233 membership that is hurtful that ought to be guarded against. I know preachers living in Nashville that never affiliate with any church, so far as I can learn, but go out to preach. Many members follow the same practice and become careless in their attendance upon worship and in all their Christian duties. Brother Sewell: Is it right to give the right hand of fellowship to new additions to the church? Some here think it is right and some do not. As we find no scripture on the subject, we would like to hear from you, as we want to know what is right. The right hand of fellowship, as usually given, is with- out either precept or example in the New Testament ; and, besides, it causes contention and disagreement among breth- ren. These are reasons enough to make it perfectly safe to let it alone. While it is certainly very pleasant to those that have been accustomed to engage in it, it should be no cross to leave off anything not specifically authorized or involved in carrying out things that are commanded. It used to be as common among the churches as baptism, but we know of no churches that practice it now in this section of country. FELLOWSHIP, SHALL THEY WITHDRAW? If an elder of a congregation and four or five other members withdraw and organize themselves into a congregation in a Baptist meetinghouse about two miles distant from the meetinghouse of the congregation they are leaving, without obtaining the consent of the congregation, but against the protests of the other elder and some of the other members, and then come and ask to be released from the old congregation, stating that they thought they had a right to thus organize, and are not leaving because of any irregularity in the con- gregation, and nearly all the members leaving live about as near the meetinghouse of the congregation they are leaving as they do to the one they are going to, what course should be pursued toward them by the congregation they are leaving? The prospect for building up a good congregation where they have organized is not very flattering, the said elder having preached once per month for a year or so with no additions by primary obedience. We know of no law governing such matters, no law lim- iting congregations. Such courses should be pursued only with the consent of all ; but if they cannot agree in such matters and there are no scriptural grounds for disfellow- ship, we know of no way except, like Paul and Barnabas, to separate, and in time experience may show the folly of the course taken. That is generally a dear school, but we know of no other way of settling such troubles. The habit frequently indulged in of excluding brethren when they are loyal to Christ, but differ in judgment in matters of this kind, brings all church discipline into ridicule. These 234 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, brethren ought to respect the judgment and feelings of the others, and it is a folly to organize so many little congre- gations ; but I know of no law regulating such matters. FESTIVALS AND MAJORITY RULE, ETC. Please answer through the Gospel Advocate what you understand to be the duty of members who do not favor church festivals in the church where the majority overrules and brings them in; also if a woman should be an officer of the church. A church in which majorities rule is not a church of Christ. In his church his law rules, and the elders see that it is enforced. While one violation of a law does not unchristianize a man or church, if it is repented of, yet a persistent adoption of another law than the word of God does place the church or individual out of Christ. The thought of appealing to the flesh to raise money for the Lord is grossly violative of his law and insulting to God. He desires freewill gifts from faithful hearts. Women cannot be rulers in the church of God. So members ought to use their influence to teach them better, correct the wrongs; and if they find them determined to follow an- other law than the will of God, they should meet and wor- ship free from these evil influences. D. L. "FILLED ALL THE HOUSE," WHAT, ON PENTECOST? Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In Acts 2 we read as follows: "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting." Now, the question is: What was it that filled all the house — the sound or the Spirit, or both Spirit and sound; and did the Spirit fill any but the apostles out of the one hundred and twenty disciples? According to the construction of the passage above, the pronoun it would naturally refer to the word sound as its antecedent, and would indicate that the sound filled the house. But it is evident that the Holy Spirit himself came, at the same time, and that the Spirit was present in the room at the same instant, for the apostles were imme- diately filled with the Spirit and began speaking as the Spirit gave them utterance ; so that the sound only indicated the presence of the Holy Spirit. The presence of the Holy Spirit in that room was indicated by the sound, by the ap- pearance of the tongues, and by the filling of the apostles with the Spirit and their speaking as he gave them utterance. The meaning of the passage amounts to about the same as if the passage had said that the Spirit filled the house. Only the apostles were filled with the Spirit. None but BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 235 they were present that day, as is indicated by the connec- tion. The passage says when the day of Pentecost was come they were all in one place. They who? Look back to the last word in the first chapter, and you find it is the word apostles. This word is the antecedent of the word they in the first part of the second chapter. This shows that only the apostles were present; and hence they only were filled with the Holy Spirit. E. G. S. FIRE, THE MAN SAVED BY. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: You will please give me your views in the Gospel Advocate on 1 Cor. 3: 14, 15. The verses are : "If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved ; yet so as by fire." Paul is here speaking of the material built into the church of God upon the one foun- dation, which is Jesus Christ. The material built upon this foundation by a proclaimer of the word may be good or may be bad, generally a mixture — some good, some bad. Some will turn out to be gold, silver, precious stones; while others turn out to be wood, hay, and stubble. When a man labors and builds wood, hay, and stubble upon the foundation, all such will turn back to the world again, will yield to the temptations that surround them, and thus be overcome by the fiery trials that come upon them; and in such cases the preacher loses his labor. But this will not interfere with his own personal salvation, if he will be faithful unto death. And, on the other hand, those of his converts that turn out to be as the gold, silver, and precious stones, by continuing to live in the service of God, by hold- ing out faithfully until death, will be saved eternally in heaven, and this will be as a reward to him. He can re- joice through all eternity that he has been a humble instru- ment in the hands of God in causing some to go to heaven and enjoy its bliss forever. But every man is admonished to take heed how he builds thereon. Nothing should be used but purely gospel means to convert sinners. Human wisdom in every shape and form should be left entirely out and nothing but the pure word of God presented. No un- due excitement by outside means should be brought to bear so as to cause men to act merely from that, but the gospel in its own purity should be relied upon. And when people are in this way induced to become Christians, they are very likely to hold out. Whenever other means are resorted to by the preacher, the same kind of influences will have to be kept up through life, or the converts will become dissat- 236 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, isfied and fall away ; but when only gospel means are used, the converts will be contented to live by the gospel and be content to receive the gospel's reward at the end of life. E. G. S. Brother Lipscomb: Please explain in the columns of the Gospel Advocate the meaning of 1 Cor. 3: 11-15. Verse 10 means that Paul had taught that Jesus is the Christ, is the Son of God, as the only foundation on which persons can be builded into the temple, or church, of God. He had first preached that truth in Corinth, others came after him to build upon the foundation he had laid, and (verse 11) he warns them to be careful as to how they build on this foundation, for there is no other foundation than this can be laid. He says (verse 12) in building on this foundation it may be done with gold, silver, precious stones, or with wood, hay, stubble, as the material; but he says (verse 13) every man's work will be tried with fire, and so its character will be revealed or made known. If tried by fire, the wood, hay, stubble will be burned up, so must rep- resent the false teachings; the gold, silver, and precious stones are purged of their dross by passing through the fire. This must, then, represent the teaching of God's word. If the teaching he does stands the test, he will be rewarded for it (verse 14) ; if it does not stand the test of fire, but is burned up, then he will suffer loss ; but while he suffers loss, he will be saved, "so as by fire" (verse 15). This last clause gives the only trouble — that is, his work is destroyed, he suffers loss ; yet he is saved, "so as by fire." It seems to me here is a provision that a man teaching a congregation may possibly do some false teaching, yet, doing it thinking he is teaching the truth, may himself be saved, while the teaching is destroyed. When this test by fire is made has been a question of some doubt. Some think it was made by the persecutions in this world ; others, that it applies to the final judgment of God. It likely applies to both. This teaching of Paul was clearly intended to warn the church he planted and taught and among whom he had determined to know nothing but Christ, and him crucified, against teachers who would come in and teach the commandments of men, that would corrupt and defile the temple of God. Some think the wood, hay, stubble brought in are the un- worthy persons brought into the church; but no teacher is responsible for this if he declares the whole counsel of God. This would free him from the blood of all men. While there is difficulty about the clause mentioned, I can reach no other conclusion from the context. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 237 FIRE, THE, OF MATT. 3: 11, 12, ETC. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: You will please explain Matt. 3: 11, 12. The question which troubles me is the fire spoken of in these verses. Some of our brethren contend that it all means hell fire. I think the unquenchable fire does refer to hell fire. I want to know if they did not receive that promise on the day of Pentecost. Acts 2: 3 reads: "And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them." You will also please explain who Heli was. From the reading of Matt. 1: 16, Jacob was Joseph's father, the husband of Mary. Luke 3: 23 reads: "Joseph, which was the son of Heli." It is very evident that the fire spoken of in this passage refers to hell fire — the future punishment of the wicked. The passage declares, "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire" — properly, in the Holy Spirit and in fire. There is no appearance of a figure about this, but a positive representation of an overwhelming in fire. The passage in Acts 2, where the apostles were baptized in the Spirit, says: "And there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire." The appearance of these cloven tongues was like fire, but not fire. Declaring it to be like fire is equivalent to saying that it was not fire. Had it been fire, the divine record would doubtless have said so. In Matt. 3 it is fire direct, and no likeness about it; but in Acts 2 it is like fire, and yet not fire. The "unquenchable fire" spoken of in Matt. 3 is evidently the fire in which the baptism was to be performed. John was speaking to a mixed multitude, and the meaning clearly is that some of them would be baptized in the Spirit, as were the apostles on the day of Pentecost and the household of Cornelius some seven years afterwards, and that some would be bap- tized in the fire of eternal ruin. It was Christ that baptized the apostles on the day of Pentecost, and it is Christ that will say at the judgment: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." (Matt. 25: 41.) We would not be justifiable in speaking positively as to who Heli was ; but a very common solution is that Heli was the father of Mary, the mother of Jesus. And this changes the order of the parenthesis in Luke 3, leaving out the words which were not in the Greek, so as to make Jesus in- stead of Joseph the son of Heli. This would make Heli the grandfather of Christ, and in Scripture language the distinction between father and grandfather is not always made. There are other solutions given of this passage, but our information on these genealogies is so imperfect at this remote period that it is not a very easy matter for us to 238 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, determine the matter with certainty; and a failure to un- derstand the matter is not owing to inaccuracies in the word of God, but to our want of information regarding the ancient records of genealogies. FIRE, THE BAPTISM OF. Brother Lipscomb: Please explain fire baptism. (Matt. 3: 11; Luke 3: 16.) On February 3 of this year we published the following: "To baptize in water is to overwhelm in water; to baptize in the Spirit is to overwhelm in the Spirit, to bring under the control of the Spirit ; to baptize in suffering is to over- whelm in suffering. These are the scriptural uses of the term baptize. Analogy and the meaning of the word would say baptism in fire is to overwhelm in fire; to con- sume and destroy in fire. The connection in which the ex- pression is used also requires this meaning. 'But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his bap- tism, he said unto them, generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire/ (Matt. 3: 7-12.) He is speaking to the Pharisees and Sadducees. He calls them a 'generation of vipers.' He tells them to repent, not to rely on being fleshly chil- dren of Abraham to save them. The ax is at the root of the trees. Every one of the children of Abraham that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and cast into the fire. In this figure the evil are to be destroyed in fire. He gives another illustration of the same truth: T baptize with wa- ter; he that comes after me will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire.' The baptism of the Holy Spirit in this figure is for those of the last verse, who bring forth good fruit ; the baptism of fire is for those who do not bring forth good fruit and are cast into the fire. Then he gives still another illustration of the same truth : 'He will gather the wheat into the garner; he will destroy the chaff — the BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 239 tree that does not bear fruit, that is baptized with fire — with fire unquenchable/ Fire in each of these illustrations means one and the same thing and accomplishes the same result — the burning up of the wicked. The connection will allow no other possible meaning than this. The baptism of the Holy Spirit embraces all the blessings and favors of earth, ending in salvation in heaven of those who repent and bring forth fruits meet for repentance ; the baptism of fire embraces the destruction that would come upon the unbelieving Jews, the 'generation of vipers,' and all the wicked, ending in their eternal ruin in hell. These are three statements and illustrations of the same truth: the good will be saved, the wicked will be destroyed in fire." FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, KEEPING. Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: What is the teaching of the New Testament on the subject of keeping the first day of the week? How are we required to observe it? In our weekly meeting we have or- ganized a Bible class in lieu of a Sunday school, and this is a ques- tion which we are to look up. Refer us to the scripture bearing on this. We have had Robert Lee Harris with us urging his doctrine of a second blessing. He claims that the Holy Ghost was given on Pen- tecost to confer a second blessing, and that the tongues as of fire was not present at the house of Cornelius as at Pentecost, and claims that the blessing is received in a moment in answer to earnest beseeching. On being asked for an example of these things in our day, he refers to some woman in some Northern State, who preached in the German language, who had never studied it a single day. We do not know the difference between a Bible class and a Sunday school, if the Bible class meets on Sunday. Nei- ther the word Bible nor class is found in the Bible. Bible is not a Bible name; it is given by man. If you are going to stick to Scripture names for things the Scriptures have not named, you must repudiate both Bible and class. There is fust the same authority for Sunday that there is for Bible. School is a Bible term applied to those who come together for study. If the use of terms in the Bible be the test, there is more authority for Sunday school than for Bible class. But there is no greater enemy of a principle than he who insists on applying it where it is not applica- ble. The Holy Spirit has nowhere given names to the different meetings for the study of God's word. For men to try to fix a name of their own as authoritative is to as- sume Godlike authority and to legislate where he has not legislated. The great public who has named these meet- ings for Bible study on Sunday Sunday schools has as much right to name them as any one else, because God has not named them. To give Bible names to Bible things is all right where the Bible thing has a Bible name, but to force 240 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, a human name as a sacred and Bible name is to violate the principle. The teaching of the Bible is that Christ was raised from the dead on the first day of the week. He met with his disciples on three succeeding first days of the week after his resurrection, and at no other time during the period. I do not recall any evidence that Christ met with his disci- ples after his resurrection at any time, save on the first day, or Sunday. The Holy Spirit descended on Pentecost, the first day of the week. The disciples met together on the first day of the week under apostolic teaching. (Acts 20 : 7.) In 1 Cor. 16: 2 they are told to lay by them in store on the first day of the week. Heb. 10: 25 says: "Not for- saking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is." The assembly on the first day of the week to engage in the apostles' doctrine, fellowship, and breaking of bread is clearly set forth. It is the only regular service for which we have precept or example in the New Testa- ment. The admonition not to forsake the assembling to- gether must, then, refer to this assembly for these purposes. To study the apostolic teaching, break bread, engage in the fellowship and prayer, are the services in these meetings. God had plainly told under the Jewish law that both man and beast needed one day of rest out of seven. This re- mains true so long as the nature and needs of man and beast remain as they are. He showed plainly, too, that for man to worship God, a day must be set apart for that serv- ice. If he attended to secular business on that day, he would neglect the worship of the Lord. So long as man's nature is unchanged this is true. Observation now will soon satisfy any man that he who attempts to attend to worship and secular business on the same day will crowd the worship out. God knew what was in man when he pro- vided for him, and all attempts to change will show man a fool. It is right for Christians, by becoming more and more faithful, to seek for second and third and fourth blessings, and God is always willing to bestow blessings as we are fitted to receive and use them; but for a man to claim the bestowal of gifts like to those on Pentecost is to show he is beyond learning from the Bible. And for a man to claim in this world that he has passed the stage that it is possible for him to sin is to advertise himself guilty of the pre- sumptuous sin. Christ is the only sinless being that ever lived on earth. He was continually tempted. For a man to claim freedom from sin is to claim equality with Jesus Christ. When he claims freedom from temptation, he BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 241 claims superiority to Christ. Such claims are all presump- tuous and blasphemous in their character. I doubt if any man ever lived a day without sins of omission or commis- sion. D. L. FIRST DAY, MEETING ON. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I drop these lines to you for in- struction upon Christians meeting upon the first day of each and every week to break bread. Will you please explain the subject fully in the Gospel Advocate and strengthen your brethren in Christ? The reason why I write to you is this: Some of the brethren at this place seem to think that it is not necessary to meet on the first day of every week to take the Lord's Supper. They think if they do right with their fellow man in all their dealings, it will not matter whether they take the Lord's Supper more than once in life or not; that God will receive them into his everlasting kingdom. I think we should do all that God has commanded us through Christ and his apostles in order to be saved. In the first place, we are told of the first Christians at Jerusalem that "they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." (Acts 2: 42.) These continued steadfastly in breaking bread, and this breaking of bread was done in accordance with the teaching of the apostles. Therefore the apostles taught the first Christians to break bread. This breaking of bread was evidently the Lord's Supper, as it was not necessary to teach anything with reference to the partaking of ordinary meals; but it was necessary that the apostles should teach the breaking of the loaf, as ^hey would not have known that it was necessary to do so. And as to the time of partaking the Supper, we are told in Acts 20 that they came together on the first day of the week for that purpose; and the language is such as to im- port that they were in the habit of meeting the first day of every week. It expresses the idea of regular habit or cus- tom. In 1 Cor. 16 we also have similar language, indi- cating a regular custom of meeting on the first day of the week, which was evidently to break bread. Then Paul (Heb. 10: 25) says: "Not forsaking the assembling of our- selves together, as the manner of some is." The assembling spoken of here is the assembling on the first day of the week to break bread, as that is the only assembling required in the new institution. Hence here is a positive require- ment to meet on the first day of the week, the design of which, according to other passages, was to break bread. To such as need authority for meeting on the first day of every week to break bread this is sufficient; but with such as love the Savior and love to feast upon the spiritual food that he has ordained for our spiritual well-being, no au- 242 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, thority is needed; only the opportunity is needed to bring all such together on the first day of every week. They will delight in the privilege. They will not wait for authority to be introduced, but will hasten to go, hungering and thirsting after righteousness. A hungry child never waits for authority to be found to go to its father's table at home ; it only waits for the opportunity, not for authority. The privilege is all that is needed in that case. So it ought to be with the children of God about going to the Lord's table on the first day of every week. Whenever authority has to be shown to the children of God to induce them to come to- gether on the first day of every week to sit around their Father's table, they are a long way behind their privileges and are in danger of losing all interest in the cause of God. Let all, therefore, learn to get hungry for the Lord's Sup- per, and they will never stop to ask for a command before they go, but will gladly go. E. G. S. FIRST DAY, MUST WE KEEP ALL OF THE? Is Heb. 10: 25 a commandment? If so, please explain through the paper; if not, explain and give scripture. Is it obligatory for us to keep the first day of the week, or should we work on that day till dinner and then go to the first-day meeting? We all do not agree here on this point, and I want information and scripture on this line. I am twenty-one years old, and I am striving to know the right way. That we should not forsake "the assembling of ourselves together" is an expression of God's will concerning these Hebrew Christians. The assembling of themselves to- gether was a part of the divine order. To forsake it was a step back to Judaism and apostasy. Hence he immediately adds: "For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sac- rifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judg- ment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adver- saries." (Heb. 10: 26, 27.) Here forsaking the assem- bly was a step toward turning back from Christ to Judaism. But was it a greater sin to turn back from Christ to Juda- ism than to turn back now to ungodliness and sin? The assembly of Christians is essential to Christian living. Living near a city where there are many calls for work on the first day of the week, such as the livery business, huckstering, dairying, etc., I see many efforts of persons to combine work with the worship on the same day. I have never yet seen an example of a man working part of the day from choice, and not from necessity, that he did not soon lose interest in the assembly. I have very seldom seen men engage in regular and necessary work that they did BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 243 not lose interest in the assembling and in the church of Jesus Christ. I have frequently seen men zealous and earnest in the service of God, attentive and faithful to the weekly meet- ing, engage in the livery business, the dairy business, or in selling vegetables, and feel it necessary to prepare them Sunday afternoon for the market Monday morning; and it is the rarest case imaginable that they do not soon give up all meeting and Christianity itself. Even physicians who give the day to practice are liable to fall away. I believe God has made it necessary that men give the first day of the week to his service, free from business care and toil. If they do not, they will cease to serve him. D. L. FIRST DAY, WHEN DOES IT BEGIN? Brother Lipscomb: (1) Do you understand "the first day of the week" (Acts 20: 7) to begin after sunset or at midnight? I remem- ber to have preached at a place on what we call "Sunday night." We had the emblems and broke bread, thinking we were following the ancient order. Recently I find such men as Brethren McGarvey and Harding inclined to the position that the first day of the week began after sunset on "what we call Saturday." (2) What bread was eaten? (Verse 11.) (1) There is nothing more certain than that the divi- sion of time which made the day begin at six P.M. was not continued in New Testament times, and especially among the Gentile nations. The third hour was nine o'clock, the sixth hour was twelve, and the ninth hour was three P.M. This may have been only the divisions for the day, not in- cluding the night. My opinion is that the Savior and the apostles adopted the division of the people among whom they lived. Smith's Bible Dictionary says: "The Baby- lonians reckoned the day from sunrise to sunrise ; the Um- brians, from noon to noon ; the Romans, from midnight to midnight; the Athenians, from sunset to sunset." The Jews early adopted the last, but it is thought after the cap- tivity they held to the Babylonian division, or from sun- rise to sunrise. This seems to me to be the division rec- ognized in the New Testament. "In the end of the Sab- bath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sep- ulcher." (Matt. 28: 1.) "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had brought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising 244 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, of the sun." (Mark 16 : 1, 2.) These passages fix the end of the Sabbath at sunrise. (2) I think this eating was an ordinary meal taken after long talking. I think they had come together and partaken of the Lord's Supper. Afterwards he spent the time till after midnight in talking to them, had grown hungry; and when the talk was interrupted by the fall of the young man, Paul took refreshment before beginning again. Only Paul is said to have taken bread and eaten at this time. "FIRST" AND "LAST." Brother Lipscomb: What is the meaning of the expression: "The first shall be last, and the last shall be first?" It means the young man with the worst opportunities will make the greatest success in life; the one who seems to have the best start will fail. The Jews in the Savior's time had the best opportunities from having long possessed the knowledge of God and of his will, but they failed ; and the Gentiles — who, seemingly, had a worse start — more readily received Christ than the Jews. When God comes to reward them, he will give to the Gentiles, who, with disad- vantages, received Christ; he will severely condemn the Jews, who, with their advantages, rejected him. "FLESH," IN JOHN 6: 53. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." (John 6: 53.) If the above does not refer to eating the Lord's Supper, what does it refer to? We have no doubt but that the eating of the Lord's Sup- per is embraced in this passage, but we do not think that it is all that is embraced in it. The language is figurative any way that we may take it. If we apply it to the Lord's Supper, that is a figure; for we do not literally eat of the flesh and drink of the blood of the Son of God. We eat and drink the emblems of the body and blood of Jesus in the Lord's Supper, but not the real body and blood. In the same passage Jesus goes on to say : "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." In these verses we are taught that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus secures eternal life. Now, we are plainly taught that no one requirement of Christianity alone will take people to heaven; it takes a combination of all the Lord requires. People have to become Christians before BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 245 they have any right to eat of the Lord's Supper at all ; and if after they do become Christians they turn back to the world and disregard the practical requirements of the Lord, eating the Lord's Supper will still fail to lead such to eter- nal life. Men must become Christians and continue to live Christians if they would be benefited by eating the Lord's Supper. We think, therefore, that Jesus meant to embrace all the requirements of the plan of salvation that he came to establish when he spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, for nothing less than this gives to any man an assurance of heaven. We have an example of the same principle of illustration in John 4, where Christ was talking to the woman of Sa- maria. He said to her: "But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the wa- ter that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." In this the Savior il- lustrates the requirements and blessings of the Christian religion by water. When man drinks literal water, it sat- isfies his thirst and sustains mortal life, so far as the mat- ter of thirst is concerned. So when a man embraces the gospel and carries out all its divine requisitions, his thirst for eternal life will be satisfied — he will reach the object of his desire. So with the figure of eating. When a man eats and drinks the ordinary provisions of this life, it per- petuates his mortal life and gives him strength to accom- plish the ends of life. Just so when a man partakes of the spiritual food that is afforded to the world through the death and sufferings of the Son of God, through his church, his kingdom, it prepares him for the enjoyment of eternal life. Eating the bread and drinking the wine is one impor- tant means of spiritual growth to the Christian, and no child of God can claim in the full sense of these words that he eats and drinks the body and blood of the Son of God who does not regularly partake of the Lord's Supper. We are sure that many who claim to be Christians are imperiling their eternal interests by carelessly neglecting the Lord's table on the first day of the week. We have as- surance of eternal life only as we do all the requirements of the Lord to the extent of our ability. And there is probably no one requirement of the Christian religion that is more carelessly and recklessly neglected than the Lord's Supper on the Lord's day. We would that Christians every- where could be aroused to greater diligence and promptness in all the requirements of their Lord and Master. E. G. S. 246 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, FLESH AND BLOOD, BREAD AND WINE. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: You will please give me some light on Matt. 26 : 26-28 : "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, -and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it [of course the con- tents]; for this is my blood of the new testament." Now, the ques- tion is: Jesus calls the bread my body and the wine my blood, and we take the wine and call them the emblems of his body and blood. The bread and wine are called the emblems of the body and blood of Christ, because the word emblem is supposed to express in plain language what the Savior expressed in a sort of figure, as when he said to the disciples: "Ye are the salt of the earth. ... Ye are the light of the world." The disciples were not salt, but their saving in- fluence on those around them was like the saving influence of salt upon meats and such things as it preserves. The bread and the wine represent to us the broken body and shed blood of Jesus; and since Catholics are pleading for transubstantiation — that is, that the bread is the real body of Christ and that the wine is his real blood — brethren have thought best, in order to express in plainness just what they understand the Savior to mean by his expressions — that is, to so express the matter as to avoid error on the subject. But we are no stickler for such expressions; we are perfectly willing to leave off the expression of it in that form if any are offended by it ; but we shall always under- stand that to be the meaning of the Savior's language, whether we express it or not. E. G. S. "FOOLS," WHO THEREIN "SHALL NOT ERR." Brother Lipscomb: Please explain Isa. 35: 8. Does it mean that a fool need not err in the plan of salvation? It means fools in the sense of those not wise in their own esteem or in the wisdom of the world. They were fools in the sense of 1 Cor. 1: 19-29: "For it is written, I will de- stroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks fool- ishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 247 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men ; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath chosen 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 ; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence. " FOOT WASHING. Brother Sewell: Is it right for Christians to wash one another's feet? Yes; if one Christian is sick or in any way unable to wash his own feet, then it would be right for any other Christian who may be present to wash his feet for him. But it would never be right for any number of Christians to meet together to wash each other's feet as a church or- dinance. There is not one example after the church of God was established in which Christians ever met to wash one another's feet as a church ordinance, as was the Lord's Supper. Jesus washed the feet of the apostles at the feast of the passover on the night of the last passover he ever attended ; but there was not a word said to indicate that it was intended as an ordinance of the church or as in any way a religious service any more than any other act of Christian courtesy toward each other. That was the very purpose for which Jesus washed the disciples' feet, so far as I can learn from the passage, and whoever makes more than that out of it makes it up by human wisdom. Foot washing is mentioned but one time more after Jesus washed the feet of the apostles, and in that case it was mentioned in con- nection with private deeds of kindness for others. Paul, when speaking of the life of the kind of a widow that should be supported by the church, said: "Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, well reported of for good works ; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged stran- gers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work." (1 Tim. 5: 9, 10.) This is the last and the only other passage in the New Testament that says anything on the subject, and here it is mentioned as a private duty. Hence it is nowhere mentioned as a public church service. 248 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, Brother Lipscomb: Is foot washing a command? Does 1 Tim. 5 : 9, 10 mean that a woman who has not washed the saints' feet shall not be taken into the church? The word number in 1 Tim. 5: 9 does not refer to the church, but to the number of widows supported by the church. Verse 3 says: "Honor widows that are widows indeed." Verse 4 explains this; it means those that are without children or kindred to help them. To honor them means to support them. A widow at threescore without kinsmen was placed on the list to be honored (supported) by the church. In verses 17-19 of this chapter the word honor is used in the same sense. "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in word and in teaching. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. And, The laborer is worthy of his hire." This shows the feeding the ox and the giving the laborer his hire was to honor him. Washing the saints' feet when they came to her house, like entertaining strangers and bringing up children and relieving the afflicted, was a good work for all Christians to follow. A widow that had followed these good works and was needing help must be taken into the number to be honored and supported. In John 13 is an ac- count of Jesus' washing the feet of the disciples. The con- text shows plainly that he did this to purify and to fit them to partake of the passover feast. The disciples quarreled about who should lead in helping each other. To reprove them, he did it himself. They ought to be as ready to serve each other as he was to serve them. The example of the Savior and the admonition of Paul teach that we ought to be ready and anxious to do the commonest and lowliest acts to help and aid the humblest children of God in whatever way they need help. He that is servant of all is greatest of all. Brother Lipscomb: Will you please answer a question for me through the Gospel Advocate or by letter? In John 13 I find that after supper Jesus "riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself," and took a basin of water and washed his disciples' feet. In verse 14 he says: "If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet." Verse 15: "For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you." Why doesn't the Christian church practice washing feet now when they partake of the Supper? The apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are the best interpreters of the meaning and intentions of the Savior's language. They observed the Lord's Supper as a public ordinance. (See Acts 2: 42; 20: 7; 1 Cor. 11: 20- 24.) About this there can be no doubt. They did not so BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 249 interpret the admonition to wash one another's feet. We have no account of their having a public foot washing. The only account we have of it is 1 Tim. 5 : 3-10 : "Honor wid- ows that are widows indeed. ' But if any widow have chil- dren or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home, and to requite their parents : for that is good and accepta- ble before God. Now she that is a widow indeed, and des- olate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day. But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth. And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless. But if any provide not for his ( own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath de- nied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, well reported of for good works ; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work." Here it is placed among entertaining stran- gers, raising children, administering to the sick and af- flicted, and in engaging in all good works. These were all personal and private duties. The apostles interpreted it to mean, it should be a private and social duty to be performed when needed. So I think it ought to be observed now. The apostles did not seem to think Jesus established a new ordinance, but gave a new meaning to an old social custom. It had in the days of Abraham been the custom to give wa- ter to wash the feet. It was sometimes done by the serv- ants for the great. Jesus had told that among his disciples he who would be greatest of all should be servant of all. In this he gives an example that they should perform for each other the humblest services. In washing the feet, he who washes makes himself a servant and honors him whose feet he washes. We do it to be seen of men. Jesus desired it so done that God would see it and reward. If a humble brother comes to your house and needs his feet bathed, do it for him; if a brother has been plowing in the field and needs his feet bathed, do it for him. This is what Christ meant as interpreted by the apostles. Please discuss the foot-washing question in the Gospel Advocate thoroughly and clearly for Brother John V. Alsup and others, with Bible arguments and sound speech that cannot be condemned, and, in particular, for the benefit of W. T. Gregory; for he says that there has to be more Bible proof than he has seen or heard relative to this subject to convince him that it is not a church or public- worship ordinance, to be attended to when the Supper is taken. He thinks, moreover, that the Bible sustains him in this. 250 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, The subject of foot washing has been gone over time and again until we get a little tired of repeating and re-repeat- ing the same thing. Besides, when a man wants a hobby to ride, he will find it. Foot washing is as innocent a one as we know of. The best way, we believe, is not to discuss it with a hobbyist. Just tell him and all who wish to do it to go ahead and wash their feet as much as they desire. The rest of you, having no faith in it as a church ordinance, would sin to do it. But if you argue at all with him, ask him for his authority. The Savior washed his disciples' feet ; but where was it ever done by the church ? We can easily show the history of foot washing as prac- ticed by the Savior. The first mention of washing feet is Gen. 18 : 3-5. The three angels came to announce to Abra- ham and Sarah the promise of a child (Isaac) . Abraham said: "If now I have found favor in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest your- selves under the tree: and I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on." The next is, the angels came to Lot at Sodom. He said: "Now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways." (Gen. 19: 2.) The next is when Abraham's servant went for a wife for Isaac, Laban, her brother, ungirded his camels and gave straw and provender for the camels and water to wash his feet and the men's feet that were with him, and there was set meat before them to eat. (Gen. 24.) Joseph's brethren went to dine with Joseph. "The man brought the men into Joseph's house, and gave them water, and they washed their feet; and he gave their asses provender." (Gen. 43: 24.) Abigail was sent for to be the wife of David. She said : "Let thine handmaid be a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord." (1 Sam. 25: 41.) David said to Uriah: "Go down to thy house, and wash thy feet." (2 Sam. 11 : 8.) "So he brought him into his house, and gave provender unto the asses: and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink." (Judg. 19: 21.) These examples from the Old Testament show it was a universal custom, as an act of hospitality, to give water to wash and bathe the feet. When especial honor wished to be conferred, the servants washed the feet of the guests that were honored. Jesus went into the Pharisees' house and sat down to meat. "A woman, . . . which was a sinner, . . . brought an alabaster box of ointment, and stood at his feet BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 251 behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment." (Luke 7: 37, 38.) This was an act of exceeding humiliation and kindness. The host in his heart was condemning Jesus for letting a sinner do this. Jesus chides him with lack of hospitality and kindness in failing to give him water to wash his feet. "This woman has supplemented your lack of hospitality by her tears in doing the washing for me, wiping with her hair." Jesus said to Simon: "Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Thou gavest me no kiss : but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment." (Luke 7: 44-46.) Here it is classed by the Savior with acts of personal hospitality and kindness. At the end of a day's journey, when they had finished supper, when the time for washing their feet was come, the Savior took a towel and basin of water and proceeded to wash the disciples' feet, as we find in John 13: 1-15. This was at least two days before the Lord's Supper was instituted, as any one may see by examining the record. It was performed before the establishment of the church, in no connection with any church ordinance, simply as an act of condescending humility and kindness upon the part of the Master as an example for them to follow as individ- uals in their social relations. It was a practical enforce- ment of the precept: "He that would be greatest, let him be servant of all." The only other reference to it in the New Testament is 1 Tim. 5 : 9, 10 : "Let not a widow be taken into the num- ber [sustained by the church] under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, well reported of for good works ; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet [when she lodged them], if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work." Here Paul places it with good works — just where the Savior did, just where it had stood among the people of God from the foundation of the world, just where it now stands by the authority of God. No man can believe it is a church ordinance, for faith cannot exist without evidence. There is not a parti- cle of evidence to that point in the Bible. It is a mere whim. Whims are the hardest things to argue out of peo- ple that ever get into them, so far as our experience goes. 252 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, This is all we know on the subject of foot washing as taught in the Bible. Whoever observes it as a church or- dinance must take bringing up children, waiting on the af- flicted, entertaining strangers, as a church ordinance, too. It has stood inseparably connected with these from the foun- dation of the world. D. L. "FOREKNEW," WHOM GOD. Please explain through your paper Rom. 8: 29, 30. I am in doubt as to the meaning of it. Who was it he foreknew or predestinated? "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called : and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glori- fied." (Rom. 8: 29, 30.) The word foreknow means to know beforehand. Predestinate means to determine be- forehand. This means God knew and determined certain things beforehand, but does not by any means intimate how long beforehand, whether from before the beginning of time or long since man was created. We think it suffi- ciently definite to understand that since man sinned in the garden, God foreknew that he would provide a plan of sal- vation for men, and foreknew that some would embrace that plan when presented to them. Not only did God fore- know this, but he foretold it. Many times during the Old Testament days did God foretell a plan of salvation, and also foretold that many would receive it, not only of the Jews, but of the Gentiles. The promise to Abraham that in his seed all nations should be blessed is a strong proph- ecy that many would receive Christ, the promised seed, and be blessed or saved in him. God also predetermined, pre- destinated, that all that would receive Christ should be saved by him, while all that rejected him should be de- stroyed, as expressed in Deut. 18. Hence, that many would receive Christ was known by God long before he came, while at the same time it was predestinated that all such should be saved, should be conformed to the image of Christ, should be made like him in the matter of service to God, and made like him in the resurrection, when these vile bodies shall be changed and fashioned like to his glorious body. In full harmony with God's foreknowledge, Christ came and provided the plan of salvation ; and as soon as provided, it was sent out to the whole word by the apostles, with the solemn decree that "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Thus BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 253 all the people were called, and many had embraced this call in Paul's time, while many have embraced it since and many are continually embracing it. And the same bless- ings will be to all who will serve God faithfully through this life as the gospel requires. The same also will be true in eternity with all who served God faithfully in former dispensations; and some think these are the very ones re- ferred to in these verses, especially those that arose and came out of their graves after Christ's resurrection and appeared unto many in the holy city. The principle is the same to all the saved in the final out- come of Christianity. All at the resurrection will be con- formed to the image of Christ, will have bodies like to his glorious body, and will dwell with him for evermore. The principles also of foreknowledge and predestination are very much the same, whether you apply the passage to those who had served God faithfully through life before Christ came or those that have embraced and faithfully lived out the demands of the gospel since Christ came. The point I would especially emphasize is that the passage does not in any sense, signify that the foreknowledge and predestina- tion mentioned here was that certain persons were predesti- nated to be certainly saved, while others were predestinated to be certainly lost. It only means that all the obedient will certainly be saved here and hereafter, and that God or- dained it thus. E. G. S. FOREKNOWLEDGE AND PREDESTINATION, GOD'S. In reading the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Ephesians, do you think it teaches that the twelve apostles were chosen or predes- tinated before the foundation of the world? If it teaches that, which it seems to do, do you think, then, that Judas was predesti- nated to betray Christ and to hang himself? The foreknowledge of God, as used in the Bible, means what God has before made known to man (1 Pet. 1:2); elect according to the foreknowledge of God means elected according to the terms before made known to the world. I doubt if there is what we call fore and after with God. All time is present. "One day is with the Lord as a thou- sand years, and a thousand years as one day." But what God has made known to man heretofore is called fore- knowledge. Before this he made it known to man. He says of Christ: "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you." (1 Pet. 1: 20.) In the beginning God provided that Jesus Christ should come to save men. Then he, as a lamb, was slain from the foundation of the world, 254 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, but manifested in these last times for you who do believe in Christ. Christ was preordained as the means of salvation to all who should enter him. God did not choose or pre- destinate which persons should enter Christ, but he chose or predestinated that those who entered him should be saved. Then at any time when persons have entered Christ they can say: "We were chosen or predestinated unto sal- vation in him before the foundation of the world." God chose or predestinated Judas just as he does every man. He never made any man wicked or bad. "God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." (Eccles. 7: 29.) When they make themselves wicked, he appoints them to do evil work and then to destruction for the evil done. I have no doubt Jesus selected Judas be- cause he knew his character and that he was fitted to do the work of treason. God did not make him bad ; he chose him to do a wicked work because he found in him the character fitted to do it. D. L. FOREKNOWLEDGE AND PREDESTINATION, DIFFER- ENCE BETWEEN. Brother Sewell: If it is not asking too much of you, please give us your views in regard to the difference, if there be any, between God's foreknowing and foreordaining or predestinating whatsoever comes to pass. There is certainly a difference between foreknowledge and foreordination or predestination. One involves much more than the other. He foreknows all that he foretells, but he does not decree or predestinate all that he foretells. He foreknew and foretold through Moses awful sufferings that would come upon the Jewish people on account of their sins. He foreknew that they would sin, but he did not foreordain or decree that they should of necessity do so; but he did foreordain or decree that they should suffer on account of their sins when they committed them. Instead of decreeing that they should sin, he foretold the very sort of sins they committed ; and he foretold the sufferings they would have to undergo as a warning against sin, to keep them from sinning, that they might escape the ruin that sin brings. The Son of God foreknew and foretold eternal life and eternal death, and that the wicked would be doomed to eternal death ; but he did not predestinate that the peo- ple should sin. He only foretold that many would, and that they would be lost if they did. This was a warning of ruin to them if they did sin. He has made man a free moral agent to choose sin or to be a servant of God ; but he has ordained, has predestinated, has decreed, that those who BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 255 choose a sinful life shall suffer eternal death. But he has left it to man to choose whether he will live in sin or be a servant of God. He decrees eternal ruin to a sinful life, but does not decree that some shall sin nor that others shall be servants of God. All this is left with them. The destiny is a matter of predestination; the life is a matter of choice with each individual. God never did decree that a certain part of the human race should of necessity sin, nor that another part should of necessity be righteous. Life and death are set before men, with the grandest of mo- tives to do the right and avoid the wrong. If they do the right, life is decreed for them ; if they do wickedly, eternal death is the decree. FOREKNOW, DID GOD, THAT HE WOULD PUNISH CERTAIN MEN? Brother Lipscomb: I am continually confronted with this ques- tion: "If God foreknew all things, he certainly would not punish a man in hell for doing what he knew he would do before creating him." Give me a suggestion on it. Please show harmony between Gen. 6: 6 and James 1: 17. Is repent in Gen. 6: 6 from metanoeo? Does not the phraseology in Matt. 3: 11 teach that the same parties who should receive a baptism of the Holy Ghost should also receive a baptism of fire? Genesis was written in Hebrew, not Greek. It has been translated into Greek. In the Greek translation neither metanoeo nor metamelomai is used. The Septuagint, the Greek translation as translated into English, reads thus: "And the Lord God having seen that the wicked actions of men were multiplied upon the earth, and that every one in his heart was brooding over evil continually, then God laid it to heart that he had made man upon the earth, and he pondered it deeply. And God said, I will blot out man whom I have made from the face of the earth, even man, with cattle, and reptiles, with flying creatures of the sky, for I am grieved that I have made them." While that is a true presentation of the thought, yet to accommodate di- vine thoughts to man's capacity God sometimes applies to himself terms that must be understood in a limited sense. For instance, the Bible says : "God is not tempted of man, neither tempteth he any man." Again it says: "God did tempt Abraham." Shallow minds, anxious to growl at God, who never study the Bible, taking these sentences out of their connection, say they contradict each other; but every one who desires to understand the Bible can see the different senses in which the word repent is used, and sees how God, teaching men, applies to himself qualities that are true of him only in a limited sense, and that there is 256 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, no contradiction in the statements. The context always will show the true meaning if studied. Paul says: "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." In a few verses he says : "For every man shall bear his own burden/' A shallow-minded carper says there is contra- diction. A man desirous to know the truth sees there are certain kinds of burdens we can help each other in bearing, and there are others that each man must bear for himself, that no human can help him to bear, and, with all human help possible in the end, each must bear his own burdens. God has left it so that a carping, fault-finding spirit that does not want to obey God can always find excuses not to do it. This is right. God does not want that faultfinding spirit in his heavenly kingdom. He tries all spirits, tempts them so they can fully prove each his character, and by the rule of the eternal fitness of things each will find his own congenial home. God wants in the new heavens and the new earth only those who love righteousness and wish to do his will. Those who do not wish to do his will, he gives them excuses for finding fault, not doing his will, and so going to their own company. Some think it very un- reasonable for God to condemn man to everlasting ruin. They fix up a standard in their own minds for God and judge what he will do. That is putting themselves above God, fixing a rule for him. The meaning of this is, they wish to sin against God and yet be saved. God lets them fix up a theory and satisfy themselves and go their own way to ruin. There is no ground for such a conclusion from what God has done in this world or what he has re- vealed in the Bible. There is harmony in the teachings of the Bible and what we see in the world. Men suffer here. If God foresaw man would suffer here, how could he cre- ate him ? There is more of suffering than there is of hap- piness among men on earth. If God permits man to suffer in this world, why do we think it incompatible with his character to let him suffer in the world to come? When I was a boy, I belonged to a debating society. An older man, with more learning and experience than the rest of us, was always wanting to discuss universal salvation. He thought he could whip us all on it. I finally proposed to him that if he would discuss universal and eternal dam- nation with me, I would affirm that. I wanted to show him the other extreme. He agreed to it. I argued that from our observation here God delighted in the suffering of his creatures. Usually the first breath the innocent babe drew was a wail of suffering, the last breath he drew was one of anguish, and almost every breath between the first and BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 257 the last was one of pain and unrest. The few moments of ease were only to make the pains more painful. Then I went to the Bible and found, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die," and, "No man liveth and sinneth not," and much along the same line, and that God was not satisfied until he had every being in the universe in a hell of endless despair. This position is susceptible of much easier proof than the opposite, if we take them as presented here on earth or in the Bible. The Bible presents man exactly as he is here. After this discussion, my friend never wanted to discuss Universalism any more. Judged by what the world presents, man is born to suf- fer. The gospel gives hope to those who trust Jesus. We suggest one extreme to contrast the other. Neither is true. But one-sided views are false and misleading. Just as well ask : If God foresaw man would suffer here, how could he create him to suffer and be a good God? We mistake altogether God's aim in creating and dealing with man. It is to prove and test men and see who is worthy to stand in his everlasting kingdom. Those who are will be saved in in; those not worthy will be cast into outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matt. 3: 12 explains the preceding verse: The wheat will be gath- ered into the garner, the chaff burned in fire unquenchable. Usually reading the connection explains the difficulties. James 1 : 17 says there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning, with God. That does not contradict Gen. 6 : 6, which says it repented him that he had made man. God did not change. It was his purpose from the beginning to punish sin. God has never changed from that purpose. When man changes from good to bad, God changes his feel- ings toward and treatment of him. FOREORDINATION AND PREDESTINATION. Brother Sewell: Please explain Eph. 1: 4-6. The words are these: "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." The Greek word that is translated world in this passage, which speaks of somebody being chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, literally means "order, ar- rangement, regulation, institution, constitution, the world," etc. From these definitions from Greek lexicons it is clear that the word does not necessarily mean this physical world, the earth on which we live, but just as literally means in- 258 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, stitution. Hence we might render the passage thus, "Be- fore the foundation of the institution/' with all the au- thority that can be found for the word world; and then the only question would be : Of what institution, what order of things? To which the most appropriate answer would be: The Christian institution. And this at once takes all the difficulty out of the passage. As it now stands, most people understand the word world to mean the earth on which we live; and hence they derive the idea that God chose certain persons to be saved before the earth was created or a single human being was brought into exist- ence. Hence the doctrine of election and reprobation — that a part of the human race from all eternity was fore- ordained to be saved and another part to be lost, and that the number on both sides was unchangeably fixed; and this passage in our Common Version, saying, "chosen us in him before the foundation of the world," is supposed to teach just that. We have not the least idea that the foun- dation of the earth was in the apostle's mind when he wrote the above passage. He had reference to the new institu- tion, or church of God, the Christian world; and this re- moves all the fog of eternal election out of the way as it has usually been taught. And, in the next place, when the apostle said, "hath chosen us in him," the word us does not refer to all Chris- tians, nor even to the Ephesians, to whom Paul was writ- ing. He uses the pronouns we and us down to verse 13, and then changes and says ye — "in whom ye also trusted," etc. In the verses in which he says we and us he either speaks of himself or the Jewish Christians, as such, who first trusted in Christ. We are inclined to think that he had reference to the Jewish Christians, to whom the gospel, by God's arrangement, was first preached. The whole matter of Christianity was foreknown, fore- ordained and foretold, long before the foundation stone of the church of God was laid in Zion. Christ himself is the chief corner stone in the Christian temple. He was not laid in the temple till the fullness of time came and he was developed in the world ; and thus, before the foundation of the church of God was laid, God foretold the whole matter in general terms in the Old Testament just as it was ful- filled in the New Testament. In this sense the Jews were chosen in him before the foundation of the world, the church of God. All are in this sense chosen in him that will embrace the gospel of Jesus. But if Paul means him- self when he said "hath chosen us in him," then it only means Paul was chosen in him to be an apostle before the BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 259 foundation of the church of God ; and this was literally true, for when Ananias objected to go to him, the Lord said to him : "Go thy way : for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the chil- dren of Israel." (Acts 9 : 15.) So he was a man that God chose to be an apostle ; and if Paul refers to that in the pas- sage in Ephesians, then it can only mean that he was chosen for that purpose before the foundation of the Christian institution. Either one of these solutions leaves the pas- sage without confusion or mysticism. The next point of apparent obscurity or difficulty is in verse 5: "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." The difficulty is in the word pre- destinated. Many refer this predestination back before the foundation of the earth, and suppose that God from all eternity predestinated certain ones to be saved. Predesti- nate simply means to determine or decree beforehand. God determined to send his Son into the world long before he did it, and foretold that he would do so. He also de- creed beforehand that when the Savior should come, all that would receive him should be blessed in him, and that all who rejected him should be destroyed, as we learn from Deut. 18. Jesus, therefore, in the fullness of time came into the world and died upon the cross for sinners; and when he rose from the dead, with all power in heaven and earth given into his hands, and before he ascended to heaven, he fully developed God's decrees for the salvation of sinners as follows : "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is bap- tized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Here is a full development of all the decrees and predestinations God ever made regarding man's salva- tion or condemnation by Jesus, our Lord. This places the gospel before all men, leaving them to their own choice whether they will believe and be saved by obeying it or dis- believe and be lost. All the Jews, therefore, including Paul, who accepted the gospel and obeyed it were adopted as children by Jesus Christ, and were thus saved according to the good pleasure of his will. And as there is no difference between the Jew and Gentile in matters of salvation, the same principles are true with them that were true with the Jews. Every one, therefore, that is saved by the gospel is one of God's chosen children, saved according to his fore- knowledge and predestination. But this predestination of God consists in the fact that God predestinated a plan of salvation and foreordained that any and every one that 260 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, would receive it should be saved and every one that re- jected it should be lost. He never foreordained that a certain number or part of the human race should of neces- sity receive it and be saved and the rest should necessarily reject it and be lost. There is nothing like this taught in the Bible from beginning to end. Every one, therefore, that obeys the gospel is one of God's chosen people, chosen and elected by the gospel of Christ, which is God's foreor- dained plan for saving men. But no man will ever be one of God's elect except by receiving and obeying the gospel of Christ. Therefore when we read in the New Testament about God's foreknowledge, foreordination, and predestina- tion, we only need to refer back to the Old Testament to find the foundation of it all in prophecy. All God's de- crees for the redemption of man culminated in the plan of salvation through Jesus Christ, offered free to all who will accept. E. G. S. FORGIVING A BROTHER. If a brother in the church offend us, is it right for us to forgive him whether he comes and asks us to or not, or must we hold it against him until he comes and asks our pardon? Would it not be more Christlike to forgive him and try to love him as much as lieth in us, whether he comes and asks us to or not? Christ never forgave any one his sins until he repented of them, nor do we see how any one can. Christ loved them while yet sinners, was anxious for them to repent, suffered and died to bring them to repentance. We should be like him ; should love men, be willing to suffer that they may be brought to repentance, and be kind, gentle, long- suffering to help them to turn ; but there is and can be no forgiveness with God or man without repentance; and when a man sincerely repents, he will confess and ask for- giveness of whomsoever he has offended. FORGIVING WITHOUT REPENTANCE. Brother Sewell: Does not the Bible teach us to forgive our ene- mies whether they repent and ask forgiveness or not? I heard a preacher of the gospel say there are no passages in the Bible where any one ever forgave another unless he repented. I say the Bible teaches us that we must forgive whether they repent and ask our forgiveness or not. Here is a passage that settles this question: "Take heed to yourselves : If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him." (Luke 17: 3, 4.) There are two sides to this ques- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 261 tion. If one does us a wrong, it is our duty to tell him of his wrong, and thus rebuke him for his wrong. Then, if he repents, we must forgive him ; but if he will not repent, he is not worthy of forgiveness. But we have no right to hold malice against him, nor to in any way take vengeance upon him. But we can follow the rule given in another passage, which is to take one or two with us ; and if he re- fuses to hear them, we can bring it before the church ; and if he refuses to hear the church, then let him be as a heathen or a publican — that is, let the church withdraw from him and leave him with other sinners. That may cause him to repent. If not, the Lord will attend to his case in due time. (See Matt. 18: 15-17.) But no Chris- tian has the right to punish, hold malice against, or abuse another. It is a fact that God himself does not forgive sinners that will not repent. All such will be lost at last. Let a Christian in such cases do right in all things, no matter what a backslider or rebellious member may do. But if the wrongdoer will not repent, he will be sure of his deserts at last. FORGIVENESS, GROUND OF. Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Are not the sins of ignorance for- given solely on account of the death and the intercession of Christ? All sins are forgiven only through the intercession of Christ, and his sufferings and death are the "procuring cause," as the theologians call it. They made the condi- tions possible. But men must appropriate them through complying with the conditions prescribed. All sin must be repented of before we can receive pardon. Its being solely through the blood of Christ does not obviate the necessity of our complying with the conditions which that blood se- cured for us and sealed to us. D. L. FUNDS, RAISING TO SUPPORT THE GOSPEL. Brother Lipscomb: Has the Holy Spirit given a definite plan by which the churches should raise funds for the spread of the gospel and to relieve the poor saints? Please explain 1 Cor. 16: 2, espe- cially the phrase "lay by him in store." Our congregation is some- what divided on this phrase. Some take the position that we can lay by at home or bring it on Lord's day and put it into the contribution box, while others believe that we should bring it on Lord's day and put it into the contribution box. The letter to the Corinthians was addressed to the church at Corinth, "with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." This shows the letter was written for universal use. In chapter 16 he says: "As I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 262 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." The laying by in store was to relieve the poor saints in Judea. They were commanded to do it, so there would be no gatherings when he arrived there. That, of itself, ought to satisfy every person that the offerings ought to be placed in a common store, or treas- ury. If each laid by at home, there would be the same necessity for gathering it together as if he had not put it in store. Indeed, I take it every man's money was already in his own store, or treasury. If any claim it was to be separated to itself and kept at home, I will venture none who so claim ever thus separate it. Under this claim nothing is done. While putting it in the treasury is ap- proved by the Spirit, it is not the only way approved. In- dividuals sometimes aided Paul directly, and all are com- manded to "do good as opportunity offers." This refers to men in the everyday walks of life. When they see an opportunity to do good, do it. Christians ought to be en- couraged to give of their productions as they are needed. A load of wood or coal or corn or hay would sometimes be more useful than money, and frequently could be more easily spared. It would not be convenient always to put a load of hay or a cow and calf into the church treasury ; yet when money for church uses is needed, I have never seen any reason why it should not be done by the weekly contri- bution, since this plan has received the approval of God. Much of the objections to doing this arises from a conten- tious spirit or a dislike to doing anything. The effective way to prevent doing anything is to find objections to all ways and methods for doing it. The church or the elders cannot depend upon or use it until it gets into the church treasury. FUNDS, DISTRIBUTING. Explain in the Gospel Advocate how church funds are to be ex- pended — whether by order of the elders or majority or by the one who holds the means. Paul and Barnabas carried funds to the elders to be dis- tributed under their order. We know of no other or better rule. FUNERAL PREACHING. Brother Sewell: When and where was the origin of funeral preaching, and what was its original design? Is it right for a preacher to preach an alien sinner's funeral? Do you not think that there is a great deal of reckless preaching along this line? If God BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 263 would save one man (that is a subject of gospel address and has had many opportunities) that dies in his sins, would that not make Uni- versalism true? I do not know the time or place or by whom funeral preaching was first started, nor the end had in view in start- ing the custom. It has been in vogue a long time, and will likely continue a long time yet. It is also true that a vast amount of false doctrine has been preached in funerals. The truth has been fearfully perverted, and these things will still go on. Whether funeral preaching be continued or discontinued, the same perversions of truth will still go on, and warfare against funeral preaching will by no means stop false teaching. There is one thing that ought to be done, and that is, all preachers ought to preach the truth on such occasions, and nothing but the truth, and then no harm will be done. It is not wrong to preach the truth at funerals, any more than on other occasions. It is wrong to make the impression at funerals that any one will be saved that does not obey the word of the Lord. And it is just as wrong to make that impression anywhere else as at funerals, and ought to be stopped ; but it will not be stopped till all preachers are willing to preach the whole truth on all occasions and at all places, and I do not think they will all do that soon. All I know to be done is for all men that see the whole truth to stand by it faithfully and do all they can to get others to see it and stand by it. FUNERAL SERMONS. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I wish to know why it is that a funeral sermon is preached in memory of any person who departs this life. I do not see any account given in the word of God where any of the apostles preached a funeral sermon. It is right to preach the word of God anywhere and un- der any circumstances to living, responsible beings; but it is wrong to pervert, misapply, or violate the word of God anywhere and everywhere and under all circumstances. Sometimes what are called "funerals" may be favorable opportunities to impress the truth upon the living, and where the word of the Lord is faithfully presented we see no harm in the custom. Great harm may be done, and doubtless often is done, by perverting the word of God on funeral occasions ; but the same thing is done on other oc- casions. Funerals are simply occasions or opportunities for preaching the word of the Lord, and we see no harm in them, if the preachers will not make harm by perverting and misapplying the word of God or teaching the opinions of men. 264 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, FUTURE, DOES GOD KNOW ALL THE? Brother Sewell: (1) Does the word of God teach that God knows the future life of man? (2) Does the word of God teach that God knows who will go to hell or heaven before they are born? (1) One thing is certain about the foreknowledge of God, and that is that he foreknows that all that will faith- fully do his will in this life will be saved in eternity, while all that refuse to do his will will be lost in eternity; and this is the interesting and practical side of God's fore- knowledge. (2) Whether God knows all the individuals that will do his will and all that will not do it is a question the Bible does not say much about; and that is not a question upon which our salvation depends, and it would not help us in our salvation if we knew. But he does know, and all along has foretold, that those who do his will are sure of heaven, while all who reject his will are sure of eternal ruin. FUTURES, CAN CHRISTIANS DEAL IN? Brother Lipscomb: Is dealing in futures gambling? Should a Christian deal in futures? If dealing in futures is gambling, what step should a congregation take in such a case? Please answer through the Gospel Advocate for the benefit of some congregations. Some brethren deal in futures in Texas. We published the following on November 23, 1899 ; we do not see we could improve it : "All trade or business with others that is legitimate for Christians is that which helps both parties to the trade. The trade which helps me, but injures another, is not law- ful for a Christian. Only that business is legitimate for a Christian which benefits and helps both parties or all par- ties affected by it. What injures or wrongs any, a Chris- tian cannot engage in. All gambling schemes or games by which one gains and another loses are sinful. One gains without any adequate or just returns; another loses all, gets nothing in return. No Christian can engage in such games. Men are led into such by the love of money. They love money better than they love justice, fairness, upright- ness ; better than they love God. Under this head of gam- bling come all speculation and buying of futures. This is gambling upon what may be the price of goods or val- ues of any kind in the future. In this trading you get or lose money without any compensating good. Selling and buying wheat or cotton is legitimate business. The owner needs the price of his wheat or cotton and is accommodated by the sale. The man buys for use or to hold and sell to another when he needs it, and accommodates him by buy- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 265 ing and holding until he is ready to use it. He is entitled to pay for taking and holding it. All parties trading are accommodated and benefited by this trading; but when a person 'buys a future,' he buys nothing that accommodates any one, has nothing to sell that will benefit any one. He stakes his money on what the price of the article will be in the future. What he makes, some one else loses, without anything in return ; or, if he loses, some one gets it without giving a consideration in return. It is in all essential fea- tures gambling, getting something for nothing; and this is not honest, tested by Bible principles. That the others agree to take the chances does not change the moral char- acter of the transaction. If a dozen men were to agree that they would engage in stealing one from another, and they would not prosecute one another, and he who suc- ceeded in stealing the most could hold it, this would not prevent its being stealing or change its moral character in the sight of God. Nothing of value is bought or sold in buying and selling futures ; no one is profited, save he who gets his fellow man's money for naught, and they who lose are injured. This is gambling; it is getting another's goods for naught; it is dishonesty. This is more hurtful than other forms of gambling or dishonest gains, because it is regarded as more respectable and honorable than these. Men are led into this kind of business by the love of money. Let all such heed the exhortation : 'Let him that stole steal no more : but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.' It is injurious and hurtful to the man en- gaging in it in many ways. He is badly injured in his moral and spiritual character when he becomes willing to make a living for himself and family out of the losses of others, for which they get nothing in return. The gains are generally from the most needy and helpless classes. The habit of making a living by these futures begets a fe- verish state of mind that disqualifies the person for regular productive business of any kind that will bring good to all ; it unfits him for the regular habits of worship and for at- tendance upon the services of God; it violates the laws of the land, and so violates the law of God, which commands Christians to 'obey the powers that be;' it sets a bad ex- ample to others, young and old — especially the excitable and the young — to lead them to seek to make a living by chance or gambling, that injures all and helps none, and unfits them for regular habits of industry in that which is good ; it is not only sinful, but it is supreme folly from a business standpoint. Where one succeeds, a thousand fail — 266 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, spend their all and become pecuniary wrecks. A man is a fool to engage in a business where the chances of success are so few; those of failure, so many. No sensible man would think of engaging in any industrial calling with the chances of success so few. It is only the gambling mania that leads them to risk so in dealings in futures. "We write this at this time because the renewal of pros- perity and the increase in values of cotton and stocks ex- cite this mania, and many are tempted to try their luck on rising values. A few gains in the beginning lead on to greater risks to all who engage in it and bring ruin to nine hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand. The Bible and common sense alike warn not to engage in such means of gain." 11 if! GENERATION OF VIPERS, DID JOHN BAPTIZE? Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: For the benefit of some of my neighbors especially, and perhaps many others, please explain Matt. 3: 7 through the Gospel Advocate — whether John baptized the gen- eration of vipers or not. John baptized such as manifested a disposition to be- lieve his teaching and repent of their sins. t His procla- mation was, "Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand;" and it was very evident that those who were will- ing to believe his declaration that the kingdom of heaven is at hand and who were willing to repent of their sins were baptized by him. But there were many of the Jews that rejected the preaching of John, as well as Christ himself when he entered upon his personal ministry. When John called those Pharisees and Sadducees a "generation of vipers," he doubtless knew that many of them only came to oppose his teaching and to claim that they were already the children of God because they were the posterity of Abraham. When he said, "I indeed baptize you," etc., he only meant such as heartily accepted his teaching. John did not go about baptizing everybody he could lay his hands upon, whether they accepted his teaching or not; he just baptized those who wanted to be baptized upon their recep- tion of his teaching. We know there were many in John's day among the Jews that rejected his baptism. "But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him" (John). (Luke 7: 30.) This shows that there were many that heard John's preaching who refused to be baptized. John was certainly a man of common sense and sincerity; and when he could induce those to whom he preached to accept his teaching, so that they desired to be baptized, he baptized them, and not otherwise. E. G. S. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 267 GENTILES, HOW SAVED? What do you understand the Scriptures to teach as respects the Gentiles before the gospel was preached to the world? Will they be saved without obedience to the gospel just by acting according to their best light, or condemned again? Will the people during the twelve hundred years of the Dark Ages be saved without obedience to the gospel by acting according to their best light, or condemned? If people of any age or country can be saved by their ig- norance, without obedience to God, it is a great pity to en- lighten them ; for it is a certain fact that where people are enlightened but few of them will be saved. But the word of God teaches that "the whole world lieth in wickedness/' (1 John 5: 19.) The Bible also teaches that the wicked will be cast into hell, with all the nations that forget God. This does not look much like saving the world on its igno- rance. GHOST, THE HOLY. Brother Sewell: Another question for information on the bap- tism of the Holy Ghost, from Acts 19: 6: "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." What is the difference between this instance and the giving of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost and at the house of Cornelius? Please explain Acts 8: 17. There are several very decided differences between spir- itual gifts and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In the case of spiritual gifts, there was only power imparted to each individual to do one thing. Paul says : "For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom ; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit ; to another faith by the same Spirit ; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit ; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits ; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: but all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will." (1 Cor. 12: 8-11.) Then another difference is : These gifts, so far as we know, were imparted through the laying on of the hands of other in- spired men ; while in the case of the apostles on the day of Pentecost the Spirit came upon them directly from heaven, with a great sound, and cloven tongues appeared and sat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the Spirit and spoke as the Spirit gave them utterance. The power of the Holy Spirit on these was so great that each one could speak in any language needed, could heal the sick, raise the dead, and do any wonder that was needful to be done; while one receiving a spiritual gift could only exer- cise the one gift that was given him. Another item of dis- 268 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, tinction was that the power of the Spirit upon the apostles is called a baptism, while the gifts bestowed by the laying on of hands are never called a baptism in any way or at any time. The falling of the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius was like that which came upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost, and is also spoken of as a baptism. Peter, speaking of the occurrence at the house of Cornelius, said: "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water ; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit." (Acts 11: 15, 16.) Only these two occur- rences are called baptism in the Spirit. Acts 8: 17 is the instance of Peter and John being sent to Samaria when Philip had preached the gospel to those people and many of them believed and were baptized. These apostles, Pe- ter and John, laid their hands on them, "and they received the Holy Spirit." In this case it was apostles that laid hands on the people and imparted to them spiritual gifts. Some argue from this occurrence that none but the apostles could impart the Holy Spirit by laying on hands; but An- anias certainly imparted the Holy Spirit to Saul of Tarsus, afterwards the apostle Paul. (See Acts 9: 17.) Then elders afterwards imparted a gift to Timothy. (See 1 Tim. 4: 14.) GHOST, THE HOLY, AND FIRE BAPTISM. Please give a plain explanation on Matt. 3: 10-12. Who were to be baptized with the Holy Ghost, and who with fire, and when? Does the fire in the three verses mean the same? John was addressing a mixed multitude, and we may understand that some of them would be baptized in fire and some in the Holy Spirit. The apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. The wicked will be baptized in the fire of eternal destruction, and this is the fire that is spoken of in the verses referred to. The fire has no connection with the Holy Spirit. The fire is called unquenchable, with which the chaff, the wicked, are to be burned. The idea that the fire is a part of the bap- tism of the Spirit is certainly a mistake. E. G. S. GHOST, THE SIN AGAINST THE HOLY. Brother Lipscomb: Will you please explain for me what sinning against the Holy Ghost is? Some of the brethren think it is a par- ticular sin, and, if committed, cannot be forgiven in this world or the world to come. Also please explain 1 John 5: 16. What is "sin unto death?" BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 269 There have long been differences on that subject. Many hold that those who charged Jesus with casting out devils by Beelzebub committed the sin against the Holy Spirit. The connection will bear that interpretation. Still, it will bear another construction. These persons sinned against Jesus in making this charge. He warns them : "You may sin now against me, and find opportunities to repent; but the Holy Spirit will come, and if you reject him as you now do me, there will be no forgiveness, neither here nor here- after." The Holy Spirit was not the lawgiving and di- recting power at this time; it was not giving the law, so could not be sinned against. After he came as the law- giver and ruler, then to reject his teaching would be to sin against him. Until Jesus came as the ruler and representa- tive of God, men could not sin against or blaspheme him. They knew nothing of him ; so until the Holy Spirit came as the guide and ruler and gave laws, none could sin against the Holy Spirit. Then until the Holy Spirit came, none could sin against him. This is contrary to the generally received idea, but it is the only interpretation that I can harmonize with the other scriptures. Those who maligned, persecuted, and murdered Jesus did find forgiveness when brought by the Holy Spirit to repentance. The facts seem to be about this: Jesus came and performed his mission; many rejected him. After he returned to his Father's throne, the Holy Spirit came to confirm the truth he taught and to add to his testimony ; but when the Holy Spirit had performed his work, borne his testimony, there would be no further testimony or witness, and he who rejected his testimony then would be left to his own fate without further efforts to save. In other words, the Spirit would complete the testimony and would exhaust the provision God had made for saving man. If man rejects these, there is nothing more to reach him. There would be no more sacrifice for sin or provisions for mercy. According to this, the rejection of the teaching of the Holy Spirit and the refusal to be led by these teachings is the sin against the Holy Spirit. I do not know what the sin unto death is, further than defined in the foregoing. The apostle seemed to have be- fore him a sin that others could see and know was the sin unto death. What that was or is, I do not know. GIFT, THE, GIVEN TO TIMOTHY. In Paul's first letter to Timothy we have the following: "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the pres- 270 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, bytery." (1 Tim. 4: 14.) A large proportion of the reli- gious world take the ground that the gift referred to here was the gift of office, given to Timothy by means of ordi- nation through fasting, prayer, and laying on of hands. We showed in an article preceding this one that there is no such thing in the church of God as office, in the common acceptation of that term. We showed that in the passages where the word office is applied to bishops and deacons there is no authority in the Greek for the word office at all. The word office, as applied to certain members of the church in contradistinction to others not officers, is without foun- dation in the New Testament. All the members are work- ers, but all are not expected to do the same work. But this difference in work by no means indicates the idea of officials and nonofficials. Since there is no such thing as office in the church of God bestowed by certain members upon oth- ers, there must be some mistake in the common application of the passage at the beginning of this article. As there is no such thing as office in or belonging to the church, then certainly the church has no power to confer that which it does not possess. If the church has power to confer office of any grade, then why not power to make a cardinal, a pope? If the power to confer office is left to the church at all, why may she not practice it to any extent? The idea that there is such a thing as office in the church is the very foundation of popery. And when it is once admitted that office can be conferred as a gift by the church upon its members, then where is the stopping place? What is the rule saying: "Thus far shalt thou go, and no farther?" We know of no such rule. There certainly is no law given in the New Testament by which a congregation can confer office as a gift upon its members. And if this gift that was in Timothy was an office in the church, then what office was it? He is not called a bishop; and if doing the work of an evangelist is an office, where is the authority for that? But we will examine the passage with more care, and see what we can learn from it. Paul says: "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." This gift that Timothy had was in him and was given by prophecy. The word that is here rendered gift is the word generally used throughout the New Testament to signify a miraculous or spiritual gift. Paul desired to see the Romans that he might impart unto them some spiritual gift, that they might be established. This meant miraculous gifts evidently. Paul said to the Corinthians: "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 271 same Spirit." He was here speaking of the miraculous gifts that were given to certain of the members of the church at Corinth. The Greek word is charisma, and in every passage where it occurs it has reference to some divine gift from God. This word occurs about seventeen times in the Greek Testament, and in all these passages it has reference to something divine or miraculous. It is never used to sig- nify an ordinary gift given by one man to another. In fact, one of the definitions in a Greek lexicon which is before me is: "A divinely conferred endowment." This much would not likely be said of an office conferred by the church — by a congregation. Then, again, this gift was given by prophecy. The word that is rendered prophecy here is al- most, if not altogether, used in the New Testament to sig- nify, to foretell by inspiration. This gift, then, was given to Timothy in obedience to prophetic direction to that ef- fect. And, in the next place, it was consummated with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. The word presbytery signifies aged men — literally, the older men. There is nothing said in this passage about these elders be- ing inspired ; but evidently a very large number of men in all the churches in the apostolic age were inspired, and thus qualified to teach and rule in the church. There were such men at Ephesus, at Corinth, at Antioch, and, we doubt not, in all the churches. And we have no doubt but that it was a company of these inspired men, either great or small as to number, that laid their hands on Timothy and thereby imparted a gift to him. As to what that gift was, we have no means of knowing, any further than it was a gift that he could use in edifying Christians; and he is, therefore, commanded not to neglect it. This is equivalent to com- manding him to exercise, use the gift for the establishment of the cause where he was. Paul magnified his ministry as an apostle, and Timothy was here required to do the same — that is, to honor, to magnify his gift, whatever it was. And here, to our mind, is an example of others than apostles conferring miraculous gifts by the laying on of hands. In the second letter to Timothy, Paul speaks to him of a gift bestowed upon him in the laying on of his hands. But in this case the gift was bestowed with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. And whatever Paul may have done at other times, here is something done by the presbytery — the older men. There was a gift con- ferred by these men with the laying on of their hands. Ac- cording to our understanding of the New Testament, all 272 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, the elders in the State of Tennessee or in the United States could not confer an office as a gift, in the common meaning of the words office and gift, upon any member. If they can, they can certainly make a cardinal. Why not? But not only in this case did men not apostles confer miraculous power by the laying on of hands, but, as we believe, the prophets and teachers at Antioch conferred miraculous powers upon Paul and Barnabas. These prophets and teachers were themselves miraculously gifted, and we can see no reason why they could not confer certain measures and powers of the Holy Spirit through the wisdom and power of God upon others. There were many different measures and powers of the Holy Spirit in the church in those days, and the same men had different measures at different times. Hence, while Paul was inspired to preach the gospel from the time of his conversion, there is no evidence that he had that measure of the Spirit that would enable him to per- form miracles until hands were laid on him at Antioch by the prophets and teachers. But immediately after this he possessed and exercised this power. Indeed, so far as the New Testament record shows, Paul received his inspiration to preach the gospel at the first by the laying on of the hands of Ananias, who was not an apostle. When An- anias approached Saul at Damascus, having been sent to him by the Lord, he said to him : "Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou earnest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." (Acts 9: 17.) Here are two things mentioned to Saul that were to be accom- plished by the visit of Ananias to him. One was that he might receive his sight, and the other was that he might be filled with the Holy Ghost. The one was as much the ob- ject of the coming of Ananias to him as the other. And we know that the one first named was accomplished. He re- ceived his sight, and this was accomplished through the laying on of the hands of Ananias, as we learn from Acts 9 : 12. This much, then, we know : that through the laying on of the hands of Ananias, Paul received sight miracu- lously. Something like scales fell at once and by miracu- lous power from his eyes. Ananias did, therefore, work miraculous power upon Saul. Now add to this the fact that Ananias was sent to him that he might also be filled with the Holy Ghost, and the conclusion is almost inevitable that the Holy Spirit at the first was conferred upon Paul by the laying on of the hands of Ananias. There is no other natural application for the passage. By the vision that BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 273 Paul saw before Ananias was sent to him he was to re- ceive his sight by the laying on of that man's hands. He did receive his sight thus, and the whole passage shows that he received the Holy Spirit the same way. "The Lord . . . hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and [that thou mightest] be filled with the Holy Ghost." To us there is nothing in all the Bible more natural than that Paul received his inspiration at the first through the laying on of the hands of Ananias. This truth established, and it is clear enough that an additional measure or power of the Holy Spirit was conferred upon Paul by the laying on of the hands of those prophets and teachers at Antioch. And then it is just as natural to conclude that a miraculous gift was conferred upon Timothy with the laying on of hands of the presbytery. These conclusions are not only scriptural, but most natural applications of the word of God. But, on the other hand, it is unnatural and unscrip- tural to assume that those elders could and did confer an office as a gift upon Timothy. Why should it be more dif- ficult for a man not an apostle to confer miraculous power than to work a miracle, as in the case of Ananias? He wrought a miracle when he restored Saul to sight; and he could certainly with equal ease confer the Holy Spirit, and so might those at Antioch upon Paul and Barnabas, and so might the elders upon Timothy. Such are our conclusions upon this subject from a careful study of the word of God. E. G. S. GIFTS, DO MIRACULOUS, STILL EXIST? Brother Sewell: Please explain through the Gospel Advocate whether the gifts in 1 Cor. 12 are done away with. We have some Methodists here who say they are not done away. I told them they have been done away ever since God gave us his word. Please give me chapter and verse to show that they have ceased. The gifts mentioned in the chapter referred to were all miraculous and have certainly ceased, as there are no men on earth now that can do the miracles those men did. Those gifts endowed men with power to speak with tongues, to interpret tongues, translate languages. They could work miracles, heal the sick, prophesy, discern spirits, and such like. But none can do these things now; nor have there been any that could do these things since the first, or mi- raculous, age of the church. Before the New Testament was given the teaching had to be done orally; and as the apostles could not be everywhere to teach the churches, these miraculous gifts were to supply the churches with such teaching as they needed till everything should be re- 274 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, vealed and put on record. Paul says that when Christ had ascended, "he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors [shepherds] and teachers." (Eph. 4: 11.) He also tells what these were given for; and these gifts include those mentioned in the above. They were to be "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." (Verse 12.) Next he indicates how long these miraculous gifts were to last — "till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." (Verse 13.) So these miraculous gifts continued till the fullness of Christianity was revealed and written down so as to furnish everything needed for the full development, the edification, of the church. They were then no longer needed. Paul also shows that these miraculous gifts — such as prophecy, speaking with tongues, and such like — were to cease, in the following: "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail ; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away." (1 Cor. 13: 8.) This does not mean that prophecies already given should fail to be ful- filled or that knowledge of things divine should cease to exist, but that the power to prophesy, or to know things without learning them, as inspired men did, should cease. They have ceased. The man, therefore, that claims they have not ceased must prove their continuance by doing the miracles. No man's ipse dixit alone is any evidence in the case. GOD, SEEING, "FACE TO FACE." Please explain the seeming contradiction in the reading of the following passages of scripture: "Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: and they saw the God of Israel." (Ex. 24: 9, 10.) "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel : for I have seen God face to face, and my life is pre- served." (Gen. 32: 30.) "No man hath seen God at any time." (1 John 4: 12.) I come to you in order to get your views on the sub- ject, for, as a general thing, I am well pleased with your explana- tions of difficult passages of Scripture. I have drawn a conclusion from these passages of Scripture that may be wrong, and I wish to get right. When Jacob is represented as saying he saw God, it was only an angel of God that appeared to him in the form of a man. In Hosea it is called an angel; so that in that case Jacob did not see the face of God at all, but only an angel of God. And when Moses, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu went up into the mountain, when it is said they saw God, they BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 275 saw the glorious manifestation of God in some form, but not his full form and face; for Moses afterwards desired God to show him his glory, and he would not, "for," said he, "there shall no man see me, and live;" but God did permit Moses to see his back parts, but not his face. (Ex. 33.) And when Moses is represented as talking with God face to face, it can only mean that God was present in his power and glory, but not that Moses saw his face. When John says, "No man hath seen God at any time," he means in the sense that Moses wanted to see him, when God said: "There shall no man see me, and live." So that there is no contradiction in these passages, nor others of like import. E. G. S. GOLD, WEARING. We have been asked to write something on the subject of wearing gold, jewelry, and such like. The question keeps coming up again and again: Is it wrong to wear jewelry, or to wear gold in any way? Here are the passages that occasion the trouble on this subject: "In like manner also, that women adorn them- selves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobri- ety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly ar- ray; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works." (1 Tim. 2: 9, 10.) "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands ; that, if any obey not the word, they may also without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel ; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corrupti- ble, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price." (1 Pet. 3 : 1-4.) These are the passages directly and especially bearing upon the sub- ject. I do not see how language could be plainer or stronger on any subject than the above language is regarding the wearing of gold, plaiting the hair, or any sort of extrava- gance in dress to make a show or display before the eyes of the world. Women are here required to adorn themselves in modest apparel — "not with broided [braided] hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." I do not know how to modify this language so as to make it mean any less than it ex- presses ; in fact, I am afraid to try. It is a very dangerous thing to tamper with the word of God and weaken its force. Thousands of religious people have been for years and years destroying the force and im- 276 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, portance of baptism by telling the people that it is "a non- essential" and that "people can go to heaven as well without it as with it." And yet everybody knows that God com- mands it ; that Jesus said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God ;" that Peter, speaking by the Holy Spirit to the house of Cornelius, "commanded them to be baptized." And yet there are people to-day that would be horrified at the idea of refusing or speaking lightly of baptism who will wear gold and pearls and diamonds without the least apparent compunction of conscience. But who will try to show that baptism is any more positively required than gold and pearls and costly array are forbidden? I am sure I will not ; I am afraid to do so. I have heard and seen so much disregard of positive declarations of the word of God that I shudder for the result to those who do it. Paul, when writing by inspiration, said: "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man." But men and women just brush Paul out of the way and run right over him, as though God had never spoken through him. Hence, women are in pulpits all over the land to-day, and men encourage them in it. Men and women may brush Paul and Peter out of the way in this life and may go their own way here ; but when it comes to brushing Christ out of the way when they stand before him in judgment, they will find that a very different thing. God lets men go their own way in this life. If they want to disregard his word, he lets them do it. But he will not let them off when they stand before the judgment seat. I know it is the common course of religious people to dis- regard the above passages regarding the wearing of gold and other expensive jewelry for show and to gratify the vain desires of a fleshly mind. There is enough of jew- elry worn to-day by church members — jewelry of gold and pearls and precious stones — to send the gospel to all the nations of the earth, if they would turn it into that chan- nel ; and if God does not hold them responsible for such dis- regard of his holy word, I have read the Bible to little ad- vantage. It does not require a Solomon to understand the above passages on this subject; nor does it require a knowl- edge of Greek and Hebrew. Any one that can understand plain English when he reads or hears it can understand these passages. They are as plain as words can express anything. "Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel." This language needs no inter- pretation. The word apparel here, being in immediate BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 277 connection with plaiting the hair and the wearing of gold, means such apparel as is ranked with the wearing of gold — apparel not worn for its usefulness, but for display, for vain show, thus evincing that all kinds of apparel just worn to make a show, and not for useful service, is forbidden to the Lord's people. Plain, serviceable, and modest apparel is not at all forbidden in these passages nor in any other passage in the Christian Scriptures. There may be, and doubtless are, some things concerning which it will be diffi- cult to draw the lines and determine just how far we may go and just where we must stop ; but these passages are not of that character ; they plainly specify gold and pearls and costly array and plaiting the hair. There can be no mistake as to what these things are and no mistake as to the fact that they are forbidden; and because that in the varied articles of dress there come up things about which it may be difficult to determine where to draw the line is no reason why Christians should not discard these plainly expressed articles and kinds of dress. There is no excuse for mistaking these. And there is also a safe rule re- garding things that are doubtful, and that is to let doubtful things alone. Whenever we are doubtful as to whether a certain article or kind of apparel is condemned by such passages as the above or not, then it is perfectly safe to let it alone. Nothing can be lost by acting upon this princi- ple. If it be doubtful whether wearing silks and satins is right or not, we know it is safe to let them alone ; and so of everything else that may come up. There is always a safe side, if we are only willing to take it. But here is where the trouble comes in. People are not always willing to take the safe side when they see it. Almost the whole reli- gious world knows that immersion as the action of baptism is perfectly safe, and that there is nothing to risk in a proper subject being immersed instead of accepting sprin- kling or pouring; but there are thousands and tens of thousands that are not willing to accept it. All Christian women know that it would be safe to accept and act upon the plain letter of the law that Paul lays down against women speaking in public in the church, or preaching. There could be no mistake here. But the trouble is, there are very many women — and men, too — that are not willing to submit to it. And so it is about wearing gold and pearls, precious stones, and extravagant or costly array for mere show. They are not willing to practice in these matters what they know is safe. Immersion is no more plainly taught and required in the word of God than the wearing of gold and such like things are forbidden; and if it is not 278 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, about as dangerous to disregard the one as the other, I can- not see why. The perverseness of the human heart is the only difficulty about going to heaven. God has pointed out the way that leads to heaven plainly enough for all to understand it. Hence the conclusion of the whole matter is that whosoever will may be saved here and hereafter, may enter in at last through the gates into the city. The way is plain enough, if only the people would be willing to walk therein. But for Christians to continue wearing their gold and pearls and costly array, while thousands around them and to the ends of the earth are ignorant of the gospel plan of salva- tion, is entirely out of harmony with the spirit of Christ. But this is only a part of the evil. The Christian that disregards these plain passages of God's word that forbid the wearing of gold and pearls and costly array is culti- vating and practicing a spirit of insubordination and of vanity and pride that is thoroughly out of harmony with the spirit of Christ — that spirit of humility and self-denial which alone can prepare people for the society of Christ and the angels and of all the blood-washed throng that shall people the eternal city of God. And this short life is the only time given us in which to prepare for the enjoyment of that eternal home of the soul. We, therefore, have no time to lose and cannot afford to take any risks. Let it be our meat and drink to faithfully do whatever the Lord would have us do here, and he will give us all he has prom- ised in the "sweet by and by." E. G. S. GOLD, WEARING, AS AN ORNAMENT. Brother Lipscomb: Please tell me if it is scriptural to wear rings, watches, lockets, bracelets, and gold-rim spectacles. Paul says : "In like manner, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; but (which becometh women professing godliness) through good works." (1 Tim. 2: 9, 10.) Peter says: "Whose adorning let it not be the outward adorning of braiding the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on ap- parel ; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in the in- corruptible apparel of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price." (1 Pet. 3: 3, 4.) I do not see how any one can fail to see that wearing gold as an ornament is forbidden. I do not know how nor do I have any desire to explain the prohibition away. I think it a mark of reckless folly for any one to disregard the com- mand of God for the little gratification of pride found in the BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 279 wearing of a little gold. There are, doubtless, uses for which gold serves a better purpose than anything else; but when used as an ornament, it is a sin, because it violates the law of God. "GOLD, SILVER, PRECIOUS STONES," MEANING OF. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain 1 Cor. 3: 11-15 through the Gospel Advocate. It reads as follows: "For other foun- dation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." What is meant by the terms gold, silver, etc.? In what way are they to receive a reward, and in what way to suffer loss and be himself saved? What is meant by this reward and loss? To understand the passage, we must first have a clear understanding of the building spoken of and of the material that is built upon the foundation. The building that is to be built upon the one foundation is the church of God. The materials of which the building is to be composed are hu- man beings. The one who preaches the gospel and brings men into the church is the builder. When those who are brought into the church, builded upon the foundation, hold out in the service and are faithful in the cause, they are represented by the gold, silver, precious stones; but those who come in and then do no good, do not live the Christian, are represented by the wood, hay, and stubble; for by the fiery trials of life they are carried back into the world and will be eternally ruined in the world to come; while the pure and the good, represented by the gold, etc., will be eter- nally saved. For the faithful material the builder will be rewarded. "And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever." (Dan. 12: 3.) But in the case of those who turn back and are lost the builder loses his labor on them ; but the builder will not be lost himself because his converts may be; on the other hand, if faithful, he will be saved. But the preacher, the builder, must be faithful himself or he will not be saved. He will have the same sort of trials to pass through that his converts have ; but if he be faithful, a crown of life will be his, though all his converts be lost. E. G. S. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain 1 Cor. 3: 12, 13. What does the gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble repre- sent? Were they intended to represent truth and error or the mate- rial of which the kingdom is composed? 280 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, The wood, hay, and stubble represent bad material built upon the one foundation that bear no fruit to perfection and will be turned back by the trials of life and be lost ; but the gold, silver, and precious stones represent converts that will hold out to the end and be saved. GOSPELS, DO THE, BELONG TO THE OLD TESTA- MENT? Brother Sewell: Please answer through the Gospel Advocate the following question : Do the first four books of the New Testament, properly placed, belong to the Old Testament? These books do not belong to the Old Testament. It is true that the events recorded in these four books very largely occurred during the existence of the old covenant, and that very many of the things recorded in these books are the fulfillment of prophecies found in the Old Testa- ment ; but instead of belonging to or being any part of that book, they give the preparatory state of the new covenant, which is something entirely different from the old covenant. The old dispensation lasted from Moses to the death of Christ, and was then taken out of the way. These first four books of the New Testament begin with the birth of John the Baptist and of Christ, and they briefly give the preaching of John and its results, how Jesus was introduced to Israel through the ministry of John, and a people made ready for him. Then come the life and teaching of Jesus up to his death, the wonderful plan of salvation he pro- vided for men, and the final commission of Christ to his apostles ; then his ascension comes as the closing part of the preparatory work and the time when the kingdom of Christ should be established on earth. Acts of the Apos- tles then comes in and goes right on with the history of the establishment of the church, and how people enter into it; then the letters of the apostles to the churches give the practical working of the kingdom. So the first four books make up a very important part of the New Testament. GRACE, CAN ONE FALL FROM? Brother Sewell: If one has been baptized into Christ, as we ex- press it, can he fall from grace? Please explain Heb. 6: 4-6. Most assuredly he can. It is not only true that he can, but it is needful for him to watch and pray at all times to keep from falling. Paul wrote to the Galatians that if they received circumcision, Christ would profit them nothing; that they were fallen from grace. They could not fall from grace if they had not been in grace. There were tempta- tions thrown around them to lead them to do the very thing BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 281 that would separate them from Christ, and Paul gave them this solemn warning lest they should do so. (Gal. 5: 2-4.) Then Peter also speaks of some who he said had forsaken the right way, which none can do without having been in the right way. Peter also says: "For it were better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment delivered unto them." (2 Pet. 2: 21.) The Holy Spirit would not give such warnings if there were no danger of doing such a thing. Especially such thing would not be said if such a thing were impossible. But he makes it still stronger : "It is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog turneth to his own vomit again, and the sow that had washed to wallowing in the mire." (Verse 22.) These passages show that some have fallen, and not only that others may do so, but that there is great danger of such a thing. There are very many examples through- out the whole Bible of people who were faithful servants of God for a time, and then completely fell away from him. And the passage in Hebrews teaches that when men who have embraced and enjoyed the right way, and then fall away from the right, willingly and knowingly, they put themselves beyond the reach of mercy. Christ is the only Savior; and when men disregard him, deliberately refuse him, turn from him, there is no other sacrifice to be made for them and their case is hopeless. This passage does not comprehend making blunders and mistakes through the weakness of the flesh. This sort of sins can be repented of and be forgiven. But the kind of sin spoken of in this passage is a complete, deliberate giving up Christ after having learned him and received him, having obeyed him and rejoiced in him for a time, then deliberately rejecting him as their Savior, falling away from him. When people do this way, their last ray of hope is gone and they are un- done forever. GRACE AND WORKS. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: You will please explain Rom. 11: 6, which reads thus: "And if by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." The connection taken with the verse explains the one mentioned. Paul was speaking of the rejection of the Jews as a nation, because they rejected the gospel of Christ, which is God's plan of grace for saving men ; and while the masses of the Jews had thus been cast off, some of them had received the gospel and were among the saved. Hence in 282 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, verse 5 we have, "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace" — that is, the election of the gospel. In the days of Elijah, when he thought all Israel had gone off into idolatry, the Lord told him there were seven thousand men among them that had not bowed the knee to the image of Baal ; and so in the time of Paul there was a remnant, a few of the Jews, that received the gospel; and all who did embrace the gospel were elected by it, and their salvation was by grace, and not by the works of the law of Moses. Hence he says in verse 6, "And if by grace, then it is no more of works" — that is, the works of the law; for if they could still have been saved by the works of the law after the gospel came, then the gospel could not have been God's only plan of grace, favor, by which to save men. But since the gospel is God's only plan of grace to save men, the works of the law, since it has been taken away, can have nothing to do in the matter. It is no longer God's work. The apostle goes on in the verses that follow explaining still further the same matter. He intended to show that the only chance for the salvation of the Jews was through the gospel of the grace of God, and that the works of the law had had their day and were brought to an end. E. G. S. GRIEVANCES, ADJUSTING. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: We want your views, with Scrip- ture references, on the following: In order that you may have a cor- rect idea of it, I will call the congregations Nos. 1 and 2. A brother at each one of these had trouble. The brother at No. 1 claimed that he had been wickedly treated by the one at, No. 2. He saw several of the brethren at No. 2; made his complaints to them, and asked them to see their brother and talk to him about it. It went on for some months. They then said they were afraid to talk to him. Then the brother at No. 1 complained to the brethren there. They told him they thought he ought to report to No. 2. He then went to see the brother of No. 2 and told him he wanted the matter settled; and if they could not settle it between themselves, he was willing to leave it to the congregation at No. 2, or that he might select three of the members himself or three men from anywhere, and whatever they said he would abide by their decision ; but the brother of No. 2 refused to settle it in any way. He then got one of the brothers at No. 1 to go to No. 2 and lay in his complaints and to ask them to order an investigation, and he would attend any time they would set; but they refused to have anything to do with it on account of their belonging to separate congregations. Then the brother of No. 1 wrote to the congregation of No. 2, stating to them that he had been very wickedly treated by their brother, and asked them to inquire into it and advise them, if no more. We want to know what is the duty of No. 2 in this case, if the brother at No. 1 is willing to go to No. 2 for an in- vestigation. Has not the congregation of No. 2 the right to call up their brother and investigate the trouble; and if they fail to do this, have they not neglected their duty? BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 283 There were several wrong steps taken in the above. It was an improper step for the aggrieved brother to go first to the congregations to make complaint to them. The law as given by the Savior is: "If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church : but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican/' (Matt. 18 : 15-17.) The offended brother should have taken these steps carefully; and if the first two had failed, then, with the two or three that went with him to see the offender, he should have gone and reported the whole matter to the congregation of which the offender was a member, and it would then have been the duty of that con- gregation to have examined into the matter and to have seen that justice was done to all parties. Vast trouble might often be saved if all would read the Bible and closely follow its directions. All Christians on earth constitute one great brotherhood, one great family, and should mutually guard each other's welfare, both as congregations and individuals; and when the proper steps have been taken to bring matters up, one congregation should always look into the complaints of another. There is no boundary line between congregations to prevent them from properly considering all practical questions presented by one to another; but such things should always be prop- erly presented and everything done according to the word of God. There is, perhaps, no one thing more neglected among Christians than the first steps the Lord directs to be taken by individuals before bringing them before the church. Most men want to bring all their matters at once to the church and throw all the responsibility of settling difficulties upon the congregations. Members should never intrude their private difficulties upon the congregations till they have taken all scriptural steps themselves. Many congregations have been divided and broken up by attempt- ing to settle difficulties that should have been settled with- out being brought to the church at all. E. G. S. GUILE, MEANING OF. Brother Lipscomb : Please give us some light on the word guile as found in Ps. 32: 2; 34: 13; 55: 11; John 1: 47; 1 Thess. 2: 3; 1 Pet. 2: 1, 22; 3: 10; Rev. 14: 5. Members of the church at Dixon Springs, Tenn., say that the word guile is not here used in the sense 284 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, of sin, or wickedness; so I want you to give through the Gospel Ad- vocate the true definition of the word. Webster defines guile thus: "Craft, deceitful cunning, artifice, duplicity, wile, deceit ; used usually in a bad sense." This shows that it is sometimes used in a sense not bad. All craft, cunning, is not bad or used for bad ends, though it is most frequently used in that sense. When Paul claimed to be a Pharisee and turned the wrath of the Pharisees and Sadducees away from him and against each other, he used craft, or guile, in protecting himself; but I do not think there was any wrong in it. If two fierce dogs were after me and I could divert their attention from me by making them fight each other over a piece of meat, I would use guile, or craft, or cunning, or artifice, in doing it ; but this would be no sin. The seventh-day observers lay great stress on the apostles' attending the synagogue and preach- ing on the Sabbath to prove that it is the proper day to observe. In discussion with one on a Sunday afternoon I asked him if they had preaching that morning: He said: "Yes." I then asked: "Will you have preaching again to- night?" "Yes, sir," he replied. I then asked him how many times he had services on Saturday, or the Sabbath. He replied : "Only once." I then said : "It is singular that — if you believe Saturday, instead of Sunday, the proper day for worship — you should meet for worship on Sunday so much oftener than on Saturday." He said: "We do it be- cause the people are accustomed to meet on Sunday and turn out to hear so much better than on Saturday." I had used guile, or craft, or cunning, to make him answer his own argument why the apostles met on the Sabbath to teach the people — because they could get a hearing that day. Every time we set a trap with bait to entice an animal into it we practice guile. Is it always sinful? I think not. Yet the word guile is used generally, as the dictionary says, in an evil sense ; and while I have not examined, it may be so used in all the other passages referred to. Many think that 2 Cor. 12: 16 means: My enemies say that I was crafty and caught you with guile. Believing, as I do, that there is a good sense in which the terms crafty and guile are used, I see no necessity for straining the language to mean this. GUILE, MEANING OF "CAUGHT YOU WITH." Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain 2 Cor. 12: 16, which reads thus: "But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile." What is meant by not being burdensome and being crafty? What is meant by being caught with guile? BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 285 By not being burdensome the apostle meant that he did not call on them to support him, which as an apostle he might have done. In the matter of being crafty and catch- ing them with guile, there seems to be an ellipsis — some- thing left out. It is something his enemies there said of him, making the impression that though when there in per- son he exacted nothing from them, but went off himself, as though he was very liberal and wanted nothing, but after- wards sent others back after gifts, thereby taking advan- tage of them in a sharp, penurious sort of way that they called guile, or deception, pretending when there that he wanted nothing, but sent others back for it. Hence, in the very next verse, he asks : "Did I make a gain of you by any of them whom I sent unto you?" This indicates that the crafty and guile part of it was an accusation against him and he was defending himself from the charge. HANDS, LAYING ON. Brother Lipscomb: I want to ask you a few questions relative to certain scriptures. Among the last words of our Savior to his apos- tles were these: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 16: 15.) Does this mean that men now shall go and preach the gospel to every creature as did the apostles? Has any man authority from the word of God to lay hands on any man to prepare him for any office in the church? Did the laying on of hands apply to the apostolic age only? If our Lord intended the laying on of hands to continue in the church through all time, why did not the apostles command one or more of the disciples to pray and lay hands on the seven deacons at Jerusalem? (Acts 6:6.) I have been reading the Gospel Advocate since the Gospel Echo sus- pended publication, and I consider it one of the best papers published by the. disciples. Its editors appear to be men full of faith and love to God and man, and those who write for it seem to be men of great zeal for the glory of God and the salvation of mankind. We need to keep daily before our minds the very fervent desire of the apostle Paul: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." (1 Cor. 1: 10.) I am often afraid to lend the Advocate to friends for fear they will see the very different views our brethren take on the same subject. This ought not to be. Peter says: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." (2 Pet. 1: 20.) We ought to exam- ine the Scriptures very minutely before we disagree on the plain testimony of our Lord Jesus Christ. We know of but one way to reach unity on Scripture teaching — for each to state how he sees it from his view- point, and by a kindly comparison of the impression of each to seek the true ground. This is the way they sought and gained unity in apostolic times and in which we come to agreement in other matters now. Unity in error may 286 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, be maintained by the suppression of investigation and dis- cussion; Rome and the sects maintain unity in this way; but in free discussion truth is gained and unity in truth is maintained. This is the only unity pleasing to God. The division on the subjects of laying on of hands is not widely extended. A few brethren who think they learned all the truth when young and refuse to review the positions hold to the sectarian idea. But the brethren are almost a unit in rejecting it as an ordaining process. As I recall it, I never saw hands laid on persons but once among dis- ciples. I see from Professor McGarvey it is almost wholly neglected among those with whom he is associated. Some think Brother Fanning started the opposition to the prac- tice, but many rejected it before he did. Brother P. S. Fall and a number of the pioneer brethren believed from the be- ginning that only spiritually endowed persons laid hands on others. While there are but few, they are of the elder brethren, whom I respect and honor and will not refuse a hearing in the Advocate. To make the impression on peo- ple that truth can be maintained without investigation and discussion is to make a false impression. The sooner it is removed, the better. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: For what purpose were hands laid on persons in apostolic days of the church? In the organization of a congregation, should elders be selected and set apart by fasting, prayer, and imposition of hands? Is this the scriptural way of pro- cedure now? The subject has been discussed at considerable length at different times, and we will not attempt any general inves- tigation of it now. We will only give some of our conclu- sions. We do not understand that hands were ever laid upon any one as a part of an ordaining ceremony. In all the examples of the New Testament where hands were laid on, except two, it is certain that miraculous power was in some way exerted in the way of healing or imparting mi- raculous power. The two exceptions are Acts 6 and 13 — the case of the seven at Jerusalem and of Paul and Barna- as at Antioch. And in both these instances miraculous powers were exercised by the persons upon whom hands were laid, whereas there is no account of their possessing or exercising miraculous power before hands were laid on them. We, therefore, can see no reason to suppose these cases were departures from the general rule. The passage in Paul to Timothy we do not understand to have reference to ordination at all. It has reference to the exercise of discipline, as is shown by the connection. What- ever the word ordain may mean, and whatever may have BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 287 been done in the appointment of the seven and of Paul and Barnabas, we do not understand that laying on of hands was any part of that appointment. But since in all other cases in the New Testament where hands were laid on miraculous power was in some way exerted, it is very natural to sup- pose that the same thing was done in those cases, and espe- cially so when we see that immediately after these events miraculous power was exercised by the parties upon whom hands were imposed. HANDS, GIFT IN TIMOTHY BY LAYING ON. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In Paul's first letter to Timothy, fourth chapter and fourteenth verse, we find him saying to Timothy: "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by proph- ecy, with the laying on of hands of the presbytery." And in his second letter he tells him to "stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands." Was it another and different gift that he is speaking of on the second occasion, or was it one and the same gift that he is speaking of on both occasions? If it is one and the same gift, Paul must have been the presbytery himself. There were many spiritual gifts given to men in the first age of the church, and the same gifts were sometimes re- newed to the same persons, as in the case of the apostles. They were filled with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pente- cost; and then in Acts 4, where they prayed to God, the place where they were was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and "spake the word of God with bold- ness." We, therefore, think that Timothy received two different gifts, or that the same one was renewed, or given a second time. In the two mentions made of the matter by Paul the circumstances are different. The first time he speaks of the gift given by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery ; in the second place, he says the gift of which he was then speaking was given by the laying on his own hands. And from this decided differ- ence in presenting the matter we are satisfied there were two gifts given Timothy. He had an extensive work to perform, and it is reasonable that he needed more spiritual gifts than one, and that Paul spoke of one of them in his first, connecting it with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery so he would understand it, and the other by laying on his own hands so he would readily understand that. HAND, THE OFFENDING. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please give me some light on Mark 9: 43-47. Verse 34 reads: "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched." Does this mean the literal hand or eye? 288 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, In the above passage the Savior represents the lusts and desires of the mind by the members of the body, since the body is the servant of the mind, to carry out by its different members the wishes of the mind. "If thy right hand offend thee [that is, cause thee to offend or do wrong], cut it off, and cast it from thee" — that is, if any lust, appetite, or, de- sire of the mind would lead you astray, would cause you to do wrong, then you must mortify, put to death, cut off, that desire, though it may seem as dear to you as a right hand or a right eye. A man had better cut it off, or de- prive himself of any earthly wish, no matter how dear it may be to him, than to lose his own soul. Christians must closely watch their desires and aspirations and see that they shall not be inconsistent with the requirements of the reli- gion of Christ. Better miss all earthly and fleshly aspira- tions than to be lost in eternity. HATING FATHER, MOTHER, ETC. Please explain Luke 14: 26: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." The Common Version of the above passage is not a very clear expression of the original Greek. The Lord does not mean to teach that in order to be a Christian a man must hate his father and mother ; but he meant that in order for a man to be his disciple he must love him more than he loves father or mother, so that if father or mother should inter- fere, to hinder him from serving the Lord, he must forsake father or mother or any other relations of this life, or even life itself, if necessary, in order to be a Christian. The matter is made a little plainer in Matt. 10 : 37, 3.8 : "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of men. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me." In this passage the Savior had exactly the same principle under consider- ation that he did in Luke 14, and the very same principle is taught in both places. If the passage in Luke were ren- dered in some such way as the following, it would better express the Savior's meaning: "If any man come to me, and does not love me more than father or mother, he can- not be my disciple." Christ meant to teach that his serv- ice must be first with men and everything else secondary. No man can be a disciple of Christ who allows any earthly relationship or consideration, no matter what, to hinder him from doing what God has required. A man had better lose his own life at any time for Christ's sake than not to follow him. E. G. S. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 289 HEALING, MIRACULOUS. Brother Sew ell: Under the head of "Miraculous Healing," in the Gospel Advocate of December 9, in your explanation of James 5: 14, 15, you say: "The time when this sort of healing was done was in the age of miracles, when not only the apostles, but other members of the church, were endowed with miraculous power." You also say: "These miraculous powers ceased in close connection with the end of the apostolic age." But in concluding your article you say: "But that does not mean that Christians should not pray for sick people. But when they employ the best doctor they can get and do everything that can be done to cure them, let Christians all the time pray the Lord to prosper their efforts to heal the sick." Now, what is the dif- ference between anointing a sick man with oil and offering prayer for his recovery, and employing a doctor and praying for the sick man's recovery? In each case God is asked for power other than that at hand. If we say that James 5 : 14, 15 does not apply now, I fail to see how the latter case would differ from the first. Something more on this subject from you would be greatly appreciated. The difference between anointing with oil in the name of the Lord and in employing a physician and praying for success in the efforts to heal the sick is just as great as is the difference between miraculous healing and ordinary healing, is just as great as the difference between feeding people by the miraculous enlargement of a few loaves and fishes and the ordinary manner of receiving a sufficiency of food for all that are to be fed. Christ could create or so enlarge a very small amount of food as to make it feed thou- sands of hungry people and then have fragments left to ten times the original amount. No man has ever done any- thing like that since the days of miracles. To get food for five thousand hungry men to-day would be a large and ex- pensive affair; but Jesus did it in but a moment of time and without the cost of a cent of money. That surely is a matter of considerable difference. The healing mentioned in the passage considered was of divine appointment. Even the anointing with oil was to be done "in the name of the Lord." You cannot employ a physician in the name of the Lord now, for that is not ordered by the Lord. Besides, the healing then was a most positive promise: "And the prayer of faith shall save the sick." That is just as posi- tive and just as certain as "shall be saved." The Greek word rendered saved in the passage ordinarily means to save; but when it has reference to sick or diseased people, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon says it means "to make well, to heal, restore to health." So there is not a more positive promise in the Bible than the healing in the pas- sage considered. But now you may employ the very best doctor you can get and have the very best of men to pray for the healing of the people, and with it all they may die. The very best Christian farmer you can find may prepare 290 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, the best of soil, plant his crop, and give it the most careful cultivation, and connect with his labor the most earnest and devotional prayers, and yet a drought or a storm or a flood may come and blight and destroy the crop. So it is with healing since the days of miracles. But in every- thing we undertake to do we must work faithfully, pray, and trust ; and if success is best for us, it will be granted. But the best-laid plans will sometimes fail ; yet very great blessings will sometimes come through these failures. Suc- cess would not always be best for us. There is certainly a wonderful difference, therefore, between miraculous events and the ordinary working of things. HEALING, DO GIFTS OF, CONTINUE NOW? Brother Lipscomb: From early boyhood I have been taught that with or on the death of the apostles all the different gifts, such as prophesyings, healings, etc., should cease. If I am wrong, please set me right. I see and hear of some remarkable cures being performed by prayer in Chicago by a man named Dowie. There is no doubt but the miraculous gifts or miraculous powers of any and all kinds disappeared when those on whom gifts were bestowed in the apostolic age died. None have possessed them since. The best evidence is, those gifted in the early age left none in doubt as to the posses- sion of the gifts. Not even the worst opposers of the apos- tles could doubt the reality of the power. None of the later claims to this power have been able to convince those who doubted as to the power. Only the willing and credu- lous believers see these powers. They are never mani- fested to the unbelieving to produce faith. The facts ac- cord with the teaching of the Bible. 1 Cor. 12 is devoted to the teaching concerning these gifts. It concludes by tell- ing them : "But covet earnestly the best gifts : and yet show I unto you a more excellent way." Chapter 13 tells the way that is more excellent than these gifts. The gift of tongues, the gift of prophecy, the power to work miracles, is nothing without charity. In verse 8 he says: "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away." All these gifts shall cease, for we know in part — have partial knowledge — and prophesy in part. "But when that [knowledge] which is perfect is come, then that [knowledge] which is in part shall be done away." In verses 8, 9 he shows the knowl- edge whicji is in part is that which pertains to the spiritual gifts. The knowledge which is perfect is that which makes known the complete will of God in the Scriptures. When BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 291 that was come, these gifts which supplied temporarily the knowledge needed till the will was come passed away. In Eph. 4 : 11-13 he tells of the gifts bestowed — tells they were for the perfecting of the saints: "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." The word of God perfected is the standard of the unity of the faith and of the fullness of the stature of Christ; and the early Christians came to it when it was completed and perfected, and thoroughly fur- nished the man of God unto all things necessary to life and godliness. There have been no miraculous powers from the comple- tion of revelation until this time. , All along the world's history there have sprung up now and then men that by magnetic powers or some other influence seemed to work wonderful cures ; but they are all short-lived and soon are forgotten. The persons cured soon fall back into their afflicted condition. The apparent cures are short-lived, too. There is nothing in the pretense that is solid and per- manent. HEB. 6: 1-6, MEANING OF. We have been asked by a sister to give an explanation of Heb. 6 : 1-6. We have often spoken of the meaning of this. The first verse or two are the difficult ones. "Leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto per- fection ; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God." To understand this passage, we must remember this letter was written to the Hebrews who had been converted from Judaism to Chris- tianity. Judaism, or the law of Moses, had been super- seded by the law of Christ. The law of Moses was the schoolmaster to bring the Jews to Christ. When Christ came, the law was done away. The works of the Jewish law then became dead works. When the law was done away, the works of the law were no longer in force. This law could not make the comers thereunto perfect. "For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a bet- ter hope did ; by the which we draw nigh unto God." (Heb. 7: 19.) The Jewish law was the beginning of the doctrine of Christ. It could not make perfect. Let us leave it, therefore, and go on to perfection in the service of Christ. The practice of the Jewish law was the foundation that de- manded repentance from the works of the Jewish law, now no longer in force, so dead. When they turned from th« Jewish law to Christ, the first things were faith in God, the 292 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, teaching of baptism, laying on of hands in the beginning to impart spiritual gifts, resurrection from the dead, and eternal judgment. The tendency of these Jews was to go back to Judaism and lay again the causes out of which the necessity of these things grows. Do not do this ; but hav- ing passed out of Judaism by faith in Christ, go on to per- fection in him. The apostle says, "This will we do, if God permit" — a strong assertion that he and the faithful will do it. This much is difficult; the rest is plain. If you Jews who have become Christians and have been once enlightened by the gospel of Christ, have tasted of the blessings bestowed in Christ, have been the recipients of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, as these Jewish Christians had done, and tasted of the good word' of God and the powers of the world to come (they had enjoyed all these things in enjoying the miraculous gifts of the Spirit as they had done) — now, if after these things you deliberately give up Christ as the sacrifice for your sins, in this you crucify him again to yourselves afresh and put him to open shame, Those who thus turn to Judaism after they have known Christ cannot be renewed to repentance. They reject Christ as their sac- rifice, and there is no other sacrifice to save them. The same idea is presented in Heb. 10: 29. The man who re- jects Christ as the Mediator and Savior has no other that can save. This is true. When he rejects Christ, it is im- possible to renew him to repentance. But neither of these passages has the least reference to persons being renewed again to repentance who, while believing in Christ, fall through temptations into sin. This is too clearly taught in many places of the Scriptures for a moment to be doubted. This speaks of those who give up Christ. They have no other approach to God. D. L. HEBREWS, CHAPTER TEN. Brother Lipscomb: Please explain Heb. 10. This chapter is the statement of the failure of the law of Moses to take away sins. The law was the shadow of the good things to come and could not take the sins away once for all. If they had taken them away, they would have ceased to offer them for their sins, as was done each recurring year. The worshipers, freed from sin, would cease to make offerings for them. The blood of these ani- mals offered could not take away sin. Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said to God, "Sacrifice and offering . . . thou wouldest not;" and as God had turned from and rejected these offerings, Jesus came as BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 293 a high priest — came in the place and became the sacrifice that can cleanse from sin, to do the will of God, to take away the sacrifices for sin and substitute the Son of God that would once for all take away sin. Through this offer- ing of Jesus as the one sacrifice God would take away sin forever. Jesus, after the offering of himself, sat down on the right hand of God, expecting until his enemies are made his footstool forever. HEARTFELT RELIGION. Messrs. Lipscomb and Seivell: I have been a reader of the Gos- pel Advocate for a good while, though I do not accede to its opin- ions in many things. It is a readable paper, and the Christian Church is misrepresented by many. At the same time the Methodist Church, of which I have the honor of being a member, is often misrepresented in the Advocate. You teach that if we repent and believe we must obey the gospel. The Methodists teach the same. But while you teach outward ordi- nances — water baptism, etc. — we teach God is a Spirit, and that they that worship him must worship him in spirit. Circumcision or non- circumcision availeth nothing, but the circumcision of the heart. He is not a Jew which is one outwardly, but inwardly. The Advocate teaches our feelings will not do for a guide. We believe we know for ourselves, and not another, whether we are on the Lord's side or not. You say: "If ye love me, keep my commandments." So do we. But this keeping commandments does not consist in meats and drinks. "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." The fruits or feeling of such a life is joy and peace in believing in the Holy Ghost. This knowledge of Christ in the heart is the acceptance of him as our Savior; and it matters not whether in the act of baptism or in the frozen zone of the North or on the burning sands of Arabia's desert, the moment we accept him as our Savior and believe that God accepts the offer- ing for Christ's sake, Christ is formed within, the hope of glory. Religion is a spiritual work, an inward work. Here I want to say a word in regard to your people. You call yourselves Christians and others the denominations, the world, sinners, etc. We are all poor sinners; and if saved at all, we are saved alone through grace. It is a great thing to say, "I am a Christian." I mean by that word that a man must have the evidence or feeling within, and it is our privilege to have this if we love mercy, do justly, and walk humbly with God. This is the religion we Methodists say is "better felt than told." This knowledge enabled the saints in all ages to take up the cross and follow Christ. It is this love in the soul that enabled mother, while passing death's stormy river, to shout, "Glory!" It is this love that enables our friends, while passing death's chilly wave, to exclaim, "All is well!" This is what we mean by heartfelt reli- gion, or that religion which is "better felt than told." Church membership and church ordinances are all well; but we may have all these and be a tinkling cymbal. Nothing but charity — the love of God in our hearts — will enable us to overcome the world. Many "shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God" 294 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were never known here as Christians, but their life was hid with Christ in God. Our good Methodist brother fails to comprehend the full scope of our teaching. We believe as strongly as the Meth- odists do in an earnest, devotional heart religion — a reli- gion that gives perfect joy and consolation and that makes the possessor cheerful and happy at all times. But we be- lieve, at the same time, that all who have this kind of heart will go forward and do all the commandments of God with- out delay. God says in the last chapter of Isaiah : "To this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word." No heart is right that does not tremble at God's word and is not always ready and anxious to do what the Lord says. Jesus says, when explaining the parable of the sower : "But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, hav- ing heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with pa- tience." (Luke 8: 15.) This passage tells what kind of a heart is a good one; and, in the light of this passage, no heart is good that does not strive to keep the word in all its requirements. We believe in worshiping God in spirit and in truth, but we understand that this means to do what the Lord says with a humble heart and an earnest and de- votional spirit — a heart moved with love to God and to Je- sus, our Lord. Peter said to the Christians scattered by persecution: "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently." These Christians had purified their souls in obeying the truth, and baptism was one item. (See Acts 2: 38.) It takes doing what God says to purify the heart — the soul. We believe, therefore, that a pure heart will visit the fatherless and widows in their afflictions — will minister to their necessities. We do not see how you can make a dif- ference between the requirement to feed the hungry and the command to be baptized, as to their importance. Both commands are given by the same authority and are of equal importance in their respective places. No matter how good a man's heart may be in his faith and repentance, if he then refuses to be baptized, his heart that moment ceases to be good and becomes rebellious ; for Christ teaches that an honest and good heart will beep the word, which means will obey the word. The conduct, the actions, of the body must be right, as well as the heart ; and a right heart produces right conduct. Christianity embraces the whole man — body, soul, and spirit. No man's heart can remain BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 295 right a single hour after he refuses to obey a single com- mand of God. We also believe that when a man understands and obeys the gospel and gives his heart and life to God by obeying the truth, he can intelligently give a reason of the hope that is in him ; he can tell why he is happy, and he rejoices in hope of the glory of God. We believe in a religion that makes men feel well; but we believe doing well, doing the requirements of God, is the foundation of good feeling, and that no man has a scriptural right to feel well that does not do well. Paul was ready to leave the world, because he had done well, had fought a good fight, had kept the faith. We do not believe there is a happier people on this earth than those who believe in and obey the word of God daily and faithfully. So there is no difference between us as to en- joying religion — heart and soul religion — but only in the means of attaining these conditions. We want people to obey from the heart the form of doctrine — the gospel of Christ — in order to become Christians and rejoice in the re- mission of sins; and if they continue to obey God as Chris- tians, they may live happy all their lives and die happy. If there are to be any exceptions to this rule in cases of men in the frozen North or burning South, we leave the Lord to make them ; we do not propose to make the excep- tions for him. We know we are safe in doing his com- mandments from loving, devoted hearts ; and if there is safety anywhere else, we have not found it out. When- ever you realize that the requirements that make a Chris- tian are as important as those by which we live the Chris- tian, and that these requirements include baptism, you will find no room to differ from any people that love and obey the Lord. We do not wish to magnify differences, but to lessen them if possible ; and we desire to encourage a free expression of religious convictions, and by this means we may hasten the time when all lovers of truth shall be one. E. G. S. HEATHEN, WHAT WILL BECOME OF THE? Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: You will please answer the ques- tion as to what will become of the heathen who have never had the gospel preached unto them. If it never was, the present generation is not to blame for their not having it. Now, will they be held re- sponsible for the sins of their fathers in letting the gospel light go out? Paul, in Rom. 2: 13, 14, says: "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto them- selves." How could the law affect them when they have not the law, or how could they be a law unto themselves when they knew nothing 296 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, of the law? Also, sin is a transgression of law; and if they knew not the law, how could they transgress the law? Also, Paul, in Rom. 10: 13, 14, says: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him on whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" The con- dition of salvation seems to depend upon calling, and the calling de- pends upon being taught; for the apostle says that faith comes by hearing the word of God, and in his interrogatory he seems to convey the idea that they cannot call without knowledge; and if they had no knowledge, they could not be responsible ; and, if so, would they be saved? We, as a people, contend that our salvation is conditional — that is, we are saved by obedience to the law of the gospel. Now, should obedience to that law which is unto themselves save? If so, then a disobedience will, on the other hand, damn them. We have not been able as yet to find anything in the Bible that in a direct way answers the question as to what will become of the heathen who never hear anything of the word of God. It is easy enough to tell what will become of those who hear the word of God and obey it, and quite as easy to tell the destiny of those who hear the word and re- fuse to obey it; but if it be true that the heathen will be saved on the score of their ignorance, because they have not heard the word of God, then it is certainly very cruel to send the Bible to them, unless they will do better with it than our own people where we have the Bible ; for it is well known that only a few compared with the masses in Bible lands obey the Bible in such a way as to secure to them- selves the promises of the word of God. And if, therefore, the heathen as a mass are to be saved because of their ig- norance, then let them alone in their glory, for they are bet- ter off by far than people in Bible lands. But from several things that Paul says in his letter to the Romans, we hardly think it a scriptural conclusion that the heathen are going to be saved as they are — in their sins. He shows fully in this letter that at the time Christ came all the world, both Jews and Gentiles, were regarded sinners. The Gentile nations had long since plunged themselves into sin and un- belief till they had forgotten all knowledge of the word of God, or even the existence of God, while the Jews had dis- obeyed their law and become sinners in his sight; so that there were none that did good — all were sinners and ex- posed to death and ruin. In a word, the whole world was in a lost condition when Christ came into the world; and we do not suppose the heathen are much better in the sight of God now than they were then. Concerning the heathen world, Paul uses the following language in Rom. 1 : "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 297 became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. . . . Wherefore God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dis- honor their own bodies between themselves: who chanered the truth of God into a lie. and worshined and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. . . . And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge. God gave them over to a renrobate mind, to do those thinsrs which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetous- ness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despite- ful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things," etc. This is certainly a dark picture. These are the steps through which they went into heathenism at the start, and this is very much the history of heathenism to-day. And as a de- scription of the whole world, including especially the heathen, at the coming of Christ, we have the following in Rom. 3: "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin ; as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulcher ; with their tongues they have used de- ceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness : their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways: and the way of peace have they not known." These things are a very good representation of heathen- ism the world over. They are full of all sorts of wicked- ness that the mind of man, aided by Satan himself, can pos- sibly devise. This is the character with which the heathen live and die. And how does this character comport with the character the Christian has to form in order to be saved? Even the Christian, to be prepared for heaven, has to deny "ungodliness and worldly lusts" and "live so- berly, righteously, and godly, in this present world." Now, as it takes this sort of righteous, sober, godly character to go to heaven, surely the heathen who lives as described above— lives in wickedness, deceit, envy, hatred, and every abominable way that can be imagined — has rather a poor showing. The Bible teaches plainly that the character we form in this life is the character we will carry into eternity. In the last chapter in the Bible we have the following Ian- 298 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, guage on this subject: "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still : and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still ; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still : and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." This certainly means that when a man lives and dies a wicked man he will be wicked at the judg- ment seat of Christ, while he that lives and dies a righteous man will be righteous at the judgment and will receive the righteous man's reward. Every man will receive accord- ing to his work — his character ; and as the heathen live and die in the very dregs of wickedness and folly and come up to the judgment with that filthy sort of character, we can see nothing very encouraging for their future. To say the very best that can be said in behalf of the heathen, the pic- ture is a dark one. The character of the heathen is in every particular contrary to the character that God proposes to save. But you ask: "What of those who do by nature the things contained in the law?" In reply, we have no idea that Paul was speaking of the heathen in the full sense of that term. He was arguing with the Jews and showing them that, on account of their violation of their law, God had rejected them and ceased to regard them as his peculiar people, and had established the gospel and extended it to all the world, both Jews and Gentiles. And while the law was in force, there were Gentiles always living contiguous to the Jews, and by their contact with the Jews had learned many of the principles of the Jewish law and approved them and acted upon them, although perhaps at the time they could not have told exactly whence they came, for the law of Moses was never given to the Gentiles. In such cases, where the Gentiles caught the principles, the things contained in the law, and did them, they had by far the ad- vantage of the Jews themselves, who had the law and failed to live up to it. But we do not believe that Paul intended to teach that the heathen, as such, who have no chance to hear or see anything concerning the law of God, ever do the things contained in the law. If God ever does anything for the heathen, it will be by sending them the Bible, the word of God, and not by some secret operation upon them; and we believe that whenever any heathen nation gets into a condition to receive and obey the Bible, God will send it to them through the instrumentality of his people. When they receive and obey the word of God through the gospel of his Son, it is very certain they will then be saved. Be- yond this, we cannot say. If God sends his Spirit to work BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 299 directly and secretly upon the heathen, it will be something he never has done in any age, so far as the Bible records. Yet this is the plan the religious world generally points out upon which they think he will save the heathen. If the heathen are saved in their wickedness outside of the Bible, that will be wholly the Lord's work, and not ours, and we need not trouble ourselves about it. But let us, at the same time, do all we can to spread a knowledge of the truth. This is our part of the work, for those that Paul speaks of did the things contained in the law. But who will contend that any of the heathen, who never heard the gospel, do the things contained in the gospel? Do any of them believe the gospel ? Do they repent ? Are any of them baptized ? Do any of them meet on the first day of the week to break bread ? Every one knows they do not. Upon what ground shall we claim, then, that the heathen will be saved? We can see none. But of one thing we are fully satisfied, and that is, the Lord will do right with them. If it be right that they or any of them should be saved, the Lord will be certain to do it, and we need not be uneasy about that. Let us do our duty, and all will be right. E. G. S. Brother Lipscomb: Will the heathen be saved without the gospel, or will he be saved if he is never taught? If not, what does Paul mean in Rom. 4: 15 and 5: 13? If the heathen were saved without Christ, why should he come and die ? Paul says God gave them over to be heath- ens, because, when they knew God, they did not glorify him as God. "We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin." (Rom. 3:9.) "There is none righteous, no, not one." (Verse 10.) None are righteous, save those made so by the blood of Christ. "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." (Verse 23.) "There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4: 12.) I could not make it plainer or stronger than these scriptures, with many others. The Scriptures (Rom. 4: 15) say: "Where no law is, there is no transgression." There are two classes of sins in the Bible. Transgress means to go beyond and add to the laws of God. Where there is no law, this sin cannot exist. From Adam to Moses there was no code of divine laws, so no transgression. Yet they sinned and died. God gave no law, because they would not hear, and he did not cast pearls before swine. Rom. 5: 13 says: "Sin was in the world : but sin is not imputed when there is no law." "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of 300 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, Adam's transgression/' (Verse 14.) Adam's transgres- sion was setting aside a positive law. From Adam to Moses there was no code of laws; so they did not sin as Adam did. Yet they were wicked beyond measure ; so God destroyed them. The sin of transgressing law was not im- puted, but the sin and wickedness prevented God's giving law, and they perished without law. (See Gen. 6: 11-13.) What is the use of their hearing the gospel if they can be saved without it? The gospel does them no good if they do not hear it. Why should Jesus have died to save those not lost? Simon Peter said: "To whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life." (John 6: 68.) "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins : for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." (John 8: 24.) "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3: 18.) Jesus came and suffered and died because men were lost and ruined. "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." (Ps. 9 : 17.) The heathen are the nations that forget God, and Rom. 1 : 21 tells why they are in sin and without the knowledge of God: "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was dark- ened." Because they were unwilling to honor God when they knew him he withdrew his knowledge from them and left them to worship the creature more than the Creator. HEATHEN, MEANING OF "AS A HEATHEN MAN AND A PUBLICAN/' Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: C used language in regard to D which was of a defamatory character. D went to C alone, but C failed to satisfy him. D then took with him two brethren, and C failed to hear them. The matter was then brought before the church, and C refused to hear the church. The church then proceeded to withdraw from C, making the constitutional law (Matt. 18: 15-17) and the statutory law (2 Thess. 3: 6) the basis of our action. One brother in the congregation inclines to the view that "let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican" means the individual, and not the whole congregation. I understand the context to teach that it applies to the body collective, because the individual does not possess the binding power. This brother says he thinks that in the Greek it is in the singular, as in the King James Version {thee), and, there- fore, the individual, and not the congregation; yet he should remem- ber that collective nouns may be used in the singular. Will you please make some remarks upon this? When one member of the church trespasses against an- other, and when spoken to regarding it refuses to make sat- isfaction, he is walking disorderly and in rebellion against BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 301 God and is dishonoring his cause ; and a congregation that intends to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace must withdraw from such, both for the good of the church and for the good of the one that has done the wrong, that he may thereby be influenced to repent and correct the wrong. As to the fact that the singular number is used, that by no means signifies that the thing should end as an individual matter. There were a number of disciples present when Jesus gave these instructions, and he addressed all of them distributively, each one singly and alone, and thus addressed every one of them ; and whatever belonged to one belonged to all and was as true of every one as of any single indi- vidual, and the whole congregation must act in harmony with each other. And we understand when Jesus says, "Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican," he means all the members of the congregation except the trans- gressor, and he is to be as a heathen and publican to all the members ; for in the next verse he puts all of them together and says : "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven," etc. This shows clearly that Jesus was teach- ing what was true of the whole congregation, which in- cludes every individual member of the body. Whenever a congregation, acting upon the word of God, withdraws from a member, that action is ratified, is bound or made firm, in heaven ; for when the church obeys God, it is simply God acting through them and doing the work through their in- strumentality. As the church is made up of individuals, the same is true of individual members of the church, thus acting according to the word of God. The idea that in such a case as the above the language, "be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican," only has reference to the individual personally offended or injured, is at war with every princi- ple pertaining to the body of Christ. It would recognize as proper and right the keeping of two members in the congre- gation, full of malice and hatred toward each other, that will not recognize each other as Christians at all. The very idea of one Christian regarding another of the same con- gregation as a heathen, as wholly destitute of everything that makes a man a child of God, is something contrary to the whole spirit of the religion of Jesus. Paul teaches of the church: "That there should be no schism in the body ; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suf- fer, all the members suffer with it ; or one member be hon- ored, all the members rejoice with it." (1 Cor. 12 : 25, 26.) Now, is it possible for all the members to have the same 302 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, care one for another, when all are loving each other but two, and they regarding each other as a heathen and pub- lican ? Every one that will think for a moment must know that such a course would break up all harmony and love in the church of God. Can the church be one — one in spirit, one in work, one in aim and purpose, one as the Father and Son are one — while one member or maybe half a dozen are regarding as many more as heathens and publicans? For if one member may regard another thus and both remain in the church, so may all. What sort of a congregation would that be — one-half regarding the other half as heath- ens and publicans ? Then where would brotherly love come in? Peter requires that Christians, all Christians, shall add to their faith "brotherly kindness," and this command is true of every member of the church ; and there is not much "brotherly kindness" in regarding a brother, still in the church, as a heathen. Again, we, as Christians, are re- quired to "let brotherly love continue." We cannot love a man as a brother and count him as a heathen at the same time. Once more. When a member refuses to hear the church, he refuses to hear God, who speaks by his word through the church when the church acts according to the word of God, and no congregation is allowed to retain a member that walks disorderly. Paul said: "If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no com- pany with him, that he may be ashamed." In this pas- sage about the same idea is presented as in Matt. 18: 17: "Let him be unto thee as a heathen," etc. The one that trespasses, therefore, and refuses to hear the church, re- fuses to make the matter right, becomes, in the very act of refusing the word of God as presented by the church, a public transgressor, in addition to his private trespass, and should be dealt with accordingly. The church of God is bound together by the tender cords of love. Love, therefore, and not hatred, must be the rul- ing principle. A kingdom or house divided against itself must fall. E. G. S. HEATHEN, WHOM TO REGARD AS A. Brother Lipscomb: Please explain Matt. 18: 15-17. Is the man that is trespassed against or the church to regard him as a heathen man? Does that connect with 2 Thess. 3: 14? It plainly says that the man against whom the trespass is committed shall go to the one who committed the trespass alone. Then he shall take two or three others. If he fails BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 303 to hear them, he shall tell it to the church. If he refuses to hear the church, "let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." The only thing in the matter that can be misunderstood is that he says : "Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." I have heard the question raised: "Does that apply to the man who was offended alone, or to the church?" I never could see how he could be unworthy of the association of one man, yet worthy of that of all the church, nor how one member could treat him as a heathen and the others fellowship him as a brother. When he refuses to hear the church, the sin is as much against the church as against the man. The passage in 2 Thess. 3 : 14 commands the disciples to withdraw from every brother that walks disorderly, yet to count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. While refusing to regard him as walking as an orderly Christian should, they are yet to admonish him as a brother to return to an orderly walk in the church. I think we too often neglect all discipline and then cut a member off finally. Discipline consists in admonishing, warning, and persuading, taking others with us to do the same; in separating them for a time from the fellowship of the church, yet continuing to admonish as a brother before the final exclusion comes. We misname things. Cutting a man off is not discipline ; it is the end and failure of disci- pline. The steps taken to save the man is the discipline. HEAVEN AND HELL, DEGREES IN. Brother Sewell: Please give through the Gospel Advocate your views and reasons for such views relative to degrees of reward in hell and heaven. Will he that comes in at the eleventh hour receive as much as any one else? Will he that does a small amount of good receive as much as he that does a great deal of good? We have two queries on this subject, and only publish one as embracing the ground of both. We have no formulated views on this subject, and do not wish to indulge any specu- lation in the matter. The word of the Lord plainly shows that every man is required to do the will of God to the extent of his ability, and whoever does not do so has not the promise of eternal life. It is not so much in the amount of good as in the ability to do. A man with much ability is required to do much, while a man of little ability is only required to do what he can. The man of great ability, and who does much in the Lord's service, will get no more credit from the Lord than the man of small ability, but who is faithful to do what he can. I do not understand that Chris- tianity is upon the principle of so much reward for so much 304 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, work, but rather a system of giving the heart and life to God in his divine requisitions to the extent of our ability — that is, it is the formation of a character on earth that shall be suited for the purity of heaven. The pious mother that is tied down in her home sphere to her family and home duties, and is seldom further away from home than in the assembly of the saints, but who is faithful in her duties to husband and children for the Lord's sake, and does her part faithfully to her husband and home, and is faithful in bring- ing up her children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, is as much loved by God and Christ and will as cer- tainly reach heaven as the faithful preacher of the gospel that brings hundreds to the fold of Christ. And this, I think, is the real meaning of those passages that speak of our being judged by our works. If the same differences of capacity that exist here shall exist in heaven, it may be that larger capacities may enjoy more extensively the great blessings of heaven than those of smaller capacities; but even in that case each one's cup of joy will be equally full to him, and thus all that reach the heavenly home will be equal in these regards. Therefore, if some are able to do more than others, it will require that much more to take them to heaven. Hence, no one need be uneasy about de- grees in heaven. The practical point in the matter with us is to serve the Lord faithfully and strive to reach the happy home ; and if we get there, our happiness will be com- plete. E. G. S. HEIRS OF THE LAND OF CANAAN, HOW? Please compare and explain Gen. 17: 7, 8 with Gal. 3: 16, 17 through the Gospel Advocate. Are Christ and Abraham yet heirs of the land of Canaan? If not, what is the promise made to Christ? (Verse 19.) What are we heirs of as children of Abraham? (Verse 29.) Please explain in full. A covenant is an agreement between two parties. When one breaks the covenant, it is broken. One party cannot maintain a covenant. When the children of Abraham broke the covenant, then it ceased to be of force. They forfeited their right under the covenant when they broke it. Hence, God took that covenant out of the way and made a new covenant. The new covenant was typified by the old, and it was made with and confirmed and fulfilled by the seed of Abraham — Christ. "I will make a new cov- enant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Ju- dah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers : . . . which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband unto them, saith the Lord : but this shall be BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 305 the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts ; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." (Jer. 31: 31-33.) This means none shall enter into that covenant save by a spiritual birth, or who do so knowing the law, willingly, in contrast with the old entrance into the other covenant without volition of their own in a fleshly birth. That new covenant was made with and confirmed in Christ, and the promise to which we are heirs is the promise of a possession of the heavenly Canaan. As each one volun- tarily enters the covenant by coming into Christ through a hearty acceptance of his law, receiving the law into their hearts, so each one for himself continues faithful in that covenant and inherits the promise of the heavenly Canaan, or each one breaks the covenant for himself and forfeits that promise. D. L. HELL, GATES OF, PREVAIL AGAINST WHAT? Brother Lipscomb : Please answer through the Gospel Advocate the following question: What was it (Matt. 16: 18) that the gates of hell should not prevail against? There has been substantial agreement among students of the Bible that Jesus meant the gates of hell should not prevail against the church. If the scripture in its context alone was looked to, no other interpretation would ever sug- gest itself; but the necessities of positions have suggested other theories. One of these is that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the rock (Christ) on which the church is built. This is usually extended to mean that the grave should not prevent the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Another theory is: The gates of hell shall not prevail to hinder the establishment of the church of Christ. But the meaning an unbiased mind would naturally draw from the statement is : The gates of hell shall never prevail against the church which Jesus Christ said he would build on the truth confessed — that he is the Christ, the Son of God. The indestructibility of that church is so clearly taught else- where that there is no reason for refusing to accept the plain, natural meaning of the language here. Of this king- dom Daniel says it "shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever." The trouble is that people, in look- ing for this kingdom of God in the world, look for a big, general, and overshadowing organization. The kingdom of God was never to come in this form, nor has it ever existed in it. It came without outward show or display; it exists 306 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, in the humble followers of Christ, without organic display. These general organizations are the perversions and cor- ruptions of the churches of God. I do not believe there has ever been a time when there were not true and humble fol- lowers of Christ on earth since the establishment of his kingdom, nor do I believe there ever will be. These hum- ble followers of Christ, worshiping without display or show, constitute the church of God on earth. HELL FIRE, MEANING OF. Brother Sewell: Please explain Matt. 3: 10-12: "And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner ; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." Does the fire spoken of in these verses mean love, or does the word love and that fire come from the same Greek word? Universalists say it does, and we do not know. Does the word hell, spoken of in Luke 16: 23 ("And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom"), mean the grave? If it does, are we tormented in the grave? Please give places in the Bible where the words Gehenna and Hades occur. Universalists here are talking much about there not being any eternal or endless pun- ishment after death. Answer through the Gospel Advocate. Any man who says the word rendered fire also means love has certainly studied Greek to little purpose, or his conscience is not very tender on the matter of truth. The word fire is from the Greek word pur, which occurs a lit- tle over seventy times in the New Testament, and is ren- dered fire every time and never even one time rendered love. The word just means fire — that is all. The word agapee is the word rendered love, or charity, and should be always rendered love, as scholars agree; and this word is never rendered fire, although it occurs over a hundred times in the Greek Testament. So there is not a particle of au- thority for ever using these two words interchangeably at any time or in any sense. Love never comes from pur, and fire never comes from agapee. Fire is not love, and love is not fire, and any one who thinks so is deluded. As to the word hell, there are three different Greek words ren- dered by the word hell in the Common Version. These are Gehenna, Hades, and Tartarus. The word Gehenna is found twelve times in the Greek Testament, always rendered hell and used to signify future punishment. Gehenna is the name given to a valley near Jerusalem, in which the god Moloch once was worshiped, even among the Jews, in which children were burned alive BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 307 in sacrifice to this imaginary deity ; and this gave the Jews a horrible idea of the place. Afterwards all manner of filth and dead bodies from the city and round about were cast into this valley. And then, to avoid the unhealthful and disagreeable odors arising therefrom, fires were kept always burning to continually destroy this odor and filth. So this word Gehenna, the name of this valley, came to rep- resent the place of future punishment of the wicked, and is rendered hell on this account. Hence this word prop- erly means hell, as rendered. The word Hades occurs eleven times in the Greek — ten times rendered hell and once grave. (1 Cor. 15: 55.) When the rich man died, "in hell [Hades] he lift up his eyes." This word Hades perhaps more literally means the unseen world, the abode of departed spirits, whether good or bad, while other words determine the condition or loca- tion of the good and bad. Abraham's bosom, a place of joy, represents the location of Lazarus, while the expression, "tormented in these flames," gives the location of the rich man. The word Tartarus, as a noun, is not found in the Greek Testament; but the verb tartaroo is found one time (2 Pet. 2: 4), and is rendered "cast down to hell." The word Tartarus means a place of torment in the unseen world. Thus Hades means the unseen world, including all the dead, both bad and good; while Tartarus and Gehenna mean places of torment in Hades; and paradise, or Abra- ham's bosom, represents the place of happiness in Hades. This is the sense in which these words were used by the Jews and Greeks when the Savior came, and he adopted them so as to express to the people in their own language the ideas of future punishment and of future happiness — of hell and heaven. In Matt. 3 : 12 we have the expression that he (Christ) "will burn up the chaff [meaning the wicked] with unquenchable fire." Unquenchable fire means fire that cannot be quenched. This passage certainly refers to the final destruction of the wicked, and that their pun- ishment will be unending. This passage, therefore, pre- sents eternal punishment for the wicked without the use of either one of the above words. In Mark 9 : 43, 44 we have this language: "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." The word hell in this passage is from Gehenna, representing the place of torment into which the wicked will be cast, and in which the worm that dieth not rep- 308 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, resents the soul of the wicked, which will continue to be punished in the fire that never shall be quenched; and no ingenuity of interpretation can ever get this thought out of the passage; while Gehenna represents the place where these fires of torment will forever burn. And in every one of the twelve places where this word is used it has refer- ence, directly or indirectly, to this place of eternal torment. Men may say as much as they please that there is no hell and no eternal punishment and all that, but the word of God will stand firm when time is no more and when all men shall have gone to their reward. HELL, IS IT A LITERAL PLACE? Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Will you please give me through your valuable paper your opinion as to whether hell is any fixed re- ality? Do you think there is really a place that burns with fire and brimstone for the punishment of the unredeemed? Or do you think our conscience makes for us our heaven or hell? We do not think our consciences make the heaven or hell. The conscience of the wicked becomes seared, blunted, and insensible. Our worst men are those who have lost all sen- sibility or conscience. They are hardened. Conscience loses its disposition and power to punish. We have no evi- dence that conscience seared and blunted in this world will be tendered and quickened in the next. Indeed, we are sure the Bible teaches that those that are given over to sin and past feeling will be no better there than here. There will be positive punishment in the next world. That it will be literal fire and brimstone, we think doubtful, because the soul may not be sensitive to material fire. It will be the soul with its spiritualized body that will suffer. But that suffering is best conveyed to our minds by the Spirit of God under the figure of the worm never dying in a destroy- ing flame of "fire and brimstone." We cannot conceive of beings without places. Hell is filled with beings and must have place — location. D. L. HELL, AND HOW ALL THINGS WORKED FOR GOOD. Brother Sewell: (1) Please explain Rom. 8: 28: "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." (2) Also give your exegesis on the word hell. Do we not have considerable hell in some form in this world — for instance, war and other calamities, causing great sorrow? (1) This passage is a very consoling one to the faithful children of God. It declares a wonderful truth, and a truth that will bring consolation to every child of God that understands it and will trust in it. It evidently means BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 309 that all things will work for the spiritual good of all who faithfully love and serve him and have been called accord- ing to his purpose. God's purpose in calling men is to call them by the gospel. All, therefore, that embrace the gospel as written in the New Testament are called according to God's purpose. The three thousand mentioned in Acts 2 were called according to God's purpose ; for they heard, be- lieved, and obeyed the gospel as preached by the Holy Spirit through the apostles. The word purpose does not mean some sort of an eternal decree, by which some are decreed to be saved and others lost, and that none but the foreor- dained ones can believe and be saved. It means that all that will hear and obey the gospel are called and saved ac- cording to God's purpose. But one serious trouble about the matter is that we do not always know what is for our spiritual welfare, and often things that are really for our own good, but at the time are unpleasant to us, we mistake for calamities instead of blessings. God chastens his peo- ple, and sometimes these chastisements are very unpleasant and disappointing to us; but if we would accept them as chastisements and be perfectly submissive to them, they would all work good for us. Some love the world so well that they fret and murmur under them, and thus dissipate the good that was intended for them. Christians need not think that all their worldly desires and ambitions would be for their good if accomplished. Many of them would be to their injury, spiritually, if they should succeed in them. Hence, whether everything that happens is for our spirit- ual good or not depends on how we take them and the im- pression we allow them to make. We must learn that in everything God's way is best. Christians ought, therefore, to try to improve and grow better over all apparent disap- pointments, and they will see that even apparent calamities will prove to be great blessings to them. (2) The word hell means the place of torment, or pun- ishment for the wicked after death, and is never applied to the troubles and disappointments in this life, so far as I now remember. Theologians that think more of their own theories than they do of the word of the Lord have been busy for years in knocking out all ideas of eternal punish- ment ; but those men may yet find, to their sorrow, that the passages that speak of eternal punishment are good for all they call for. 310 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, HERESY. A heresy is a schism, a division, or a party. Whatever produces schisms or parties in the church of God is a her- esy, and is condemned in the Bible as sinful. The truth as recorded in the Bible constitutes the faith. The prac- tice of the truth is the work of the children of God. That truth demands service both in the individual and church capacity. There ought to be agreement as to what the truth is ; and if there be this, there must be agreement as to what the practice should be. The teachings of the Bible are sufficiently clear and plain to leave no doubt upon the man that comes to God with the single purpose to know and do the will of God as to what it is. The reason men do not understand it alike, save within narrow limits, arising from constitutional differences, is, they look at it from different standpoints. They look at it through their prejudices and surroundings, and with a de- sire to accomplish certain ends and aims besides an earnest desire to know and do the will of God. Their prejudices and predilections arise from early associations, early train- ing, preconceived ideas, aims, and purposes. Man is not always responsible for the existence of his prejudices, as he cannot control his early surroundings and the early ideas and conceptions he forms. But an earnest and sincere de- sire to know and do the will of God helps greatly to over- come these prejudices that blind our judgment and hinder our knowledge of the true will of God, and, if persisted in, will lead to a knowledge of his will, needful to salvation. For this honest desire to do the will of God and a corre- sponding effort to know it we are all responsible. God does not condemn men in the beginning for imperfect faith or imperfect knowledge. Jesus accepted the service of his apostles through years of very imperfect faith, many mis- conceptions, greatly warped and blinded by prejudices; yet they were led on through this imperfect faith and obedience to know the full will of God. Paul was full of bitter and blinding prejudices, yet had a sincere desire to know and do the will of God. God delivered him from the prejudices and blindness and made him "not a whit behind the chiefest apostles." He delivered him through miraculous interven- tion. He delivers now not through miracles ; still, he is as strong to deliver through ordinary means as through mir- acles, and will bring those who have a sincere desire to know and do his will to an appreciation of his living and life-giving truths. That deliverance is sometimes gradual and slow. The deliverance is promoted by the strength of the purpose to BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 311 do the will of God, and is hindered by the desire to main- tain other purposes and to accomplish other ends. Every man has these predilections and preconceptions that warp his judgment and blind his vision to a greater or less ex- tent. Some have them stronger than others. Some de- sire to know and do the will of God with more earnestness and singleness of purpose than others; hence some learn the truth much more slowly than others, even where nat- ural ability is equal. No human being in the beginning of his religious life can, with a true and perfect heart, desire to know and do the will of God. To have such a heart, un- bonded by prejudice, unwarped by other desires, would be more than human. If God did not accept service from im- perfect and prejudiced hearts, he would never accept serv- ice from human hearts. God accepts service from these imperfect hearts because by the service the prejudices are gradually worn away. Man, as he obeys, comes better and better to see the truth, more and more freed from his blindness, and, as he sees and obeys the truth, is more and more conformed to the divine likeness. The growth in grace begins with planting in the heart faith in God. The heart comes to believe stronger, to come more and more into the condition to re- ceive more heartily the word of God, rooting out all other ideas, thoughts, and predilections, and so bring the mind, the feelings, the life, under the influence of God's will. God did not wait for Abraham's heart to be free from all prejudices or for his mind to be free from misconcep- tions as to the character and will of God or his faith or trust in him to be perfect. Human beings are never in this state until God has trained them through a lifetime and made their faith perfect through service. God said to Abraham : "Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kin- dred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show thee." Abraham wanted to obey God, but not with a perfect heart and single purpose. He had so little train- ing in obedience he did not know how to obey. He so loved his father and his nephew he did not perceive that the command of God, though plain and clear, said he should leave his father and Lot. So he took these with him. God detained him in Haran till his father died. "When his fa- ther was dead, he [God] removed him into this land, where- in ye now dwell." (Acts 7: 4.) Lot went with him. Only when he was separated from Lot did God give the blessing. "The Lord said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art." Abraham did not see that 312 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, he must leave Lot to obtain the blessing. Still, he fol- lowed on with the purpose of obeying God, and did, as he came to see more fully, the will of God. But Abraham's faith was only made perfect when God had led him on and so trained him that he could offer his own beloved son as a sacrifice to him. He who imagines that his heart is per- fect, his knowledge of the will of God is complete, is him- self blind and presumptuous. Abraham's failure to understand the full will of God did not prevent God's accepting what he did in obedience to his commands; but it postponed the blessing to Abraham, and he failed to enjoy the promises as a more intelligent faith and greater trust would have enabled him to do. The same facts and conditions were present in Jacob, Moses, David, and were manifested in the apostles during the earthly ministry of Jesus. The same condition of early misconceptions and prejudices and a gradual growth in knowledge is present in the life of every child of God. The man that never learns more of the will of God, whose heart is not purified, whose knowledge of the divine will is not enlarged, whose faith is not perfected in knowledge, purity, strength, and directness in service, does not grow in grace and is a poor, miserable abortion of a Christian. One of the greatest evils to Christians is partisanship. Men agree on one point, and form a party to maintain and defend that point. The leader or majority of the party adopt other ideas, and all in a party spirit adopt these, too. It is seen in politics every day. The Democratic party has been the party of aggression and of acquisition of terri- tory to our country. The Republican party has opposed this policy. President Harrison, from some cause, favored the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands; President Cleve- land, from some reason, opposed it. The partisans, con- trary to the precedents of their parties, follow their lead- ers. We see it in religion. Brother McGary opposed printed comments to help the teachers and children in studying the Scripture lessons. I think he did it because those he opposed on other points used them. McGary par- tisans on the re'baptism question follow his theories on this. There is no connection between the two positions. I can- not think a responsible man, with the example of the teach- ing done by the Holy Spirit, can, in a normal condition of mind, say it is right to teach and enforce Bible lessons by spoken words, but wrong to do it by written words. I can- not think a man with enough connected thought to be re- sponsible can take such an absurd position, save as he is dominated by party prejudices and led by party spirit. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 313 Especially he cannot think the crude comments of the many who undertake to teach the Bible, with no study or prep- aration, are better than those written by men who give their whole time to the study of the Scriptures. I give this as an example of party spirit. I can account for the groundless falsehood so tenaciously clung to by the rebap- tizers that I had opposed printed lesson helps for children. No one else save these ever thought I had done so. The reason they thought so was, I agreed with them in opposing the addition of human societies to do church work. They took it for granted I belonged to their party, and what the party believed I believed. Blinded by their party feeling, they have all the years failed to see the continued approval of printed helps for children I have given. They did not intend anything wrong in it; and I mention it just to show how people with the best and kindest intent can, under their prejudices, misapprehend plain statements and facts. The truth is, I have always tried to keep free from parti- sanship in religion and other things, and am glad to recog- nize and encourage every truth that exists among any peo- ple, and, instead of repudiating it, I would make it a start- ing point to lead on to other and fuller truth. In doing this, there is no compromise of truth; but we follow the example of Jesus and of Paul, who seized and encouraged every truth, found among Jew or Gentile, as a ground and starting point whence to lead them to more and fuller light. Paul quoted and approved what of truth heathen poets and philosophers taught, and sought from this truth to lead them up to fuller truth of God. Men have been prone to take one truth and give to it un- due prominence and around it form a party. They espe- cially do this on points that are controverted. Early in the church's history men misapprehended Paul's teaching of salvation by faith in opposition to works, and taught salvation by faith — through faith without the obedience of faith— without obedience to what God commanded. A re- action set in against that; and, failing to discriminate be- tween doing things God commanded and those invented by man, another party ran to the extreme of saying man is justified by any good works man might devise, and faith and the commands of God were ignored. Luther revolted at this, and the Lutheran Reformation was based on the truth: "We are justified by faith." Luther used the word faith, at first at least, in its Bible sense, to embody all that the Bible requires. He used faith to mean the plan of re- demption set forth in the Bible as distinct from the works and innovations of men presented in Romanism. If we 314 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, use the term faith as embodying obedience to all the com- mands of God as given in the Scriptures, we are saved by faith alone. But a party was formed on 'this truth. Soon it was run to the extreme of separating the act of believing from obedience to the will of God ; and parties taught that so men believed in Christ, although they refused obedience to him, they would be saved. Against this perversion of the truth of God, Alexander Campbell and his fellows pro- tested. Starting out with this principle, he was, after he had been pleading for it for a number of years, led to see that baptism, as the expression of faith, was a condition on which God promised remission of sins, and so taught. This truth was fiercely contested. It would have been almost a miracle if this contention with human nature as it is had not exalted in the minds of many the point of controversy and given it an undue prominence. It has done it. Men exalt the fact that baptism is for the remission of sins as the essential item of faith. God, to encourage man, tells him that, in obeying God, God will bring him to remission of sins among a number of blessings and favors. It is seized by a number of partisans to the controversy, and, because it has been opposed, is exalted above all the other ends and promises, made into a dogma around which a party is formed. A party based on the truth that baptism is for the remission of sins is just as bad as a party based on the truth that we are justified by faith. There is no need for compromising any truth ; there is no need to exalt one truth, one promise, one end, or aim, or blessing prom- ised, above another. To do this is to do violence to the or- der of God. There are at present two efforts to form a party around the truth that baptism is for the remission of sins. One proposes to form a party embodying this truth, to stand on an equality with other parties based on other truths taken out of their place (each party holds some truth taken out of its proper order and exalted above other truths), and seek to be a denomination or party among other de- nominations or parties. The other proposes to build a party on this truth, excluding all other denominations as unworthy of recognition. Both are wrong. Any exalta- tion of one command or promise of God above other com- mands or promises destroys God's order and substitutes hu- man wisdom for divine authority. To make the under- standing that baptism is for the remission of sins, and not the understanding of what the promise, "Ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit," is, is to do it on man's reason, not by God's order. To do it is to exalt reason above the BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 315 word of God. Both of these tendencies to party should be earnestly and vigorously opposed, and we should earnestly hold to all the truths and promises of God alike. When- ever man has been led to love and obey God by any of the motives God has placed before him, God has accepted him. Whenever we reject service rendered from a motive or end given by God, we overturn God's order and fight against God. God never rejected the service of a human being that did what God commanded because he loved God and desired to do his will. Let us be careful that we do not misrepresent the character of God. That would be hurtful. D. L. "HIGHER CRITICISM," WHAT IS IT? What, in your judgment, will be the outcome of what is termed higher criticism? In my judgment, it is not very high, but very de- structive. As this seems to be agitating the minds of many Bible students, a few articles from you might check the current or turn it in the right direction. The term higher criticism embraces two classes of crit- ics — one modest, reverential, painstaking, and sincerely de- sirous of arriving at truth. All criticism of this character will be helpful and will do good. The more we know of the Bible, the better. There is a different class and character of critics that claim to be higher critics. They are irrev- erential and sensational, anxious for something new, reck- less and blatant in their conclusions and statements. These make a noise for the present, gratify and please those who love license and sin and reject the knowledge and authority of God. They make a noise for the present, but will soon be forgotten. The Bible has passed through many such experiences as this. When the revolution of the earth around the sun was discovered, all this class of people pre- dicted the science of astronomy would disprove the truth of the Bible and destroy man's faith in it. After gener- ations have passed, not a single Bible term concerning the movements of the planets has been set aside or replaced by others. Geology then was the lever that was to overturn the Bible statements. Then evolution came in, and the enemies of the Bible persist it has been accepted as true; but the world has ceased to think of it, though not two dec- ades old. So now higher criticism is the latest infidel fad. It will run its course as the others did. The Bible has nothing to fear from criticism, from inves- tigation concerning its origin, who wrote it or when it was written, corruptions that may have crept into it, transpo- sitions that may have occurred in it. All the honest and true investigation that can be made concerning its origin, 316 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, purity, and teaching will be gladly welcomed by all true lovers of the Bible. The only harm that comes out of it will be, the excitable — those of weak faith, men that do not investigate, that assume things as true without fair and just criticism — will, by the noise they make, carry some whose faith is weak, who never investigate for themselves, into infidelity. It will not last. It has already passed its strength, and is on the wane in Germany, France, and En- gland even. It has only recently reached our country. It will soon be forgotten here. Faith in the divine origin of the Bible is in no more dan- ger of destruction than faith in the divine origin of the sun is. Man could just as easily have created the sun and hung it in the universe as he could have originated and composed the Bible. This is as much above his mental capacity as that is above his physical powers. Whatever of truth investigation and criticism may dis- cover will abide and be helpful to men in understanding and obeying the Bible. The ephemeral cry of infidelity, like the mists that for a moment obscure the light of the sun, will soon vanish and leave it all the brighter. Much that light, pretentious criticism proposes to do is far be- yond its reach. It is our duty to guard the thoughtless against its claims, and time will cure its ill effects. D. L. HIRELING AND WOLVES. Brother Lipscomb: I heard a Baptist preach from John 10: 12, and he says the wolf caught the hireling, and not the sheep. Give an explanation of the verse — whether the wolf caught the hireling or the sheep. We have no doubt the devil is the wolf here referred to ; and he, doubtless, will catch the hireling that leaves the sheep. But that is not what this passage teaches. "But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth : and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. " A well-known rule is, a pronoun must agree with the noun for which it stands in gender, number, and per- son. Them is plural ; hireling is singular number ; there- fore it cannot stand for hireling. The only plural noun for which it can possibly stand is sheep. He catcheth and scattereth sheep. That is just what wolves do. Wolves are not in the habit of leaving the sheep and catching the shepherd. D. L. HOLY SPIRIT, INDWELLING. Brother Sewell: The articles of Brother R. B. T., together with your reply, have created some excitement among the brethren here. They are satisfied the Spirit dwells in Christians now, but are not BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 317 satisfied about the how. They are asking questions like these: "Is the Spirit given in or through the word, and, therefore, dwells in the heart in the word? If so, has the one in whom the Spirit thus dwells both the word and the Spirit dwelling in him?" The world can receive the word, but cannot receive the Spirit. Are they not, then, in this case separated? To the children of God, who had al- ready received the word and been begotten by it, Paul said : "Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts." Did Paul mean they should receive more word, which, un- like the word already received, had the Spirit in it, or did he mean they should receive the Spirit itself? For the sake of these brethren, please answer, provided you can do so without becoming wise above what is written. When Peter promised the gift of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost to those that would repent and be bap- tized, he certainly meant more than that the word should be received, for they had by faith already received the truth of the gospel, and their repentance and baptism was is still further reception of the word into their hearts and their lives; and then the promise of the Holy Spirit was something beyond this, the reception of which depended upon their obedience to the gospel. Peter also said when speaking of the exaltation of Christ : "And we are his wit- nesses of these things; and so also is the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him." (Acts 5: 32.) In obeying the gospel we receive the word into our hearts ; and when we have obeyed, then God promises the Spirit upon that obedience. But if we would have the Spirit of God to dwell in our hearts, we must continue to obey the word while life shall last; for when Paul had told the Co- rinthians that they were the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwelt in them, he also added: "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." Paul also said to the Ephesians: "And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." This is an indication that if we grieve the Spirit by disre- garding the word of God as Christians, he may cease to dwell with us. Therefore, in order to have assurance that the Spirit shall dwell with us, we must continue to do the will of God as expressed in his word — must treasure up the word in our hearts that we may not sin against him. But the promise is clear that if we continue to obey the word, the Spirit of God will continue to dwell in our hearts. ECS HOLY SPIRIT, GIFT OF. Please answer the following question in your paper: "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2: 38.) What is "the gift of the Holy 318 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, Ghost" — anything more than pardon, remission, born again in the king- dom, saved, etc.; or did the three thousand receive the Holy Ghost, or Spirit; or was there any power distinct from the words they heard uttered by Peter that influenced them to act? The gift of the Holy Ghost as mentioned in this passage we understand to be the Holy Spirit himself, which every one that obeyed the commands given had the promise of re- ceiving. It was not pardon, nor any part of pardon, nor was it any power imparted to enable persons to obey the commands of God, but something promised as a conse- quence of obeying God's commands. Paul represents the Spirit of God as dwelling in Christians, and we doubt not this is what Peter meant in this passage. Those he ad- dressed were already believers, and they were taught that if they would repent and be baptized remission of sins would follow, and also that they should receive the gift of the Spirit. The evidence to those who obey the gospel that they receive the Spirit to dwell with them is not some emo- tion or feeling, but the word of God, just the same as the evidence of pardon. Every one who believes the gospel and is baptized has the promise of remission of sins and of the reception of the Holy Spirit of God to dwell with him while he will be faithful to the Lord. We believe that the same promise extends now to all that obey the gospel of Christ that was given to those on the day of Pentecost by Peter. We believe the Spirit dwells with every faithful child of God now as well as in the days of the apostles. E. G. S. Brother Lipscomb: What is "the gift of the Holy Ghost?" (Acts 2 : 38.) Do men receive the same gift now? Please explain Rom. 8 : 11. The gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2: 38) was the Holy Spirit himself. You can see this by reference to Acts 10 : 44-48. The Spirit was then and there received in his mi- raculous manifestation. We do not now receive the Spirit as a miracle-working power. Life was given miraculously, but it has since been transmitted through fixed laws. So the Spirit was given miraculously in the beginning of the church, but has since been transmitted through the laws of the Spirit of life. Rom. 8: 11 says that if the Spirit that dwelt in Jesus and raised him from the dead dwell in us, he will raise us from the dead. It means that he will raise us up to salvation with Jesus. Without we have this Spirit that was in Christ, we are none of his. We will be raised to dishonor to pass away into the second death. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 319 HOLY SPIRIT, SIN AGAINST. Brother Lipscomb: Will you please inform me what is sinning against the Holy Ghost? To sin against the Holy Spirit is to refuse to do what the Holy Spirit commands, or to go beyond his commands, just as to sin against Jesus or against God was to sin against their commands. The Holy Spirit came last and gave the final sanction to the laws of God. To set them aside then was to leave nothing more to move the man. The sin against the Holy Spirit, I believe, is to persistently and finally reject his teaching and refuse his testimony. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain Matt. 12: 31, which reads: "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men : but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." To blaspheme the Holy Ghost is to speak reproachfully against the Spirit and its teachings, or authority. To sin against the Holy Spirit is to refuse and reject or disregard his teaching. Any man that does either one through this life will be eternally condemned in the world to come. There is no forgiveness for such. By request, I write for information on a portion of scripture in Matt. 12: 32, as to the sin against the Holy Ghost — whether or not it is a definite sin or any sin committed knowingly contrary to the teachings of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit gives the final law of pardon, or salva- tion. If we only obey the words or laws given by the Spirit, we will be saved here and hereafter ; but if we refuse — sin against the words or the laws of the Spirit — we will be condemned here and hereafter. To refuse to submit to the laws of the Spirit, to sin against his laws, will bring eternal condemnation. Such sins will neither be forgiven in this world nor in the world to come. There are, therefore, many ways of sinning against the Holy Spirit in this sense. And if something like this is not what is meant by the pas- sage, we do not know what it means. If we will submit to all the laws and teachings of the Spirit, both in becoming Christians and in living Christians, we need never be un- easy about committing the sin against the Holy Spirit ; but if we put the doctrines and commandments of men instead of the commands of God or in any way reject or refuse the commands of God as given by the Spirit in the word of truth, we may then well be afraid. Our hope of salvation here or in the world to come is to be guided in all things by the words of the Spirit of God, the Spirit of truth. E. G. S. 320 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, HONEST, WILL GOD SAVE THE, WHETHER THEY DO JUST WHAT HE COMMANDS OR NOT? All that men can know about this matter is just what the Lord tells us, and he has never told us in one single in- stance that he will save any except those who do his will. If it shall turn out to be right that some who do not do his will shall be saved, it will be certain to be done; but this matter is wholly with the Lord, and he has not told us any- thing about it. It is not very easy to discover how men who have the word of God and know how to read it and have strictly honest hearts can fail to understand what God would have them do. The same book that tells us of God and of heaven and the plan of* salvation provided through our Lord Jesus Christ tells with equal plainness what we are required to do in order to be saved ; and where the Bi- ble is not, nothing is known of salvation, anyway. The New Testament tells us what Jesus did to prepare the plan of salvation in language as plain as anything was ever told to humanity. None who read Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John can fail to understand that Jesus died, shed his blood for many for the remission of sins, was buried, and rose again from the dead. Nothing was ever more plainly or more intelligibly told than the story of the cross is told by these men. In the commission as given by these men and in Acts of Apostles the conditions upon which men were to be saved are expressed with equal plainness ; and in the im- mediate connection with the conditions upon which we are to be saved we are plainly told that if we do not do them we shall be condemned. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Who that can understand the gospel, the plan of salvation, can fail to understand these declarations of the Son of God ? Again, all men are commanded to repent, and Jesus says : "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." Repent- ance and remission of sins were to be preached among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. All these things are just as plain as language can make them; and in these things what room is there for a sincere, honest heart to make a mistake — to fail to understand them? So when brethren apologize for the honestly mistaken in the matter of be- coming a Christian, it must be upon the principle that they, with honest hearts and with the word of God before them and with all the advantages at their command to un- derstand the truth and with the very best efforts they can make, still fail to understand just what God would have them do. Some of our good brethren presume that this will be the case with some ; and they seem, if possible, more BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 321 anxious to' make out some way by which God will save this class than they are to make known the plain word of the Lord, by which he promises with the most perfect cer- tainty to save all who do what he requires. We do not see any reason why any who have mind enough to be respon- sible, and who entirely free themselves from prejudice, should fail to understand, nor is there any intimation in the word of God that there will be any such; and hence there is no intimation that any will be saved, except in obe- dience to the truth, to the plain requirements made in the gospel of Christ. For any man to claim that there are any such cases is for him to simply express his own opinion where there is no expression of the word of God ; and then for any one to say not only that there are such, but that the Lord will save them, anyhow, though they have not fully obeyed him, is purely a matter of presumption. The word of God nowhere says any such thing, and for a man to say so is virtually to apologize for sin — for rebellion against God. We think it both dangerous and sinful for any preacher to intimate that God will forgive the sins of any except in accordance with the teaching of the apostles as recorded in the New Testament. When Jesus was sending out his apostles, he said to them : "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." (John 20: 23.) This is a very definite and full expression. "Whose soever sins ye remit." This most certainly means that the apostles were to forgive sins, not by their own power, but through the gospel by preaching it to them and inducing them to obey it. They could save no soul as men. The power to save is in the gospel, and only those who obey the gospel have the promise of being saved by it. This passage, therefore, plainly shows that none will be saved except through the gospel as preached by the apostles. Je- sus also said: "Whose soever sins ye retain, they are re- tained." The apostles, as men, could not retain sins; there- fore the expression must mean that only those could be saved who would receive and obey the gospel as preached by the apostles. These two classes again embrace all. Some were to be forgiven and some not. Those to be for- given were to be forgiven by the apostles. This plainly in- dicates that God has no other plan of forgiving men than through the gospel as proclaimed by the apostles. How, then, are those going to be saved that do not do what the gospel requires? There is no other plan of saving men revealed except the gospel, and none can be saved by it ex- cept those who obey. Paul says that when Christ comes to 322 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, judge the world he will take "vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." How, then, and by what plan are any going to be saved except those who do what God says? Those who say they will say so upon their own responsibility and are adding to the word of God when they do so. Preachers should be satisfied to say just what God says and promise just what he promises and stop at -that. When they say more, they say it upon their own responsibility and at their own peril. They have no right to preach any such thing. All such preaching as this, so far as it has any influence at all upon those in error, only has a tendency to lull them to sleep in their errors instead of leading them out. Every time a preacher argues that God will save those in error for their honesty he weakens his power to get them out of error. He blots out more and more the line of distinction between truth and error, justifies error more and more, and lessens more and more the necessity for all to obey the plain truth in order to be saved. Yet our own brethren do these things sometimes. We heard one do some of this very re- cently. While it would be very congenial to our feelings to save all who want to be saved, it is not for us to prom- ise salvation to any except to such as God promises to save. So far as being saved through honesty is concerned, Paul had just as high claims to that as any man can have now when he was persecuting the church. He says he verily thought he ought to do it. Yet he tells us after- wards that he was chief of sinners, and that he obtained mercy because he did it ignorantly in unbelief. So far from his honesty saving him when he did contrary to the will of God, it only opened the way for him to obtain par- don when he obeyed the truth, which could not have been done but for his honesty. But had he continued through life, as thousands of the Jews did, to persecute the church, rejecting the gospel, then how? Suppose the Lord had not determined to make an apostle out of him and had just al- lowed him to go on in his persecutions as he did others, would he then have been saved? Most certainly not, when he was chief of sinners, as he himself said. Who, then, is safe in error? Men should leave off these opinions and preach the word of God, and then all would be well. It is, therefore, certain that none have the promise of salvation except those whose sins are remitted by the apostles — that is, by the gospel which they preached and as they preached it. The same may be said of practical Christianity. No one has the promise of heaven except those who live as the word BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 323 of God directs. The same apostles who taught so plainly the first principles of the oracles of God have taught with equal plainness the individual work of Christians. Those who do these things have the promise of eternal life. When Christians, through the weakness of the flesh, do wrong, God has, through the apostles, given a law of pardon through which the humble, penitent, erring child of God may obtain pardon. This is just as certain in its results as the law of the gospel is in making Christians. But there is no promise that the Christian will be pardoned who does not comply with this law. As the promise of heaven is only to the obedient, to those who do his com- mandments, where is evidence that any will be saved other- wise? There is none. If, however, it should turn out that it will be right for any others to be saved, the Lord will do it ; but that is his business, and not ours. It is the business of preachers to preach the word of God in all its fullness and urge upon all men the importance of obeying it; but whenever a preacher leaves off this work and tries to show that God will save some without implicit obedience, he leaves his proper work and launches out on forbidden ground. This is precisely the principle that brought such ruin upon the ancient Jews. Their leaders, as God said, caused them to err. This they did by teaching them that something else would do for the service of God besides do- ing just what he commanded ; and little by little they led them away till God brought the heathen upon them and car- ried them out of their own land. We, as a people, have been fighting these very things among the denominations for the last half century, and now some are turning back and tearing down the very work we have so long been trying to build up. Brethren, please don't do this. Let us go on building up the truth and leave others to tear down if noth- ing else will do thern. E. G. S. HOUSE, THE LORD'S. Under Judaism was erected the temple; that was recog- nized as "the Lord's house," "the house of the Lord," "the house of God." In it was recorded the Lord's name; in it was the mercy seat; in it must the offering of prayer or praise be presented. But Judaism was fleshly, temporal, and typical of the spiritual kingdom of Christ, the Lord, that has succeeded it. The temple itself, with its corner and foundation stones and the comely stones of its walls, was typical of the temple not made with hands, founded upon the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone, of which every Christian is a living stone, all 324 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, "builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit." The type is always less sacred than the thing typified. The antitype of the temple surely is not brick and mortar, wood and stone, builded without direction from God. A meetinghouse surely is not the thing typified by the temple of God under Judaism. It certainly typified the church of God, composed of the living stones, built into the spiritual temple of God. "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." "Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands." "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you ? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." (1 Cor. 3 : 16, 17.) "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you?" (1 Cor. 6: 19.) "What agreement hath the tem- ple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them ; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." (2 Cor. 6: 16.) In Revelation also there is frequent reference to the church of God as the temple of the Holy One. The term house of God is also applied to the spiritual body of Christ, not to the material local building in which Christians meet. Paul says in 1 Tim. 3 : 15 : "That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." Heb. 10 : 21, speaking of the superiority of Christ and the priests of Judaism, says: "Having a high priest over the house of God." 1 Pet. 4 : 17 says : "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God ?" Paul to the Ephesians says : "Ye are . . . fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God ; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord : in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit." (Eph. 2 : 19-22.) The church of living stones is the temple, the house of God, typified by the old temple. The corner stone of that temple typified Christ ; the stones that composed the temple, the living members of the church of God. It did not typify meetinghouses. It is proper to apply the lessons taught concerning and through the type to the anti- type. As God in earthly Judaism dwelt in the earthly BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 325 house and there met to bless, so in spiritual Israel he, through the Spirit, dwells in the spiritual house — the house not made with hands, the house whose chief corner stone is Christ, the house "builded together for a habita- tion [dwelling place] of God through the Spirit." The lessons of care and sanctity and reverence taught concern- ing the old temple of God are examples to teach how rever- ential and careful we must be in reference to the spiritual temple and how we should make it after the pattern given. It must not be neglected ; it must not be defiled ; it must not be made secondary to anything in the world ; it must not be left scattered one not upon another. To apply these lessons taught concerning the temple of God, the house of God un- der earthly Israel, to meetinghouses, is to misapply and per- vert the truth of God, is to exalt and idolize the work of man's hands — the brick and mortar, wood and stone — into the place of the living church of God. The meetinghouse is no part of the Christian religion. It is not required in the Scriptures. It is among the things indifferent. It is no sin to build one; it is no sin to do without one ; it is no service to God to build one ; he has not required it. It is a convenience that comes in as a substi- tute for or hindrance to no appointment of God, so is harm- less. God has made no provision where or in what kind of building to meet, or whether any ; but he has left the exam- ple of using the groves, private houses, the temple, the syn- agogue — just such place as is convenient. If a church finds it more comfortable and convenient to build a house for meeting than to meet in private houses or than to meet out of doors, it is at liberty so to do ; but it is a convenience for the church and people, not the house of God, not a dwelling place of God. It is no more the house of God than the house in which any Christian lives. The Christian builds him a private house because it is comfortable and con- venient to have it. The church builds a meetinghouse for the same reason. God dwells in neither; he dwells in the temple of believing hearts. There is the same and as much personal pride in building meetinghouses as in building private residences. As much sin in gratifying our pride in the one as in the other. God is honored, not by the house made with hands, but by having every stone in the spirit- ual house a comely one and in its proper position. In matters of house building, the will and judgment of the wiser, more devoted and experienced members of the body of Christ should prevail, care being had that no prin- ciple of Christian truth and Christian brotherhood be vio- lated in doing this, and no interest of the church be sacri- 326 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, ficed or injured in doing it. But, according to the teaching of the prophets, it is a sin to spend money in building fine houses for our own convenience and comfort, either in pri- vate living or public meeting, while the true house of God, the pillar and support of the truth, the temple of living stones, "builded together for a habitation of God," is scat- tered, languishes, needs teaching, while its members are without worship, without instruction, without shepherds to look after and guard and keep them safe within the Mas- ter's fold. Let us rightly apply Scripture and be guided by the Holy Spirit in our labor. "Is it a time for us to dwell in ceiled houses [at home or in the assembly], and this true house of God lie waste?" D. L. HUSBANDS AND WIVES SEPARATING. Brother Sewell: (1) Can husband and wife live Christians and live separate in violation of God's word? (2) Can husband and wife be divorced according to the Bible by walking off from each other; or, under the New Testament, is there any divorce law? These questions in one form or another are continually . coming up. We have answered some questions very re- cently along these lines; but as these have some different features in them and the subject is so very important, we will say something on it again. (1) As to the matter of husband and wife separating and living apart from each other, there is always something very radically wrong with one or the other or both when they do that. When they do this without the existence of the one scriptural cause — fornication — neither party has any right to marry again. In case there should be other reasons why it would be better for them to live separately, let them remain unmarried or become reconciled to each other again. If one party or the other is doing so badly as to make separation better than living together, they had better call upon the elders of the church and see if their troubles cannot be adjusted so they can live together in harmony. It is certain that when both parties do right they can live together in peace. It is also a matter of al- most positive certainty that temptations to wrongdoing will greatly increase if they undertake to live apart. If in such cases they do not call upon the elders or some proper persons to help them to adjust their differences, the elders ought to call upon them and see if they cannot lead them to a reconciliation of their differences, that they may live to- gether in harmony and thus put down reproach. (2) As to the matter of divorce under Christianity, that is more a question of human law than divine. Human law BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 327 does not allow a man to marry again after separating from his wife without getting a divorce from the court. So that has to be done to satisfy human law. But getting a divorce from the courts will not satisfy the law of Christ unless the wife was guilty of fornication. All the courts of earth could not give a divorce that would justify a man in separating from one wife and marrying another if the one cause does not exist. Churches should be very careful in tolerating either a man or woman that separates from the other and marries again, unless there is reliable testimony that the one scriptural cause existed ; for, as certainly as the word of God is true, when a man marries a woman, and he and she live together for a time as husband and wife and then separate, and he marries again, when the one scrip- tural cause does not exist, he enters into a state of adul- tery the day he marries again and continues in that state until he sincerely repents and turns from the sinful rela- tion. And the church that allows such a man to live on as a member in full fellowship and does not call him to account for his course certainly encourages the sin by condoning it and themselves become guilty in thus winking at evil. The fact that courts grant a divorce in such a case does not in the least change or modify the law of Christ regarding the matter. Churches, therefore, have no right to in any way encourage a man in disregarding the law of Christ. It is certain also that a man that marries thus not only violates the word of God, but also sins against himself in so doing and endangers the interest of his own soul. The evil is a growing one, and all Christians should be strictly on their guard against entering into such marriages. The whole religious world needs to wake up on this subject and strive in every scriptural way to put a stop to such marriages. It was only on account of the hard hearts of the Jews that any general divorce system was ever granted to them, and Jesus entirely revokes the whole divorce business, except for the one cause, and restores God's original order in this matter ; and he was speaking the words of his Father when he did it. IGNORANCE, DOES HONEST, SAVE? It has been a subject of some discussion as to whether ignorance is an excuse for not obeying the gospel. Please let us hear from you on the subject, and explain Luke 23: 34; 1 Tim. 1: 13. Also give us your idea as to what is meant in 1 Tim. 5: 10, speaking of the widow washing the saints' feet. It is very certain that no man can obey the gospel who is ignorant of it ; that is an impossibility. But will a person be saved in ignorance of the gospel ? That is a different ques- 328 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, tion. It is certain that a wrong course pursued in ignorance of its wrongfulness renders the individual less guilty than if he knew it was wrong while pursuing it. This is what the Savior meant when he prayed of his crucifiers: "For- give them ; for they know not what they do." He did not ask forgiveness in their sins; but when they shall be brought to realize their sins and repent, he asks forgiveness in their behalf, because they do it not knowing they are crucifying their Lord and Savior. The intimation is clear that if they had crucified him knowing or believing he was the Son of God, they could not have found forgiveness. This prayer was answered when on the day of Pentecost they were convinced he was the Son of God and asked for terms of mercy, which were given, and those who crucified him not knowing what they did received mercy. They did not receive it in their ignorance. They received it when they learned and obeyed the truth ; and thus mercy was pos- sible to them, because their former crimes were committed in ignorance. This is the precise lesson, too, taught in 1 Tim. 1 : 13. When Paul, speaking of his own sinful course, said, "I ob- tained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief," he was in the same condition of the crucifiers of the Savior and just as great a sinner. It was, it is to-day, just as high a crime before God to persecute, oppose, destroy the spirit- ual body of Christ as it was to destroy the fleshly body on the cross. Paul says he was a sinner, a vile blasphemer, under condemnation, needing mercy; and he obtained it when he learned the truth and repented, because he did it ignorantly in unbelief, was honest, sincere, thinking he was doing God's service while sinning. Mercy was possible to Paul only because he sinned thus ignorantly. Paul's good conscience, his earnest aim to serve God in ignorance, did not save him. He was brought to see the wrong; and when he repented, he obtained mercy. Had he committed these sins knowing it was the true church of God, no mercy would have been possible to him. That would have been sinning against God and his own con- science. If Paul's honest devotion to what he conscientiously be- lieved to be true would not save him in his ignorance, how can any man's save him? None are more conscientious than was Paul, none more self-sacrificing, none truer, none more faithful to what he believes to be the truth of God. If he was the chief of sinners, unsaved, needing mercy, lost without mercy, finding mercy only when he came to a knowl- edge of the truth and obeyed it, how can we hope that any BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 329 will find mercy on other terms than these? Cornelius like- wise, living up to the best light he had, devout, prayerful, full of almsgiving, needed words whereby he might be saved. Through the light afforded by these words and his walk in that light he was saved. The eunuch was a devout student of the Scriptures, a worshiper of God. Was he better than Saul? Was he more honest, more intelligent, more zealous? He obeyed the truth as soon as he learned it, and went on his way rejoicing. Some good persons speculate that these would have been saved had they not learned the truth. Paul did not think he would. The others were not better than he. The Holy Spirit does not say such would be saved. It was no part of the Spirit's mission to tell how men could have been saved without obedience to God. No man under the guidance of the Spirit now undertakes to do this. All such specula- tions only afford excuses for not obeying God. They do no good, but much evil. Honest ignorance, then, does this for man as taught in the Bible. It renders it possible to find forgiveness when he learns the will of God and obeys it. If it does more for him, the Bible fails to tell what it is. A rebellious course, knowing it is rebellious, may prevent this. There is not a word of evidence in the Bible, so far as we have learned, that any soul in ignorance of God was ever saved or justified in that ignorance; he is justified through learning and obeying the will of God — that is, no man was ever justified or saved in ignorance of God's plan of justifi- cation. Every man ignorant, but anxious to know God's will and to do the truth, mentioned in the Bible, was brought to the knowledge of the truth that he might be saved by the truth. "God is no respecter of persons." We believe that all such will learn and be saved by the truth. In all these questions, it seems to me, we take narrow, one-sided views. We leave God and his providence out of the calculations. He is yet the chiefest factor in all the operations of earth. And the stern truth stares us in the face that God withdrew the knowledge of himself only from man when and because "when they knew God, they glorified him not as God," "became vain in their imaginations," and loved and "served the creature more than the Creator." "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections." And as they refused to have "God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind." Read Paul's justifi- cation of God's giving up the Gentiles and withdrawing the knowledge of himself from them in Rom. 1. Then so soon as any of them became willing to honor and revere him 330 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, as God, he again brought the knowledge of himself to them. God gave his Son to die to save men. I do not believe God has ever permitted a soul willing to receive that gospel to die without the opportunity of knowing and being saved by the gospel. No man can be saved by the gospel, save as he knows it. "God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him," and no others. God does not "cast pearls before swine;" but to every one willing to receive him, to him he sends the pearl of his salvation in the gospel. Some years ago I was at a sister's house, was sick, my feet needed washing. I asked for water. She brought it and insisted I should let her bathe them for me. She quietly did it as a kindness to me. I have always felt much nearer to that sister since. I think she did what was to be asked if the widow had done before admitting her into the number supported by the church. D. L. IMMERSED IN ONE DAY, COULD THREE THOUSAND HAVE BEEN? Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Will you be so kind as to answer the following questions in regard to baptism? We find in the com- mission as recorded by Matthew and Mark baptism is required, and from Luke we learn that it is to begin at Jerusalem. We find that Peter preached at nine o'clock A.M. or after. Now, could the disci- ples have baptized three thousand people that day — immersed, I mean? But that is not the main question. Was there water enough inside the walls of Jerusalem to have immersed that many? It cer- tainly would have taken a larger pool than we have any account of; and as there is no stream of water within the walls of Jerusalem or near about, how, according to your judgment, was it done? The apostles could have baptized the three thousand that day without difficulty. Suppose them to have begun bap- tizing at noon. Then till six in the evening would give six hours in which to do the baptizing. Six hours give three hundred and sixty minutes. Then divide three thousand by twelve, the number of apostles, and it gives you two hundred and fifty, the number that each one would have to baptize. Then divide three hundred and sixty, the number of minutes they have in which to do the baptizing, by two hundred and fifty, the number each man has to baptize, and it gives nearly a minute and a half in which to baptize each man. A good baptizer can very easily baptize one each minute, and two a minute would be no difficult task where water is convenient ; but in this case you have nearly a minute and a half in which to baptize each man, and this would be a very easy task. Thus, by making this simple BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 331 calculation, what many would say is impossible becomes an easy matter, and the difficulty all vanishes. In the second place, there was plenty of water in Jeru- salem in which baptizing could have been done. We have an account of two or three pools of considerable size there. The pool of Siloam was itself of sufficient size and extent in which to have baptized the three thousand with all ease. The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge represents this pool as being one hundred and twenty paces long and forty paces wide and its greatest depth at least eight feet. One hundred and twenty paces would be something near three hundred and sixty feet, which would be the extent of water on one side — more than sufficient for the purpose. We were once told by a man that had resided for a long time in Jerusalem that those public pools were shallow at the edge, going down by steps ; that they would go down a foot or so at once, and then be for several feet that same depth, and then down about a foot again, and several feet again the same depth, and so on, making a most suitable place in which to baptize as well as bathe. Some of these pools were certainly for public use; and no difficulty, therefore, about obtaining access to them. By historical facts there was any amount of water in the city of Jerusalem to bap- tize three thousand, or ten thousand, or any number; and, besides this, the Book teaches plainly that the three thou- sand were baptized that day, and it is certain that the word baptize means immerse; and, therefore, if we believe the Bible, we must believe that the three thousand were im- mersed. E. G. S. IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, QUESTIONS ON. Please explain 1 Cor. 15: 32. If we have immortal souls, why- would Paul not have been advantaged at death without a resurrec- tion of his body? Also explain verse 18 of the same chapter. If we are immortal and go to our final home at death, what is the use of resurrection of our bodies and a judgment at the end of time? A very large proportion of the difficulties that rise with reference to the Bible arise from the fact that people spec- ulate and express these speculative notions in language not found in the Bible, and this leads into conflict with plain statements of the word of God. Nowhere does the Bible say that the soul is immortal. No matter what ideas we may form with reference to the soul and its existence after death, we should be careful to formulate no expres- sions regarding these notions not found in the word of God. The passage under consideration, as well as many other passages on the subject, shows plainly enough that future 332 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, happiness depends upon a resurrection from the dead, and there is no one expression in the word of God that conflicts with the idea. And whatever of trouble arises * from the expression that the soul is immortal grows out of specula- tion, and is only apparent, not real; for even if we grant this expression to be true, still, inspiration shows that fu- ture happiness depends upon a resurrection from the dead, when this mortal shall put on immortality. The soul needs that these vile bodies shall be changed and fashioned "like to his glorious body" in order to future happiness. This much is plainly revealed, and ought to be satisfactory to us. The second question arises from assuming what the Bi- ble does not say. The Bible does not say that we go to our final home at death. This is the way many preachers are accustomed to talk about it, but the Bible does not say so. The word of God represents us as sleeping in Jesus from death till the resurrection ; and it is such as these that Jesus will bring with him, will take them to the place he has pre- pared for them. When the last day shall come, the dead will be raised, the living saints will be changed, and all will be caught up to meet the Lord, and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Such are the plain teachings of the Bible on the subject; and if we will not formulate propositions of our own, there is not an expression in the Bible that will con- flict with the plain passage we have referred to in this. E. G. S. Will Mr. Sewell tell us where we get our idea of the immortality of the soul, since the Bible does not convey it? Do we get it from tradition merely, or have we been left to reason it out independently of the Bible, or to infer it from some more or less vague passage in the Bible, where, by implication, so important a fact may be taken to exist? Things are a little dark there. Mr. Brents here treats our article just as very many re- ligious people treat the word of the Lord. His question represents us as saying the Bible does not convey the idea of the immortality of the soul. We said nothing of the sort, and never thought of such a thing. He alludes to our reply to some queries on the subject in the Gospel Advo- cate of February 18 of this year. We here repeat the lan- guage to which he refers : "Nowhere does the Bible say the soul is immortal. No matter what ideas we may form with reference to the soul and its existence after death, we should be careful to formulate no expressions regarding these no- tions not found in the word of God." (Page 100, No. 7, present volume.) In this we are answering a difficulty that was presented regarding the immortality of the soul and the resurrection. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 333 Our purpose was to show that the difficulty was only imag- inary, and arose from using an expression not found in the Bible. We said, and here repeat with emphasis : "Nowhere does the Bible say that the soul is immortal." Let Mr. Brents or any one else find it out who can. We were talk- ing on the phraseology, "immortal soul." Men use this ex- pression, but the Bible does not; and when we use words to express our ideas of what the Bible teaches in words and phrases not found in the Bible, we are liable — and, indeed, most likely — to find these phrases coming in conflict with something the Bible does say. This is the foundation of a very large proportion of the differences now existing on the teaching of the Bible. Men differ very little on what the Bible really says ; but they differ across the very heav- ens on what men say the Bible means as expressed in the words of uninspired men. Men do not differ on what the word of God says on faith and justification; but when men say we "are justified by faith only," we at once begin to differ. But this difference is on the phraseology of men, and not of God ; for God does not say it. God commands men to be baptized. All agree in this. Many men say bap- tism is a nonessential. Here difference begins again, but not over what God says, but over what men say. So it is regarding the soul. Some say the soul is mortal ; others say it is immortal. So here is a difference. But the dif- ference is on what men say, not what God says. He does not say the soul is mortal, nor does he say it is immortal. Now, suppose we drop off these expressions. Then the con- troversy on them ends. But what does the New Testament say regarding the soul? Jesus asks: "What is a man prof- ited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (Matt. 16: 26.) Here it is plain that man has a soul and that he may lose his soul. But what is it to lose the soul? Jesus again says: "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul : but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matt. 10: 28.) This shows that souls that are lost will be lost in hell. And in another passage he says : "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off : it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched : where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9: 43, 44.) This passage shows what hell is and what it is to lose the soul. What a terrible loss it is! And all who believe the Bible must believe the truth of these passages. There are revealed to us two abodes for men after this life. One is called heaven, into which the saved will go; 334 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, the other is called hell, into which the lost will go. These are both represented as endless, or everlasting. The wicked "shall go away into everlasting [eternal] punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." (Matt. 25: 46.) Regard- ing the righteous, Jesus said : "I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself ; that where I am, there ye may be also." These passages also we must believe, if we believe the Bible. So, then, men have souls that will either be saved or lost eternally. The lost will be cast into hell ; the righteous will be received into heaven. About the truth of these things there is no room for controversy among those who accept what God says as true; but when some say the soul is im- mortal and others say it is mortal, then controversy begins. Let us, therefore, express our conceptions of what man is and of what he is to be hereafter in language found in the word of God, and we will have no trouble. Those who obey the Lord in this life will live eternally in heaven, while those who disobey him will be cast into hell — "into outer darkness," where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Let us all, therefore, seek to save our souls, that we may be happy forever. Another writer, referring to the same article, our answer to same query to which Mr. Brents alludes, says: "You leave the impression upon the mind of one brother at least that you are a 'soul sleeper,' or, rather, that you hold to the doctrine of soul sleeping between death and the resurrec- tion." We never said one word about anything of this sort, nor even thought of such, a thing. Paul said to the Thessalonian brethren: "If we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him." We alluded to this in the article above alluded to. Is this the evidence of that brother that I am a "soul sleeper?" Again, I stated that from the verse in Corinthians mentioned by the querist and other similar ones: "Future happiness depends upon a resurrection of the dead." Is this the expression from which he gets his impression? Paul said: "If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not ? let us eat and drink ; for to-morrow we die." This I believe, and so must every man that be- lieves the Bible ; and it shows that Paul regarded all a fail- ure if there be no resurrection of the dead. The modern idea of "soul sleeping" is a mere speculation of modern times, formulated in language not found in the word of God as its advocates put it, and which never has and never BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 335 can save a single soul. All such speculations are worthless, and worse than worthless; for they hinder those who em- brace them from obeying the word of God, which alone will bring salvation to man. E. G. S. IMPRACTICAL QUESTIONS. Will you please state in the Gospel Advocate what law the follow- ers of Christ were under from the crucifixion of Christ to the setting up of the kingdom on Pentecost? We cannot see of what possible benefit such questions can be. A Sunday school or church fed on such imprac- tical questions cannot grow very rapidly in grace and the knowledge of the truth. Suppose there was no law in ex- istence ; who will impeach God for his failure to supply the world with one and dethrone him ? I feel right sure of one thing: there were no conversions to Christ or God during that time; and if God saw there would be none, inasmuch as he does not cast pearls before swine, what if he saw fit to leave it without law? The immediate disciples of Christ were under law to remain at Jerusalem until they "be en- dued with power from on high." Only then were they au- thorized to bear witness concerning the Christ and guide men into the kingdom of God. God often leaves peoples and nations none of which are willing to receive him with- out law, without God, without hope in the world, stran- gers from the covenants of promise, aliens from the com- monwealth of Israel. If he left the world without law dur- ing this time, his wisdom saw it was just. INFANT REGENERATION. 1. Do pedobaptists believe infants so depraved as to need regenera- tion? 2. And if so, do they believe that all of them are regenerated by the Holy Spirit, or only those who die in infancy? 3. And if only those who die in infancy, would it not be better that all should die at that time? 4. Or do pedobaptists teach that only the infants of believing par- ents are regenerated by the Holy Spirit? 5. If they believe all infants are regenerated, then is there such a thing as adult regeneration? 6. If those who are regenerated in infancy fall away (as they often do if regenerated), can they be regenerated again? 7. What is the evidence of baby regeneration? Pedobaptist views concerning the condition of infants and the object of infant baptism are as confused, diverse, and contradictory as can be imagined. Their teachings are an inextricable maze of confusion. Originally infant baptism was practiced because it was believed that all in- fants — all the seed of Adam — were totally depraved and 336 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, exposed to wrath and everlasting destruction, without re- generation and the forgiveness of sin. As baptism was the act then and long universally recognized as the act in which forgiveness was promised, and as baptism was the only con- dition of those preceding pardon to which it was possible that an infant could be even seemingly subjected, infants were baptized with the prayer that God would spiritually regenerate them and grant them remission of sins and make them objects of God's mercy. It was then believed that all infants dying unbaptized were lost. Not only did the pedobaptists, but Baptists, believe some infants were elect ; others, nonelect. The Philadelphia "Confession of Faith" recognizes this. Mr. Jeter, in his "Review of Campbell- ism," maintained that without direct spiritual regeneration infants must be lost. He maintained that all dying in in- fancy were regenerated. Latterly the enormity of the idea of infant damnation has so presented itself that none now hold to it, and infant baptism exists without a reason. In trying to give a reason, no two agree. The evidence of in- fant regeneration we have never heard given. The truth is, men adopt a revolting theory of infant guilt and con- demnation, and then guess they are regenerated to save them from the revolting consequences of their own horrible theory. Infant regeneration rests upon the merest guess, without a word of foundation for it. There is just as much evidence that every adult dying is regenerated as that in- fants are. D. L. INIQUITY, STILL IN THE BOND OF. Brother Sewell: In the Gospel Advocate, No. 13, page 201, you say: "The man that hates his brother, or even his enemy, is still in the bond of iniquity." If he is still in the bond of iniquity, was not Simon, the sorcerer, yet in the gall of bitterness and the bond of in- iquity when Peter told him to repent and pray? John, when writing to Christians whom he regarded so tenderly as such as to say of them, "My little children/' said: "He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now." Here is an expres- sion of precisely the same import as the one we used. We were not writing on the subject of conversion and consid- ering whether a man had obtained pardon from his past sins or not, but whether the Christian has got away from all iniquity or not, whether he has left off all evil practices or not. It is universal with humanity to hate enemies when not controlled in this matter by the Christian religion ; and when any one has become a Christian and does not put down all hatred, but continues to hate, either a brother or an BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 337 enemy, he is still in darkness, as John himself testifies. He even says: "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." Again he says : "If a man say, I love God, and hat- eth his brother, he is a liar." While one is a liar and even in the same line with a murderer, if he is not still in the bond of iniquity, we are dull of apprehension. Our brother ought to have observed the point we were on when we made the remark. The same is true regarding any sinful prac- tice a man has indulged before becoming a Christian and fails to lay it aside afterwards. And most sins may become ultimately unpardonable if persisted in through life. The Christian's business is, after he has become such, to put off all evil desires, impulses, and all wicked thoughts and ac- tions ; and while he fails to do this, he is still in them, is in darkness even until now. All the evil habits that men have formerly engaged in must be laid aside when they come into the church; otherwise they will still be in them and under condemnation; and yet this fact has nothing to do in de- termining whether they obtained pardon or not when they obeyed the gospel. We have no doubt but Simon obtained pardon when he believed and was baptized ; but he did not go out at once from all evil thoughts, but went on in- dulging them, and he was not redeemed as to his life from all iniquity. A man is not redeemed from hatred until he ceases to exercise it, no matter what the provocation may be; so with all evil habits. E. G. S. INNOVATIONS AND THE REFORMATION. Brother Sewell: In the beginning of the Reformation the follow- ers were the same in faith and practice. I am very sorry that inno- vation has crept in and severed the unity of the "one body." So we would be glad for a few thoughts from you on Mark 3 : 24, 25. "And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that king- dom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand." The Jews had just made the accusation that Christ was casting out devils by the prince of the devils, and Jesus gave the language quoted above to show to them the shallowness and ridiculousness of such an accusation, showing that if Satan was casting out demons, wicked spirits, he was against himself and was doomed to a speedy downfall. The same is true of any body of men, kingdom, or house. Nothing of the sort can stand long when divided, as Satan would be if he were casting out his own workers, his own ministers. But that passage is not an exact likeness of the division referred to. The party that is responsible for the division 338 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, has never objected to any part of the original faith and practice of the disciples of the first half of the nineteenth century. They can all work and worship as those early churches did without a compunction of conscience. Their part in the matter is to introduce things they know and admit are untaught, and therefore unauthorized, in the New Testament, such as missionary societies through which to preach the gospel and instrumental music in the worship. They simply claim the right to introduce these on the plea of religious liberty and upon the claim that they are not forbidden in the word of God, and such like. All those who stand upon the original ground, or claim to live strictly by what the word of God says, and to regard things not required in the work and worship of the church as for that very reason forbidden, cannot accept anything added by human wisdom as allowable, either in faith or practice. The faithful part of the church stands to-day on the grounds they stood on when the writer came into the church in 1849. At that time and for a long time after- wards all the churches he knew or heard anything about held to the very same faith and practice, as all the loyal, faithful ones do to this day. But those that were not will- ing to continue to work and worship simply as the word of God directs have gone off into things they know the word of God does not require. So it may be truthfully said, as the apostle John says: "They went out from us, but they were not of us ; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us ; but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." (1 John 2: 19.) This is in reality the true state of the case. They went away from the original ground, began to introduce things that no true and faithful child of God can accept and practice. This is what forced the divi- sion. They generally wait and work till they get a majority before they begin to introduce these innovations, so they can hold the house, and do not pay those whom they drive out a cent for their interest in it. They could stay and worship as the faithful ones have done all the while with- out a single hitch on their conscience. But when they get their majority and strength to force in their desired inno- vations, those who confidently believe these things to be sinful cannot afford to remain with such things, to give them the encouragement of their examples, and in that way become parties to what they believe to be sinful, and so they go somewhere else, where they can live and work and worship just as the word of God directs. Thus the innova- tors force those who are determined to live free from inno- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 339 vations to go elsewhere to so live and worship. Then those that force in the innovations cry out in most sarcastic tones : "You have divided the church !" But there is not a word of truth in that charge. Those who force in human inventions and opinions, which those who intend to be faithful to Christ cannot afford to participate in, are the dividers, and are fully and criminally guilty in the divi- sion thus produced, and they will be held guilty at the judg- ment. In these conflicts the faithful ones may say and do things that are wrong and for which they will need to re- pent and pray God for pardon. But the guilt of producing these divisions as certainly rests on those who force in these divisive things as that the Bible is true, and they will have them to answer for. In this country they do not go out into entirely new fields, where there are no members at all, to build up new con- gregations on their lines, but prefer to go to churches built up by others and capture or divide them, and manage to hold the house. If they have gone out into new and desti- tute fields and built up a single congregation in this section of country, this writer knows not of it. So far as matters now stand in this country, those who force in the innova- tions are thoroughly responsible for the divisions that have occurred. This they have done by departing from original scriptural grounds and forcing in unscriptural things. INSTRUMENTS IN THE HOME AND IN SCHOOL. Brother Lipscomb: Is it right for Christians to have organs in their houses? I know of no reason why it is wrong to have an organ in the home any more than any other instrument of music. It is lawful and right to have and to do many things in our houses and family relations that it would be wrong to bring into the church and its services. The organ is more used in connection with the worship than other musical instru- ments; but others are used. The piano, the violin, the brass instruments, are all used; and if the organ was out of the way, these others would take its place. There is no sin in the organ ; its wrong use constitutes the sin. I think the general cultivation of instrumental music has hindered all learning to sing, and this creates the demand for the in- strument in church services. Before instrumental music became common, the boys and girls all learned to sing ; now the girls learn to perform on the instrument, and cannot sing without it, and the boys do not learn to sing. So there is a demand for the instrument to carry the music in church. While these things are true, I cannot say instruments at 340 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, home, properly used, are sinful. The thing needed is that all should cultivate their ability to sing as a duty they owe to God ; then there will be no demand for the instrument to carry the tune. Until the singing is done as a service we owe to God, it is not worship, but entertainment. Brother Lipscomb: I notice in the Nashville Bible School a piano recital on May 22. This seems to me a bad example. We are to train a child in the way it should go. If parents teach and consent to instrumental music in the home or school, it teaches them to love it and bring it into the church. Is it right for a member of the church of Christ to sing for Baptists in protracted meetings? Would it not be just as pertinent to say: If parents per- mit or encourage children to use beefsteak at home or in school, they will learn to love it and to bring it into the Lord's Supper? If persons refuse to bring things into the service of God because they do not like the thing, God is not pleased with such refraining. If men do things required by God because they love the things, and not because God requires it, God rejects that service. Many things are per- mitted to be used in our personal and secular life that could not be brought into the service of God. The thing to do is to teach the world that God can be worshiped only in his own appointments. Unless we learn this, all our worship will be vain. What we do to please ourselves does not please God. Only what we do to please him is accepted as worship. When we learn this truth, then what we like or dislike will not affect our worship of God. Let us learn ourselves and teach our children and the world that our mission is to do what pleases God, not what pleases our- selves. Those who as friends of truth run that truth to an absurd extreme are real enemies of the truth. INSTRUMENTS, TEACHING WITH. Brother Lipscomb: I find in 1 Chron. 25: 1 that persons were set apart to prophesy with instruments, and in 1 Cor. 14 Paul teaches that we should desire the gift of prophecy. Now, if they could an-, ciently teach with instruments, why not now? Things commanded to the Jews are not allowable to us unless they are repeated in the New Testament. We are not under the Old Testament, but under the New Testa- ment. If because things are commanded under the Old Testament they are to be done under the New Testament, then we must take infant church membership on a fleshly birth; we must offer burnt offerings and incense, practice polygamy, and many other services that we reject. The Old Testament was taken out of the way, because it was contrary to us, and the New Testament adopted. Jesus BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 341 and the apostles dropped out instrumental music. No one claims they practiced it. They set us the example that we must prophesy without the instruments. If they saw fit to drop it out, who has the right to place it in, and why should any Christian want to put in what they dropped out? Instruments were not used among Christians for six hun- dred years, and then came in against the protests of the more pious and godly worshipers; but they were not even ordained by God in the Old Testament. The passage re- ferred to says David commanded their use, and in almost every allusion to them in the Old Testament they are re- ferred to as commanded or ordained by David, in contrast with what was commanded by God through Moses. Moses, not David, was God's lawgiver to his people. (See verse 6 of this same chapter.) In 2 Chron. 29: 25 it is said: "Ac- cording to the commandment of David." In Ezra 3 : 10 the same distinction between what was commanded by God through Moses and what was commanded by David is kept up. Then Amos (6:5) pronounces a woe upon those who invent to themselves instruments of music like David. Da- vid was a good man in the main, did some things wrong, was not a lawgiver of God, and is condemned for inventing to himself instruments of music. The probability is, David only introduced them into the service, as the harps and in- struments were in existence before his day. If so, the woe was for using them as David did. There is as good, if not better, authority for infant church membership and for po- lygamy as there is for the use of instruments of music in the worship. There is none for either. INSURANCE, LIFE. Brother Lipscomb: Is it right for a Christian to have his life in- sured? Life insurance is a method of laying up money to be paid our family after we are gone. If there is no wrong or injustice to others in securing this, it is as legitimate as any method of laying up money for one's family. There are some features that to me seem objectionable. The money used to keep up the life insurance is frequently taken from creditors and so fixed that they cannot get the benefit of it. The law, it seems to me, so arranges this as to encourage one to use money of his creditors for the benefit of his own family. Still, a man can be just and honest and not use money belonging to others for the benefit of his family, even though the law permits it. The chief objection with me is, the profits that are made out of the business come from the forfeitures and failures 342 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, of many who insure and those who are least able to bear them. A number of persons insure. If all keep up the in- surance, there can be no profit to pay the premium. The company depends upon the failure and forfeiture of a large number of those who pay in for its profits. Those who pay in and fail and forfeit are the poorer, the excitable class, and unfortunate class, least able to bear losses. I do not like the idea of endowing a family out of the misfortunes and failures of the poor. I am afraid God would not bless such an inheritance. While I do not like these features, I am not prepared to say one sins in insuring his life. I give the points that seem to me objectionable, and each must judge for himself. INTEREST AND USURY. What is the difference between usury spoken of in Lev. 25: 36; Deut. 23: 19; Neh. 5: 7; Ps. 15: 5; Jer. 25: 10, and our common in- terest? We remember once to have examined a passage in Ezekiel on the same subject, and the word rendered usury in the Hebrew just means interest, or increase — just about what we mean now by the word interest. And we think likely that is the sense in which the word is used in all the pas- sages referred to in the above. But it should be remem- bered that these passages belonged to the Jewish dispensa- tion, and not to the dispensation under which we live. We must look to the New Testament for the laws by which we are to be governed. E. G. S. INTEREST TAKEN ON LOANS. Please answer through the Gospel Advocate if the usury mentioned in Matt. 25: 27 means interest. Elsewhere we are told not to take usury. Are we to not take interest; or, if we do, is it wrong to lend money at more than the per cent allowed by law? Answer for the benefit of a friend of mine. All interest is usury. It was wrong for the Jew to lend to his poor brother for increase. It is certainly wrong for Christians to do it. And it is wrong for Christians to take more than the rate fixed by law, because we are commanded to obey the rulers. I do not think there is a clear law against taking increase, or usury, or hire, or rent (they are all the same), of those able to pay. ISA. 28: 20. Brother Sewell: Please explain Isa. 28: 20: "For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering nar- rower than that he can wrap himself in it." BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 343 The connection of the verse shows that it is only a strong expression, showing that those that go their own ways and will not follow the word of the Lord will have no place to shield them from the judgments of the Lord when they come. Like the bed, their ways and their strength will be too short and too narrow to protect them from the anger of the Lord when he shall take vengeance upon the wicked. The Jewish people at the time of this utterance were very wicked, and the Lord through Isaiah was letting them know that all their defenses and their wisdom would be insuffi- cient to protect them from the ruin that he would bring upon them. ISHMAEL. What nation of people did Ishmael represent in being a wild man, whose hand was against every man and every man's hand against him? What was the blessing Jacob wanted when wrestling with the angel? How did Esau serve Jacob — i. e., what was the manner of his service, and what benefit was his service to Jacob? When did his service cease? Did the benefit of his service cease when his service ended? The Arabs are regarded as the descendants of Ishmael. They have been a warring, wild, predatory tribe, living off their neighbors, and, of course, warred upon by them. We do not suppose he wanted any one special blessing alone, but to be blessed with success and prosperity to himself and family in all their undertakings. We do not know in how many ways Esau may have served Jacob. We think the servitude was simply one of subserviency. Jacob was to be first; Esau, second. In his weakness of purpose, lack of persevering courage, he would in various ways administer to the success, prosperity, and prowess of his stronger, more courageous, persevering, and forceful brother. The same state of subserviency on the part of the one and of successful domination on the part of the other remained with their descendants so long as the cause that produced the superiority of the one and the inferiority of the other continued. The blessing and the cursing were not arbi- trary denunciations of persons, regardless of character. They were simply announcements of results that must fol- low certain causes in accordance with the great and fixed principle of divine law and government. Esau was fickle, easily discouraged, the slave of appetite, had no resolution to heroically endure present ill for future good, lacked faith and persistent trust in God and his overruling will. Jacob was gifted in those qualities that insure permanent prosper- ity under the operations of divine will ; and although, doubt- less, a less agreeable and pleasant personage, less amiable and companionable, than Esau, he pleased God as having 344 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, confidence in him, a rugged but unyielding faith, and a true though unamiable obedience to God. Because God saw these things and recognized the results that would come of them through the working of the laws of God, he an- nounced what is called the blessing to Jacob, the curse to Esau — the loving or approving of Jacob, the hating or dis- approving of Esau. The blessing and the curse, the ap- proval and disapproval, being based upon causes growing out of fixed principles, not of personal partiality, they con- tinued to the extent and so long as the causes remained in force. When Esau's descendants or any portion of them turned from the evil character and causes that invited the curse from God, the curse was turned aside from those who had thus turned. Whenever Jacob's children or any portion of them turned from the course that brought the blessing, then the blessing was turned aside from those who had turned from the approved ways of God. Nothing is more clearly taught in the Bible than these principles of God's dealings with men ; and in every curse or blessing pronounced, these are always implied as the condi- tions on which the curse or the blessing is suspended. "At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and con- cerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it ; if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil I thought to do unto them." (Jer. 18: 7, 8.) The same principle is appli- cable to individuals as we see in Ezek. 18. Then, in ac- cordance with prophecy made concerning Jacob and Esau, the necessary implication of the passage and the fixed prin- ciple on which God deals with men, if they or their de- scendants had changed their characters, their destinies and positions would have been changed. D. L. ISRAEL, HOW ALL, SAVED? Brother Lipscomb: Please explain Rom. 11: 26: "And so all Israel shall be saved." Also verse 29: "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." One construction placed on the expression, "all Israel shall be saved," is that after the Gentiles had been brought into the kingdom, then the Jews would turn and be led into the church. "And so all Israel shall be saved" meant all Israel shall be brought into the way of salvation. Another, and it seems to me the more correct, explanation is that the Jews had been broken off from the favor of God by un- belief; the Gentiles by faith had been grafted in. The fleshly Israel was not the true seed of Abraham, but spirit- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 345 ual Israel was accounted the seed. The gospel had been preached to the Jews, and, when this was written, preached to the Gentiles. It would again be preached to the Jews. Some of these Jews would yet believe ; and, bringing those who believe, both Jew and Gentile, into one fold, they would constitute the true spiritual Israel that would be saved. All spiritual Israel will be saved. God called the Jews and bestowed gifts on them to bring them and the world to Christ. This calling of the Jews and the gifts bestowed on them he did not repent of, though many proved unworthy. JACOB SERVED LAB AN, HOW LONG? Brother Sewell: How long did Jacob serve Laban? (Gen. 31: 36- 43.) Are you apprised of the forty-years theory? Yes, I am aware of the forty-years theory, but do not know whether it is correct or not and do not know any way to find out. He may have served other twenty years than those mentioned to Laban when he overtook him on his way back toward Canaan ; but if he did, we have no certain way of knowing it that I am aware of. And, besides, if he had, it is most likely he would have mentioned that also to Laban, while he was so careful to mention the fourteen years he served for his wife and the six afterwards. And, more- over, if he did, it is not a matter of such importance that knowing it or not knowing it can have anything to do with the great lesson taught in the history of Jacob. I shall ac- cept the twenty years' service till I see something else sub- stantiated; and if I ever do, then I will accept that. It may be that the calculations of time usually relied upon re- garding the chronology of those olden times are defective in many things, but I am very thankful that such mistakes as that have no connection with the inspiration and teach- ing of the Bible and need not in any wise affect any man's salvation. JAILER, WAS THE, BAPTIZED IN THE JAIL? In Acts 16 we have the conversion of the jailer. Was his residing place in the jail, and was he baptized in the jail with the water that was used in washing the stripes of the apostles, and was his house- hold baptized upon the jailer's confession? 1. The house, or dwelling place, of the jailer was, no doubt, very near the jail, but not in it; for we read that he brought Paul and Silas out of the jail; and, next, they were in his house while the word was preached. His house was not the jail, for he had just brought them out of it; and if they had gone back into the jail, it would likely have 346 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, been mentioned. The jail was one place and the jailer's house was another, as the passage plainly shows, no matter how near each other they may have been. 2. The jailer was not baptized in the house, as the read- ing plainly shows. They were in his house while the preaching was going on ; but when the baptizing was over, he brought them into the house. This he could not have done unless they had gone out of his house. He brought them back, when the baptizing was over, into the same house they were in when the preaching was done, which shows that they must have gone out of the house to do the baptizing. And the passage explains itself by saying of the jailer that he took them. The word took, with the rest of the passages, shows that he took them somewhere out of the house, washed their stripes, and was baptized, and then brought them back into his house again. To say that he was baptized in the house is an assumption wholly against the facts in the case. 3. The assumption that the jailer's household was bap- tized upon the confession of the jailer is an assumption still worse, if possible. The facts in the case show that the household of the jailer were competent to make their own confessions, for the passage says: "And when he brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." He believed with his household. This he could not do unless they could believe, too. But he did believe with them; therefore they be- lieved as well as himself; and whenever persons are old enough to believe, they are old enough to make their own confessions and be baptized for themselves. False as- sumptions are well calculated to deceive the unwary and lead them astray, while the plain truth of God's word fol- lowed will lead to life everlasting. E. G. S. JERUSALEM, DESTRUCTION OF, AND THE END OF THE WORLD. Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: You will please give us some light on Matt. 24. Was the Savior speaking of the destruction of the Jew- ish nation in all the chapter, or was he speaking of both the destruc- tion of Jerusalem and the end of the world? In reading this chapter at our church meeting we could not agree. Some thought the Savior was speaking altogether of the destruction of Jerusalem, while others thought he was speaking of both. We doubt not the Savior in this chapter had reference both to the destruction of Jerusalem and to the final end of the world. The Savior had said to the apostles regard- ing the temple that the time would come when it would be so thrown down that one stone should not be left upon an- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 347 other. The disciples were, doubtless, much astonished at this, and asked: "When shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" The question embraced the destruction of Jeru- salem and its temple and also the end of the world, and we think the answer embraces both. It is most likely that some of the things that occurred at the destruction of Je- rusalem will also occur at the end of time, and apply equally well to both. We have never yet been able to settle down upon the conclusion that all of Matt. 24 refers to the de- struction of Jerusalem, as there are some parts of it that we do not know how to reconcile with that event; but, al- lowing it to embrace both events, the difficulties all vanish, and all can be harmonized. We might not be able to sepa- rate and tell which of the passages certainly apply to one only and which to the other only or which alike to both; but allowing the chapter to embrace both harmonizes with other plain passages that do refer to the final end of time, and we believe in interpretations that harmonize. JESUS, THE FATHER OF. Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: Please give your readers some light on Matt. 1: 18; Luke 2: 48. Was Joseph the father of Jesus, or was the Holy Spirit his father? Joseph was the reputed father of Christ, because he was the husband of Mary, his mother; and in this sense he is called his father. But Christ was begotten of the Holy Ghost, as is plainly declared in Matt. 1. E. G. S. JESUS AND THE FATHER, HOW ONE? Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Will you please explain the latter part of John 14: 9: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." If God and Jesus are not literally one, how was it that when the dis- ciples had seen Jesus they had also seen the Father? The verse is explained in what immediately follows : "Be- lievest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the work." God dwelt in his Son while on earth and worked through him and spoke through him, and yet this does not make them literally one. Christ prayed that his disciples might be one, but this did not make them literally one in the sense of one person. Christ is said to have been in the form of God. (Phil. 2:6.) He was "the express image of his per- son." (Heb. 1: 3.) So that when Philip looked upon Jesus he saw the form of God, "the express image of his person/' saw one in whom the Father dwelt, and who pos- 348 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, sessed the authority of God, and who spoke the words of God ; and in that sense when he saw Christ he saw the Fa- ther. But the very language which says Christ was the image of the Father's person shows he was not the Fa- ther's person, but only the image of it. Hence he and the Father were not the same person literally. E. G. S. JEWS, THE. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I wish you to tell us who the us refers to in Eph. 1 : 3. Was it the Jews, as a people, that God blessed "with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ?" Did he make known to the Jews, as a people, the mystery of his will? Did he abound unto them in all wisdom and prudence? The Jews, as a people, were never in Christ. They re- jected Christ. Rejecting him, they rejected all blessings that are in Christ or that come through him. "He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." The only difficulty in reference to the passage is, whether the we and the us spoken of referred to all Christians or only to the apostles or to the Jewish Christians. It would seem to refer to all Christians, at least to Paul himself, the writer, and to those whom he addressed — the Christians at Ephesus, composed chiefly of Gentile converts. If to these, then to all Christians. The only difficulty in this construction is, in verse 13 ye seems to be placed in contrast with ive and us of the preced- ing verses. The contrast is kept up throughout the re- mainder of the letter. Paul always used / instead of we when speaking of himself. There are difficulties in the passage, but we are constrained to believe that the we re- fers to the inspired men, the apostles, with whom Paul classes himself. In the first twelve verses he, as is usual in his letters, introduces himself — shows how God has chosen him, blessed him, revealed his will to him, and made him an instructor of the people, an authoritative teacher of the will of God. He does it here as we instead of /. He en- ters into a defense of the whole apostolic college, inspired of God, and in asserting their authority asserts his own. After introducing himself thus, he tells the Ephesian Chris- tians: "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation." From verse 13 forward the letter is addressed to the Christians at Eph- esus. They all through the letter are addressed as ye. "Ye being in time past Gentiles." "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 349 the saints, and of the household of God ; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone ; in whom all the build- ing fitly framed together groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord : in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit." The whole letter is addressed to the point of showing that, though they had been aliens, in contrast with Jews in the dispensation of Moses, now, under Christ, they were of the same household, with equal privileges and common rights with those who before them had been chosen as keepers of the law of God and were the first called into the church of God. D. L. "JEW," THE, "HEBREW," AND "ISRAEL." Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: What difference is there between the Jew, Hebrew, and the children of Israel? It has always been my opinion that they were all the same people, and they were God's chosen people. I was talking with a Baptist preacher, and he said all that were dwelling at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost were Jews. The Book teaches me that there were people dwelling there from every nation under heaven. Why is it that there were so many different languages at Jerusalem if they were all Jews? Hebrews, Jews, Israelites, all refer to the same people — the descendants of Jacob. It is true the Jew at one time indicated that part of the nation that clung to the house of David in the days of Rehoboam. They took their name from Judah, the leading tribe that remained faithful, while Israel applied to the ten tribes that revolted from the house of David and went after Jeroboam. But afterwards, and especially in New Testament times, all were called Jews, Israelites, Hebrews. It is also true that the term Hebreiv was used more spe- cifically in the New Testament to refer to that portion of the Jews who remained in the land of Canaan in contradis- tinction to the Jews who, in the wars and strifes, wandered off into other nations to seek a living. Such is the use of it when it is said the Grecians murmured "against the He- brews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration." (Acts 6: 1.) The Grecians were Jews who had wandered into Greece and had come up to Jeru- salem at the Pentecost. The Hebrews were those who dwelt in the land of Canaan. All at Jerusalem were Jews or proselytes to the Jewish religion. "There were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven." They spoke dif- ferent languages, because they had been born and had grown up among different people, speaking different lan- guages, and each had learned the language of the people 350 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, with which he lived — just as now Jews dwelling in France speak the French language, Jews dwelling in Germany speak German, Jews dwelling in Spain speak Spanish, Jews dwelling in England speak English, etc. Each spoke the language of the people with whom he was reared, and each heard the apostles speak in their language. JEWS, GOD'S DEALING WITH, AND GENTILES. Brother Lipscomb : You will confer a favor upon us by explaining Rom. 11: 32. Who is meant by the words them all. We think it only refers to Israel, including those that had not gone astray, men- tioned in the first of the chapter, with those that had; but the elders and some other brethren of our church think it implies all men — those to whom Paul was writing the same as those he was talking about. The connection shows that Paul was justifying God in his course toward the Jews and the Gentiles. The Jews had believed in him, but had to a great extent lost that faith. At any rate, they violated his law so greatly that he con- ceded them all, Jews and Gentiles, unbelievers, and dealt with both Jew and Gentile as unbelievers, and justified both through faith in Christ — that is, through their coming to believe and obey God through Christ. He is here, of course, speaking of the provision of mercy made in Christ. D. L. JEWS, SALVATION OF THE, ETC. Brother Lipscomb: (1) Will all the Jews be saved who lived prior to Christ simply because they suffered a physical death for the trans- gression of the law of Moses? How are the Jews justified by faith and Gentiles through faith? (2) The Gospel Advocate of August 30, quoting from Lard's Quarterly of 1868, says "God is spirit," not "a spirit." Is this the right teaching or not? Is this passage in the Authorized Version properly translated? (1) No Jew will be saved in heaven because he died on earth. Men cannot pay for the sins they commit by any- thing they can do or suffer. God dealt with the Jews as he does with all other people. If they believed and obeyed him, he blessed them ; if they disobeyed him, they suffered the penalties of his violated law. To impress these truths with respect to spiritual and eternal interests, God gave the law of Moses, and under it applied the law to temporal and seen affairs, so they would be schooled to understand and obey the spiritual and eternal laws. This was done not only to teach the Jews, but they are written for our in- struction. But all men die as the Jews did. If xieath atoned for their sins, it would atone for the sins of all who sin and die. It would be much nearer the truth to say those who sinned and died before entering the land of Ca- naan would never enter the heavenly Canaan. But this is BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL 351 not correct; for Moses and Aaron were both debarred an entrance into Canaan, yet are both saved in heaven. Men who suffer here for righteousness' sake will be rewarded in the world to come. But one who brings suffering upon himself in this world by his sinful course will not be saved from the eternal suffering thereby. (2) I think the purpose of Jesus was to lead the woman of Samaria away from the material forms which they wor- shiped, such as the calf, and from the idea that there were certain localities for worship, as Jerusalem and the moun- tain of Samaria, and bring her to realize that God was spirit, and not matter, and that he would be worshiped wherever and whenever man could approach him with his spirit, or with the heart. To say God is worshiped with the spirit is the same as to say all the service man renders him must be from the heart and of faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please God" means exactly the same as to say that all service of God must be from the heart. The meaning of this passage is: Inasmuch as God is a Spirit, not matter, he must be served by the spirit of man, not simply by material forms and in localities. The common translation is correct, and I think the criticism implied in the quotation from Lard is a distinction without a differ- ence. JEWISH WORSHIP, INSTRUMENTS IN. Brother Lipscomb: More than a year ago I asked you, without quoting the verse, to explain 2 Chron. 29: 25, which you endeavored to do, but apparently without regard to the latter clause of the verse, which you also failed to include in your quotation of the verse. The explanation was not entirely satisfactory to myself nor to some of the brethren who occupy different sides to this question and are anxious to know the truth. I am in line with the Gospel Advocate on this subject, but I am troubled over the latter clause of this verse in connection with Ps. 98, both of which I hope you will explain. The clause reads thus, "For so was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets," which does seem conclusive that the instruments were used in the worship by divine approval, under the old dispensation, while you claimed they were not. Is Ps. 98 prophetic? If so, does it not refer to this dispensation; and, if so, is it good authority for using the instrument in our worship to-day? There is not the least doubt but that God tolerated in- struments of music in the days of Judaism. He did not command them to make and use them; he permitted it, just as he permitted polygamy, slavery, and divorce for any cause. God told Samuel to let them have a king, notwith- standing he testified that in choosing him "they have re- jected me, that I should not reign over them." (1 Sam. 8: 7.) Notwithstanding this, he directed Samuel to anoint the king for them and aided them in the work of the kingdom. 352 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, Jehoiada, the priest and servant of God, took two wives for King Joash. Yet Jesus says this was not God's order, but he tolerated it because of the hardness of their hearts, and directed in getting wives. Then if the Lord had com- manded them how and when to use the instruments after they were introduced by David, it would only prove God was tolerating it and its use as he tolerated polygamy. That would no more prove it should be used now than the toleration and regulation of polygamy or easy divorce then prove polygamy and divorce for any cause should be prac- ticed now. Suppose God had commanded its use then, would it prove it should be used now ? He ordained annual sacrifices and incense then; are they to be practiced now? Suppose God had ordained it in the Jewish dispensation and not have required it in the Christian dispensation, would that justify its use now? The Christian can prac- tice nothing as service to God required under the law of Moses unless it is required in the New Testament. In- stead of this instrumental music being required, the evi- dence is clear that it was dropped out by Christ and his apostles, and was not introduced into the church for six hundred years — then among the Catholics, who claim the right to change the appointments of God. I have written this to show that whether we explain this passage or not, there is not the shadow of ground in it for the use of instruments in the worship of God. It is not required in the New Testament and interferes with and hinders the ends to be accomplished by singing. They were to admonish and teach one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, making melody in the heart to the Lord. Now, the instrumental music hinders the result of the singing, as it prevents hearing what is sung. But let it be settled that if God had commanded it in the Jewish dispensation, that would not give the shadow of authority for its use under Christ. But did God ordain it? In this very context it says: "And he set the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet: for so was the com- mandment of the Lord by his prophets. And the Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets [the trumpets were commanded by God]." (2 Chron. 29: 25, 26.) Then the next verse says: "And when the burnt offering began, the song of the Lord began also with the trumpets, and with the instruments ordained by David king of Israel." Here it is repeated they were ordained and commanded by David; they are kept distinct BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 353 from trumpets commanded by the Lord. (See also 2 Chron. 23: 18; 1 Chron. 23: 5; Neh. 12: 36; Amos 6: 5.) In all these places, and more, they are attributed to David, in con- trast with the things ordained by God, and in Amos 6 : 5 David is especially condemned. The whole kingdom was a rebellion against God, which he permitted as an experi- ment to show what they would do in going their own way. This instrumental service was tolerated in connection with other things to add greatness to the kingdom. I never heard that any one thought Ps. 98 was prophetic. It is simply an exhortation to praise God for the prosperity he had bestowed on Israel. If prophetic, it was not fulfilled by Christ and his apostles, but only by the corrupted church. As David had invented the instruments, he urged they should praise God with them. It seems to me every candid man would say the conclu- sions set forth are correct, with that clause: 'Tor so was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets." It will be noted that in the scripture the words so was are in Italics, which means they are not in the original and have been sup- plied by the translators. This is done because they could not make sense out of the original as they translated it. The Revised Version reads : "And he set the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet : for the command- ment was of the Lord by his prophets." Does this refer to a commandment to use the instruments? He had just said that was by David. He evidently refers to the command to keep this feast, described in verses 20-24. After say- ing this instrumental service was by the commandment of David, he does not contradict himself and say it was by the command of God. The keeping of the feast was com- manded by God, but the instruments were by the command of David. But look at this as we may,. it affords no ground for the use of instruments in the church of God. JOB WAS AFFLICTED, HOW LONG? Brother Lipscomb: Tell us how long Job was afflicted with the sores. We know of no data for determining, with any definite- ness, this question; nor did I ever see an opinion on the subject. In thinking of it, I would say it lasted him for a season — a few months. First, it was common among the patriarchs to come up yearly with offerings to the Lord, as it became the law among the Jews. It is thought the day when the sons of God came to present themselves be- 354 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, fore the Lord referred to this yearly gathering. On one God gave permission to Satan to strip Job of his property, children — all that he had. This was done. Job remained faithful. On the next annual gathering before the Lord, God delivered him to Satan to afflict his person. This was done with sores and boils very soon. He was afflicted long enough for his friends of Tamen, Shuah, and Naaman to hear of it and come to mourn with and comfort him. Life was long and people did not hurry then. They doubtless camped in tents, as most of the men of the East did, both at home and especially in traveling. They remained seven days before they approached him, and then through the pe- riod of his affliction. While it is not so said, the facts indi- cate that they remained until his recovery, and he made of- ferings for them. It is possible this did not occur during their stay, but the facts strongly point to it. I would, then, say it all occurred within the dry season of the year — three or four months. We know nothing of the age in which he lived, save what we gather from his surroundings. His herds in different places and the marauding bands of thieves would favor an early age. He was old enough when introduced to us to have seven sons and three daughters. The eldest brother has a home and house of his own, and the other nine are all at his house feasting and drinking wine. This would show they were all probably well grown. The children were killed ; the affliction of boils came upon him. He must have been what would now be called "a man well ad- vanced in age." He was healed, seven sons and three daughters were again born to him, and he lived after he was healed one hundred and forty years, gained riches, and enjoyed prosperity greater than before. I think the circumstances would indicate that the afflic- tion and healing occurred within one season of the year — the dry season — within from three to six months. This is the best we can do for it. D. L. JOHN 1: 13 EXPLAINED. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell : Please explain John 1 : 13 through the Gospel Advocate. It reads as follows: "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Who is the person or persons alluded to? What is the antecedent of the word ivhich in the verse? Also, is it a proper rendering of the original? t As to the translation of the above passage, we do not know that it could be very materially improved. The pas- sage is of general import, applying to any that may do as therein indicated. The gospel by John was not written, as BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 355 is generally conceded, till long after the kingdom of Christ was established ; and if we apply it to persons living since the establishment of the church, it just means that all per- sons who receive by obedience the gospel, which is the only way now to receive Christ, are born of God, born according to the will (the word) of God, and not according to the will of man. And even if it be applied to those who lived in the time of Christ's personal ministry, the same principle is true. Those that received and obeyed the preaching of John, of Christ himself, of the twelve or the seventy, may be said to have been born of God, because in that case they had to hear and believe the word that was preached to them, also had to repent and be baptized ; and in so doing they were born of God. We feel no particular concern, there- fore,' as to which application is given. In either case they gained their new relationship, not by a fleshly birth, but by a birth according to the word of God. E. G. S. JOHN 3: 5. Brother Lipscomb: Will you be so kind as to explain John 3: 5? I have a good brother, who is a preacher, who takes the position that a man must be born of water before he is born of the Spirit, because water is named first. The brother, furthermore, says that the beget- ting is no part of birth. The language is figurative, or after the order of a par- able. The fleshly birth, we all know, is used to illustrate a spiritual renewal and bringing forth. In the natural birth, the basis of the figure, it is common to say a man is born of his parents — of his mother and his father. This expres- sion always embraces the begettal by the father and the bringing forth by the mother. It is customary in speaking of the fleshly birth to place the mother first, as more di- rectly connected with the completed process of this birth. This does not mean that the office of the mother is per- formed before that of the father. It may mean that it is the most clearly seen and the first suggested to the mind. We have the expression, "born of God" — "born, not of blood, . . . but of God" (John 1: 13) ; "whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin" (1 John 3:9); "every one that loveth is born of God" (1 John 4:7; see also 1 John 5: 1; 4: 18). It is not meant that the persons were developed in God as the child is in the mother's womb and brought forth out of, or separate from, him. It means only he was begotten of God as the child is begotten of his father. The Spirit of God is imparted into the spirit of man. Then the term born, when applied to both parents, includes the begetting of the father and the bringing forth of the mother. That a man is born of two processes is 356 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, clearly recognized here in the Spirit and the water. Now, the man is never enveloped in the Spirit and delivered from it as the child is from its mother. Then the birth of the Spirit cannot correspond to the office the mother performs in the fleshly birth. It does correspond to the office of the father. The spirit, or heart, of man is impregnated with the Spirit of God. The enveloping in and deliverance of the person from the water does correspond to the deliver- ance of the child from the womb. This is the correspond- ence — the natural interpretation, and the true one. To be born of water and Spirit is to be begotten of the Spirit and brought forth of the water, just as the child is born of the mother and father. JOHN 3: 8. Will you please explain John 3:8? We have it in our lesson, and there is some difference on it. The verse is the following: "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou nearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth : so is every one that is born of the Spirit." This verse is a prophetic al- lusion by the Savior to the work of the Spirit of God in con- version. To ascertain, therefore, how the Spirit did this work, the best way is to go to Acts 2, where the Spirit came and began the work, and there learn how he did it. When we go there, we find that he came miraculously upon the apostles, that they were all filled with him, and began to speak as he gave them utterance. Thus the Spirit spake through the apostles to the people in their own lan- guage. On that day three thousand were converted by the Spirit — not by some secret, mysterious influence, but by preaching the gospel through the apostles and teaching the people to believe, repent, and be baptized, promising par- don upon the doing of these things. And when people hear and obey these same words of the Spirit now, they are made Christians in the same way. So far as the Bible records, no man was ever made a Christian by any secret or direct influence of the Spirit upon his heart ; but tens of thousands have been, and still are, made Christians by the words of the Spirit through the apostles. If all could realize the truth of this, there would soon be a wonderful revolution in the religious world on the subject of conversion. Preach- ers—and many of them, too — are constantly teaching that sinners are converted by a secret, direct work of the Spirit upon their hearts, and use the above verse in support of it. The Savior had no reference to anything of the sort when he used the above language, as is plainly evinced through- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 357 out the book of conversions — Acts of Apostles. Not one soul, so far as that book records, was converted, as now thought, by a secret influence of the Spirit. Yet those who obey the teaching of the Spirit through the apostles are as thoroughly converted by the Spirit of God as if the Spirit were poured directly into every one's heart for that pur- pose. E. G. S. JOHN FIRST EPISTLE 1: 8 AND 3: 9 RECONCILED. Brother Seivell: Will you please reconcile 1 John 1: 8 and 1 John 3: 9 through the Gospel Advocate? The verse in the first chapter says : "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." The one in the third chapter says : "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin ; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." The first of these verses is spoken with reference to the weak- ness and imperfections of humanity as such. No man is able to live sinlessly perfect. Strive as he may, the flesh is so weak that through this weakness he will sometimes do wrong, or fall short of duty. "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak," said Jesus ; and one of the greatest manifes- tations of God's mercy is that he provided for the pardon of sins committed through weakness of the flesh when our purpose and efforts are to do right. But the one in the third chapter is in reference to the purpose and aim to do right as contrasted with the wicked people of the world who do not even try to do the Lord's will. The next verse says: "In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil." A humble and faithful child of God is striving constantly to do right and to avoid all wrong, while wicked people are all the time doing wrong, all the time living a rebellious life in the sight of God. A child of God, in whom the seed of the kingdom, the word of God, is the ruling principle of life, will never, can never, will- fully, purposely sin. But through weakness of the flesh the best of them are liable to sin ; and if they say they sin .not, they deceive themselves and the truth is not in them. Yet it may be said of them at the same time that purposely, willfully, presumptuously, they cannot sin. E. G. S. JONAH, THE PREACHING OF, ETC. Brother Seivell: Please explain the following passages: (1) Matt. 12: 20. (2) Matt. 12: 31-34, 41, 42. (3) What did Jonah preach? (1) This verse is a quotation from the Old Testament, giving, in part, and in figurative language, the character of the Son of God. "A bruised reed shall he not break, 358 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory." This is the verse, and it means that the Son of God would not be a violent man — would not do things by physical force as kings and warriors, and become a great conqueror, and bring the world under him in that sort of way. A bruised reed would be easily broken, but there would not be enough of physical force used by the Son of God in his work of saving the world to be illustrated by breaking a bruised reed or the putting out of smoking flax. The Pharisees had just held a counsel to destroy him, and he had left that place and had gone into another that he might avoid any conflict of violence at that period of his mission. The time had not then come for his death, and so he got away from a violent tumult. But when the time came for him to die to redeem others, he was as meek and gentle as a lamb through that mock trial. Not one angry word did he speak, not one violent act did he perform, through all that terrible ordeal; yet in that unresisting death and triumph over the grave he achieved the grandest victory of all time and has arranged for the settlement of all destinies in eternity. (2) In these verses the Savior is showing the difference between ordinary sins — sins through weaknesses or im- pulse — and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Through the gospel plan of salvation all manner of sins can be for- given, except this one matter of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The whole revelation of the plan of salvation is made to us by the Holy Spirit. We cannot possibly reach or form a single conception of salvation, except as the Holy Spirit reveals it to us. To blaspheme is to speak impiously or contemptuously of things sacred or divine. So when a man speaks blasphemously against the Spirit, he cuts him- self loose from any and every possible source of light or information regarding salvation. It is like a man going up into a tree and out on a limb for safety, and then cutting off the limb between himself and the tree. There is nothing left then but for him to fall into whatever danger is be- neath. If a man in any way rejects or repudiates the teaching of the Spirit through the words of the apostles, he forever cuts himself loose from all possibility of reaching salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord. Men may spec- ulate and theorize about the sin against the Holy Spirit; but it remains true that any man that is so rash as to blas- pheme, speak impiously of, or in any way cut loose from the teaching of the Spirit of God through the truth, will be sure to lose his soul. To say of the words of the Spirit, the word of God, that it is a dead letter, and to adhere to that posi- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 359 tion, is to cut himself off from all possible chance of salva- tion. Verses 41, 42 still further illustrate the same idea. The men of Nineveh heard and heeded the preaching of Jo- nah and escaped destruction. The ''queen of the south" recognized the wisdom of God through Solomon when she went from far-off Africa to hear him. But the Jewish peo- ple rejected the teaching and claims of the Son of God, al- though the Spirit of God was in him without measure. They even accused him of casting out demons through Beel- zebub, the prince of demons. In so doing they cut them- selves loose from all chance of salvation through him, show- ing plainly that they were worse than the men of Nineveh and the "queen of the south," because they regarded the word of God, the words of the Holy Spirit, through Jonah and Solomon. (3) Jonah preached that within forty days the city of Nineveh would be destroyed if the people did not repent. They repented, however, and the city was not destroyed then; but they would have been destroyed if they had not repented. These are the things the Savior referred to re- garding the preaching of Jonah. JUDAS, THE FATE OF. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain Matt. 27: 5, which reads: "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and de- parted, and went and hanged himself." Also, Acts 1 : 18, which reads: "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bow- els gushed out." I understand this to be the same Judas, buj, cannot understand why these two verses differ. Judas hung himself. The rope broke ; he fell, burst his belly, and his bowels gushed out. We do not see how any one can fail to see it. D. L. JUDAS, WAS HE THE VICTIM OF PROPHECY? Brother Sewell: Was Judas the victim of the prophecy that some one was to betray Christ into the hands of his enemies, or was he the character he made himself? And if he were what he had made him- self, is that why he was chosen one of the twelve? I do not think Judas was any victim of prophecy — that is, I am fully satisfied that Judas was not foreordained and decreed beforehand to be the very one that should betray the Son of God. But it is probable that he was chosen among the apostles because Jesus knew that he was forming the very character that would do anything like that when- ever an opportunity should be given. God never made any such decrees as that on any one. Nebuchadnezzar was se- lected of God to destroy Tyre, Egypt, and Jerusalem — not 360 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, by individual predestination before he was born, but he put him into that work because he had formed a character suitable every way for it, and for that reason God put him into it. So when the time was near that Jesus was to be betrayed into the hands of his enemies, Judas was chosen because he was fitting himself to do just such work. It was no more an eternal decree that Judas should betray Jesus than any other one of the apostles, but because he was known by the Lord to be the very sort of character that should do the work to be done in order to the establishment of the plan of salvation. Judas is spoken of as the very sort of character to do that sort of thing before the time came for it to be done. This was said of him : " Jesus an- swered them, Did not I choose you the twelve, and one of you is a devil? Now he spake of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve." (John 6: 70, 71.) The word devil means that he was wicked, under the influence of wicked aspira- tions. The word devil in this passage is from the word diabolos, which means "a false accuser, treacherous, a traitor." This signifies that Judas was already the very sort of character to do the work to be done. So in saying he was the one that should betray him, it only means that he was the very sort of man that would betray him when the time came — not that he was foreordained to do it, but that he would do it of his own accord. Again, Jesus said : "For the Son of man goeth, even as it is written of him: but woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had not been born." (Matt. 26: 24.) This shows how wicked Judas was— that he was so wicked as to deserve an awful doom. But it is clear that he made himself thus wicked by pur- suing a wicked course in life. On another occasion, when Mary had anointed the feet of Jesus with a very costly oint- ment that filled the house with the odor, "Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples, that should betray him, saith, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred shillings, and given to the poor ? Now this he said, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the bag took away what was put therein." (John 12: 4-6.) These passages show that the bent of his mind was in the wrong direction and that he was responsible for it. This one shows that he loved money and would do anything that would bring money into his hands. There is but one pas- sage that even intimates anything favorable in his charac- ter, and that was when he had betrayed Jesus and the chief priests had placed condemnation upon him. He came hast- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 361 ily into that assembly, brought the money back that they had paid him to deliver up Jesus to them, and offered it back to them, saying that he had sinned in that he had be- trayed innocent blood. But they refused to receive it. He then threw the money down at their feet and went out and hanged himself. The thing that seems to at least cast a shadow in a fa- vorable direction for Judas is the statement that he "re- pented himself." (See first part of Matt. 27.) But there is one hitch in that. The word rendered repent in that case is the Greek word metamelomai, which is never one time used where repentance is commanded in connection with obedience to the gospel. In fact, it is not used more than half a dozen times in the New Testament, all told. So there is no certainty that his repentance indicated a better life. Where repentance is commanded in view of a better life, the Greek word metanoeo is used, as when sinners are commanded to repent. The repentance of Judas may have been no more than a sort of regret, fearing some bodily harm would be done to him for what he had done. Any- way, there is no evidence that he meant any change of life morally. Hence there is precious little room for sympathy on the ground of fatality through decrees or as to any thought that he meant really a betterment of his life be- yond some sort of regret for that one deed. The apostle Peter also said some very strong things in regard to Judas and his character and destiny. (See Acts 1.) JUDAS, WAS HE COMPELLED TO BETRAY CHRIST? Brother Seivell: There was some discussion in our Sunday school recently as to our Savior's betrayal. One brother of some intelli- gence advanced the idea that it was a matter of compulsion on the part of Judas in order to fulfill a prophecy. Kindly explain this in full. I know of no scriptural reason for any one to say that Judas betrayed the Savior under compulsion. If he was compelled to do such a deed, then God must have com- pelled him. If he did, then Judas was not to be blamed in the matter. In that case it would not have been the deed of Judas at all, and there could have been no guilt upon him if he was compelled to do it. It would have been the deed of God himself, if he compelled Judas to do the deed. But the Scriptures put a very different phase upon it, as the following indicates : 'Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, and said, What are ye willing to give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they weighed unto him thirty pieces of silver. 362 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, And from that time he sought opportunity to deliver him unto them." (Matt. 26: 14-16.) I do not see how lan- guage could more plainly express a voluntary transaction than this language does in regard to Judas. He speaks as if it was altogether a matter of his own choice, and no mat- ter of compulsion about it. It is very true that God or- dained that Christ should be put to death, but he did not or- dain that Judas was the particular man that should betray him. The proposition he made to the priests plainly indi- cated that if they would pay him a satisfactory amount he would deliver him unto them ; but at the same time it indi- cated that he would not, if they did not pay a satisfactory amount. Hence the proposition plainly shows a voluntary transaction on the part of Judas. This transaction was before the passover night, and it is said that "from that time he sought opportunity to deliver him unto them." The whole passage shows that it was a voluntary and deliberate transaction on the part of Judas. God does not decree that certain men shall do certain wicked things and then destroy them for it ; but he does decree that if men will do wickedly, they shall suffer for it. Another passage says Judas was "a thief." (John 12 : 6.) Jesus also said: "Did not I choose you the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" (John 6: 70.) God did not make him a devil ; but Christ likely chose him because he was already one, and was the very man that would do that awful deed for money when the opportunity was offered; and so he did. Jesus also said to the apostles that one of them would betray him, and that it would be the one that dipped his hand with him in the dish; and he then said: "The Son of man goeth, even as it is written of him: but woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed ! good were it for that man if he had not been born. And Judas, who betrayed him, answered and said, Is it I, Rabbi ? He saith unto him, Thou hast said." (Matt, 26: 20-25.) When Jesus said, "Thou hast said," it was as much as if he had said: "Yes, you are the very man." Because men get wicked and fit themselves for destruction is no proof that God has foreordained that they should of necessity be wicked ; but he has decreed that those who will be wicked and will not serve him shall be eternally lost. Such was the case with Judas. It is also a fact not to be forgotten that Judas fully confessed his own guilt in the betrayal. "Then Judas, who betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood." BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 363 (Matt. 27: 3-5.) Thus he shouldered the whole matter, saying: "I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood." This settles the whole matter, showing that Judas acted on his own volition, not under an unalterable decree, saying: "I have sinned." And when the priests would not do anything toward relieving him from his sin, his con- science goaded him so heavily that he threw down the money at their feet and went out and hanged himself. Thus he fully and squarely assumed the whole responsi- bility and did not even hint that he was compelled to do what he had done. JUDAS, HOW THE DEVIL INFLUENCED. Please explain John 13: 2. Was it a subtile influence over which he had no control? The expression is: "The devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, ... to betray him." The in- fluence was just such as presents itself in the way of temp- tation to every individual in life. All men are tempted to do evil by the presentation of motives. Every man is tempted to steal at some time in his life, to commit adultery, to kill. The devil is the author of all temptation to sin. I take it, he tempted Judas in this way. Judas was a money lover. The prospects of Jesus were under a cloud. It seemed that he was about to fail. The suggestion came to Judas that as Jesus is about to fail, you can make money by betraying him. His weak faith, his lack of true strength of character, and his love of money caused him to yield and betray the Savior. Every other disciple was tempted as he was. They did not feel it so strongly, be- cause they would not parley with it ; their strength of char- acter was greater. They had a truer regard for right, hence did not run in the way of temptation. We can see nothing in the influence brought to bear on Judas differ- ent from that brought to bear on any other man that par- leys with the evil. Nor do we believe Judas' sin was greater than that of any other being who deliberately be- trays right for the sake of gain. There are thousands of men in the church, even among the teachers in the church, that for gain and popularity betray the truth, do the same thing that Judas did, make for themselves the same char- acter; only they do not show his remorse nor have the grace to hang themselves, as he hung himself ; but they will share the same fate in eternity. 364 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, JUDAS, WAS HE AT THE SUPPER? Was Judas Iscariot at the Lord's Supper in the city? And at what supper was it that his hand was on the table? (Luke 22: 21.) Any one can take the accounts given (Matt. 26 : 24 ; Mark 14: 18; Luke 22: 14-21), and in reading these he has all the scriptures bearing on the subject before him. They speak of the twelve being present at the Supper, of Judas being present ; and then the Savior commanded : "Drink ye all of it." There is no account of Judas or any of them having left. John (13: 30) says: "He then having re- ceived the sop went immediately out." Some think this meant before the Supper was finished, but I have always thought Judas partook of the Supper before going out. I think no one would have doubted this, but that they think the Savior ought not to have done it. They construe the language to make it teach what they think was proper for the Savior to do, and not according to its natural import. This is wrong and will pervert the whole Scriptures. The reason for this interpretation is, they think it is wrong to participate when wicked persons do it. I think it morally certain that the inspired apostles participated in the Lord's Supper with Ananias and Sapphira ; and we presume there has never been an occasion of observing the Lord's Sup- per from that day to this but that persons unworthy have participated in the observance. JUDGE THE WORLD, CHRIST COMING TO. Please give me all the information you can through the Gospel Ad- vocate on Matt. 16 : 27, 28. Verse 27 has reference to the time when Christ will come with the angels to judge the world — the final end of time, when time shall be wound up and all men receive the re- ward of their doing, when the righteous shall be taken home to everlasting bliss and the wicked will be cast into everlasting ruin. Verse 20 refers to the establishment of his kingdom on earth. We are not to understand a literal personal coming of the Messiah is meant, but a coming in his kingdom, when his personal reign shall begin. He came in his kingdom on the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit came in power upon his apostles and enabled them to fully establish the kingdom of Christ upon earth; and all the apostles, save Judas, were still living when the kingdom of Christ came. JUDGING, THE SCRIPTURES ON. Brother Lipscomb: I would like to have the scriptures on judging. It seems that in some things we are to judge and be judged, and that in other things we are neither to judge nor be judged. I would also BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 365 like for some one to show the relation of the mercy of God to the mercy of man. After a man has accepted God's mercy in making a way possible for man to work out his own salvation, is he then de- pendent upon his own mercy for eternal life? We pray to God to for- give us as we have forgiven our fellow men. "With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." Therefore with the same mercy that we show in judging others or in our dealings with them we shall be judged by the Lord. We are commanded: "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matt. 7: 1, 2.) The word judge here clearly means to judge harshly or unjustly. Do not be too ready to judge evil of persons, for you will be so judged as you judge. Then there are cases in which Christians must judge in the sense of determining what is right between man and man and what is right for us to do. This is fully set forth in Rom. 2: 1-8. Then Paul (Col. 2: 16, R. V.) says: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a Sabbath day: which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ's." These all pertained to the Jewish law — the shadow, or type, of the Christian that followed it. Paul was here commanding them not to go back to these types, which were a shadow of that which was to come. Do not go back to them so as to give ground for others to con- demn you for going back to Judaism. God plainly teaches that unless we show mercy to others, help those in need, forgive those who trespass against us, God will not forgive our sins and trespasses against him. Unless we are for- given, we cannot be saved. Into the new heavens and the new earth no unclean thing can enter, but only the clean — those purged from sin by the blood of Christ. When a man accepts God's mercy, he does it on the conditions God lays down ; he accepts it by walking in the way God has or- dained for his children to walk. To refuse to walk in that way is to refuse to accept God's mercy, for his mercy flows only in the channels he has marked out. Whoso refuses to walk in the channel in which his mercy flows refuses to ac- cept of his mercy. This means, too, we must become like God in our spirit if we dwell with him. KING JAMES TRANSLATORS, WERE THEY IMMER- SIONISTS? Brothei^ Lipscomb: Were the men who gave us the Authorized (or King James) translation of the Scriptures immersionists — all or any great number of them? In A.D. 1606 King James selected fifty-four scholars to make a new translation of the Bible under rules and restric- 366 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, tions prescribed by him — suggested, no doubt, by the high functionaries of the church in his day. Immersion was long preached in the English Church, and gave way so gradually to affusion that it is difficult to tell when the change took place. Public sentiment and popular practice always change before the laws and practices are changed. Dr. Wall says: "The offices or liturgies for public bap- tism in the Church of England did all along, so far as I can learn, enjoin dipping, without any mention of pouring or sprinkling/' The "Manual of Service," printed in 1530, the twenty- first year of Henry VIII., gives this direction for public baptism: "Then let the priest take the child, and, having asked the name, baptize him by dipping him in the water thrice." In 1549, the second year of King Edward VI., the order stands thus : "Shall dip it in the water thrice." Then it is added: "And if the child be weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it." This is the first intimation of pouring or sprinkling we find, but it had been practiced before the law was changed. When the Authorized Version was made, the practice had become more general; but whether the translators held to the original practice, it is difficult to tell. The rules of the Church of England still require immersion. Bishop Coxe, of New York, who edited the "Ante-Nicene Fathers," noted for his learning, in a letter of April 16, 1892, said : "In the Church of England dipping is even now the primary rule. But it is not the ordinary custom. It survived far down into Queen Elizabeth's time, but seems to have died out early in the seventeenth century. It never has became obsolete. I myself have baptized by dipping both adults and babes." Queen Elizabeth reigned from 1558 to 1603. So that immersion as the practice died out early in the seventeenth century. That is the time our version was made. King James succeeded Elizabeth. So the change in practice took place about the time the translation was made. I know of no means of learning the views of the men engaged in the work ; but the popular tendency was for affusion. Charles Wheatly, of London, a learned Episcopalian au- thor, in a treatise entitled "The Book of Common Prayer," says: "Nor is aspersion or sprinkling ordinarily used to this day in any country that was never subject to the pope ; and among those that submitted to his authority, England was the last place where it was received ; though it has BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 367 never obtained so far as to be enjoined, dipping having always been prescribed by the rubric." (Page 349.) So immersion is still the law in the Church of England, although sprinkling is the practice. So it is difficult to tell what the translators believed. Sprinkling had become the practice about the time the translation was made. D. L. KING, IS CHRIST A, NOW? Is Christ a King? If so, when was he crowned? Can he be a King and a Prince at the same time? How can he be a King and an Advocate at the same time? If Christ is not a King now, I cannot see when he ever will be. Paul (1 Cor. 15: 24-28) says: "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father ; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. . . . And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all and in all." He reigns now, will reign till the last enemy is destroyed; then he (Christ) will be subject unto him (God) that put all things under him. He now possesses an authority that he will not possess when he, having conquered the last enemy, will become subject to God, "that God may be all and in all." Paul (1 Tim. 6 : 15) says: "Who [Christ] is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords." Christ clearly has as much authority as he will ever have. In the exercise of that authority it takes time to overcome his enemies. When they are overcome, he will surrender the kingdom he has rescued up to the Father and be subject to him. The word prince is often used in the sense of king. Webster defines it: "The one of highest rank, a sovereign, a monarch; the son of a king or emperor, or the issue of a royal family." Jesus Christ is the Son of the King or Emperor of the uni- verse. He is in the exercise of kingly powers and prerog- atives. He was given the kingly prerogative when all power in heaven and earth was given into his hand. If we will follow him, we will find his power sufficient to save us. No truth can be elicited by trying to draw a distinction be- tween him as Prince and King, and the effort to draw these unreal and speculative distinctions indicates a disposition to follow untaught and unprofitable questions. 368 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, KINGDOM OF CHRIST, WHEN AND WHERE SET UP, AND ITS PRESENT EXISTENCE ON EARTH. [Outlines of a sermon delivered at Bakerville, Tenn., July 12, 1894.] In Dan. 2 we are told of a great image that King Nebu- chadnezzar saw at Babylon. Daniel interpreted the vision for him, and told him that this image represented four great kingdoms of earth ; that Nebuchadnezzar was king of of you is a devil ?" (John 6: 70.) God did not make him a devil ; but Christ likely chose him because he was already the first (the Babylonian), and that three other kingdoms would follow, understood to be the Medo-Persian, the Gre- cian, and the Roman kingdom, or empire. Daniel then said : "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever." (Verse 44.) "In the days of these kings," puts it in the days of the Roman empire, the time of the Caesars ; for the Roman empire was in full power while Christ was on earth and till long after his death. Hence this passage locates the establishment of the kingdom of Christ during the Roman empire, as spoken of by Daniel above. Having shown that the kingdom was to be set up in the days of the Roman kings, we then proceed to locate the time more definitely, quoting from the first part of Isa. 2, as follows: "And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills ; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths : for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." In this passage there are three items that will assist us in deciding the precise time in the days of the Roman kings when the kingdom of God should be established — first, the expression, "the last days ;" secondly, "all nations shall flow unto it;" and, thirdly, "and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." We will examine the last- named item first. The word of the Lord that was to build the mountain of the Lord's house was to go forth from Jerusalem. What word of the Lord, then, did go forth from Jerusalem in the days of the Caesars? Preaching began during the time of these kings at different places and by different persons. "In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 369 wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye: for the king- dom of heaven is at hand." Here is a proclamation about the kingdom, saying it was then at hand, which means it was then near by — as expressed in another place, "nigh unto you." This proclamation shows the kingdom near, but this preaching did not begin in and go forth from Jeru- salem. It began in the wilderness of Judea, and hence not the preaching, not the word of the Lord, that was to go forth from Jerusalem. Therefore, John the Baptist did not set up the kingdom; for he was never in Jerusalem, never preached there at all, so far as the record shows. But all understand that the above passage from Isaiah re- fers to the establishment of the kingdom of Christ. Hence, John's preaching was not at the right place to be the word of the Lord that was to go forth from Jerusalem. When soon afterwards Christ began preaching the same tidings — that the kingdom of heaven is at hand — he began not in Jerusalem, but in Galilee, almost at the other end of the land of Canaan from Jerusalem. Hence the preaching of Christ during his personal ministry was not the word of the Lord that was to go forth from Jerusalem, which was to build the house of the Lord — the kingdom of Christ. Then Christ called his twelve apostles and sent them out to pro- claim the same kingdom of heaven at hand that John and Christ preached. But these did not begin in Jerusalem. They were called and sent out in Galilee, and did not begin at Jerusalem, nor did they ever preach at Jerusalem at all, so far as we know. And hence we have found no preach- ing that began at Jerusalem. Jesus afterwards appointed seventy and sent them out to preach ; but they did not begin in Jerusalem, nor are we informed that they ever preached in Jerusalem at all. These were the only persons that preached before the death of Christ, and none of them began in Jerusalem. Hence the kingdom was not set up yet. In the next place, all nations were to be embraced. None of the preaching thus far examined went to the Gentiles. John the Baptist did not go to the Gentiles. Christ said he was "not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Is- rael." When he sent out the twelve, Jesus forbade them to go among the Gentiles. So none of this preaching was the word of the Lord that was to go forth from Jerusa- lem, and hence the kingdom was not established yet. Next, there is not a word about the last days in all this preaching thus far examined. Hence the three items named above are all wanting as to all the preaching done from the beginning of John's ministry to the death of Christ. And, 370 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, besides, right up to the death of Christ the kingdom is spoken of as yet future, as Joseph of Arimathea, when he buried Christ, was waiting for the kingdom of God.. Christ said but shortly before his death: "Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." (Mark 9: 1.) Hence, while the kingdom was not set up at the death of Christ, there were people then living that would see it come with power before they should taste of death. Next we will see what occurred soon after the death of Christ. When Jesus had risen from the dead and was about to ascend to heaven, he locates the place as indicated by Isaiah. He said : "Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Je- rusalem." (Luke 24: 46, 47.) Here is a command to do preaching that was to begin at Jerusalem. This is a rec- ord by Luke of the last and great commission of Christ to his apostles ; and that this commission referred to the same word of the Lord that Isaiah said should go forth from Jerusalem, there can be no doubt in the mind of any that will examine the word of the Lord. Jesus also went right on and told these apostles to tarry in Jerusalem till endued with power from on high. This locates the beginning of the preaching of the gospel of Christ, which was to estab- lish the church of God, the kingdom of Christ, on earth. This definitely locates the place. It also includes "all nations," as expressed by Isaiah. The record of this same commission by Matthew and Mark also brings in "all na- tions." In Matthew it reads : "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them," etc. Mark puts it: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature," etc. These records of the divine commission settle the question as to "all nations" and Jerusalem as the place of beginning the proclamation of the gospel of Christ, by which the church of God, the kingdom of Christ, should be established. Next we go to the day of Pentecost, about a week after the commission was given, and there in Jerusalem we find them tarrying, as Jesus had appointed them. We also find that the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles that very day and endowed them with power from on high, as Jesus had appointed them; and on that very day, when Peter began preaching, he explained this miraculous outpouring of the Holy Spirit as a fulfillment of prophecy, saying: "And it BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 371 shall come to pass in the last days, ... I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh," etc. This identifies the "last days" as mentioned by Isaiah. So this occasion fully meets and fills the three items expressed by Isaiah. It was the "last days," and the preaching to be done was to em- brace all nations, and they were actually in Jerusalem, whence the word of the Lord was to go forth and where Jesus charged them to begin ; and they did begin that very day, and did a kind of preaching that day that never was done by any one before that day since time began. Three thousand souls were that day added; and thus the church, or kingdom of God, was that very day fully established on earth. This same gospel that was preached that day in Jerusalem and afterwards extended to all nations is still preached and will still be preached till time is no more. The day of Pentecost, therefore, dates the full establish- ment of the kingdom of Christ, the church of God, on earth. We have also seen that the cry was made from the begin- ning of John's preaching till the death of Christ that "the kingdom of heaven is at hand ;" but after the day of Pen- tecost this cry was never uttered again to the end of the New Testament. The kingdom of heaven had now come. and there was no need it should be said to be at hand any more. Now, regarding the idea that the kingdom of Christ is not set up yet, would it not be strange that John, Christ, and the apostles should continue to say "the kingdom of heaven is at hand" right up to the death of Christ and then never be heard again, if it be true that the kingdom of Christ is not yet set up ? It has been now nearly two thousand years since the death of Christ, and may be more than as many more before the end comes, when Adventists say the king- dom will be established. These things are inexplicable if the kingdom of Christ be not yet set up. But, understand- ing that the kingdom was set up on the day of Pentecost, all is plain enough. And, then, in addition to this, there are numbers of passages after the day of Pentecost that speak of the kingdom of God as actually present. In Col. 1 : 13 Paul says of God : "Who hath delivered us from the powers of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son." This passage shows beyond the possibility of a doubt that the kingdom of Christ was actually present in the days of Paul, and that he and the Colossians were then in it ; and no sort of argument can possibly change this em- phatic language. Again: "As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children, that ye would walk worthy of God, who 372 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, hath called you unto his kingdom and glory." (1 Thess. 2: 11, 12.) "Who hath called." This expresses something already done, and shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that the kingdom of God was then actually present, and that Paul and the Thessalonians were in it at the time he wrote this letter, which was about twenty years after the day of Pentecost. No sort of argument can do away with this plain and positive passage. And, besides, the word ren- dered unto is eis in Greek, which means literally into — "hath called you into his kingdom" If this does not teach that the kingdom was actually present, it teaches nothing at all. Then, again, in the last of Iieb. 12 we have this lan- guage: "Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear." Receiving a kingdom. This passage also indicates plainly, and with- out any sort of doubt at all, that the kingdom of Christ was then actually present, and that the Hebrew Christians were in it. Thus we have the church, the kingdom of God, spoken of regularly after the day of Pentecost as actually present and people entering into it, while there is not one single time the intimation that the kingdom is yet at hand. We examined more passages in which the word kingdom is used than where the word church is used, because the Adventists admit that the church has been established, but deny that the kingdom has. We also quoted the following passage from Amos, which is one of the strongholds of the Adventists to prove that the kingdom has not yet been es- tablished on earth : "In that day will I raise up the taberna- cle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches there- of ; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the Lord that doeth this." (Amos 9 : 11, 12.) This pas- sage, without any doubt, refers to the church of God, the kingdom of God, on earth ; for when the counsel of the apos- tles and elders was asked regarding the matter of requiring the Gentiles to be circumcised, the apostle James quotes this very passage and shows that it was all fulfilled already when the Gentiles were called into the blessings of the gospel in common with the Jews. (Acts 15: 16, 17.) This forever settles the meaning of this prophecy, as it was at that time fulfilled, and cannot relate to some future kingdom. Other passages besides these were used in the discourse; but BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 373 some of these, and more besides, will come up in my re- sponse to Cargile. So these may suffice now. This brief presentation of the matter the better enables the readers to understand Cargile's review of it and my reply to him. E. G. S. KINGDOM, WHEN THE, ESTABLISHED. Brother Seivell: Please explain Matt. 16: 28. The Savior said to his disciples: "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." The passage is understood to have had reference to the full establishment of the spiritual kingdom of Christ, the church of God, the church of Christ. It could not have referred to anything else ; for the establishment of the king- dom of Christ, the gospel dispensation, is the only thing that has ever occurred since the utterance of the language that possibly could fill the requirements of the language of the Savior ; and that was to take place in the future, not in the then past. When the language was uttered, Christ had not died, his blood had not been shed, and no plan of salva- tion had been provided by him. But on the day of Pente- cost all things were ready; the great sin offering had been made, the blood had been shed, Christ had ascended, had been placed at the right hand of God, had been made "both Lord and Christ." On that day the apostles were in read- iness to begin the gospel proclamation ; the Holy Spirit came upon them on that day, filled them, inspired them, giving utterance to the words they used in their preaching, which was the first preaching ever done in the name, by the au- thority, of Christ. About three thousand were added that day to the already prepared material. That grand occur- rence was afterwards called "the beginning" by the apostle Peter. It is a fact, also, that all these things occurred shortly enough after their utterance for most of those pres- ent when the language was uttered to have been living on that day and long afterwards. It is also true that the preaching done on that day continued to be done to the close of the New Testament, and will continue till time shall end. Christ also has from that day been "head over all things to the church," even "King of kings, and Lord of lords." KINGDOM OF GOD— SHALL WE PRAY FOR IT TO COME? Is it not right to pray the prayer the Lord taught his disciples to pray, when he told them not to use vain repetitions as the heathen? Some object to praying: "Thy kingdom come." As we profess to take the Bible for our guide and believe just what it teaches, if we take anything from it, our name is taken out of the Lamb's book of life. 374 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, I think if I pray the Lord's prayer and leave that out, I will be tak- ing from the word of God. It is not taking from the word of God to have reference to time and place and person, and so rightly divide the word of God, applying each scripture to those for whom it was intended. Paul (Rom. 3: 19) says: "We know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law." This means that it would be wrong to take things spoken in the law and apply them to persons who were not under the law. To fail to discriminate as to the persons and character and to apply scripture indiscrimi- nately to all is to make nonsense and confusion of the Scriptures. To apply scripture given to one class of per- sons to those of a different class is to "change the truth of God into a lie." The one great consideration of Jesus and the apostles and disciples during his personal sojourn on earth was the es- tablishment and opening of his kingdom on earth. This occurred on Pentecost. It was then called "the great and notable day of the Lord." It was for this they were com- manded to pray. For us to take no note of our changed relation to this event and make the same prayer in the same sense would make nonsense of God's word and make fools of ourselves. To pray for God to give us something that can only be given once, and he has already given it, mocks God. Jesus taught his disciples to pray, "Thy kingdom come ;" and this prayer was answered on the day of Pentecost. It came, was organized, and opened to men there once for all. It is folly to pray for a repetition of this. Men pray, "Thy kingdom come;" but none of them pray for it to come in the sense these early disciples were taught to pray this. You may ask any man who prays this, and who has a thought as to what he prays for, and every one will explain he prays it in a different sense from what Christ taught his disciples to pray it. It is as much a taking from God's word to change the sense as to change the words. If we use it in a different sense, it is much better to use words that clearly convey that sense, and not confuse our own minds and the minds of others by using the words of the Savior in a sense not used by him. No man uses them now in the sense he used them. It is better in changing the sense to change the words ; and it is not taking from the word of God or changing his word for us who live after the establishment of the kingdom of Christ on earth to fail to pray for its establishment simply because he commanded those who lived before it came to pray that it might come BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 375 We had as well pray for the coming of Messias himself be- cause those who lived before his coming prayed that he might come. Those who pray now, "Thy kingdom come/' mean that it may spread, that it may increase in its influ- ence, and in its spirit may prevail both in the world and in our own lives. But it is much better to say exactly what we mean than to change the meaning of words used by Christ. KINGDOM, THE, AND "FOOLISH AND DIVISIVE" DIS- CUSSION. Brother Lipscomb: (1) Does Dan. 2: 44 have reference to the same thing as does John in Rev. 1: 9, and also Paul in Col. 1: 13? (2) Has Jesus a kingdom now? Has he subjects now? Has he terri- tory now? We have brethren here who claim to be stanch, loyal dis- ciples, some who have reached their fourscore years, who contend that Christ will have no kingdom until his second coming; that the church is not the kingdom and has no relative value whatever with the word kingdom. (1) I think the kingdom of God in each of the places re- ferred to means the same thing — the kingdom that the God of heaven set up "in the days of those kings" (the Ro- man kings) . (2) Paul thought Jesus had a kingdom when he wrote this letter to the Colossians, and John thought he was in this kingdom when he wrote Rev. 1 : 9 : "I John, your brother and partaker with you in the tribulation and king- dom and patience which are in Jesus, was in the isle that is called Patmos." These passages indicate the presence of a kingdom on earth, and a number of others teach it as clearly. (Read Matt. 12: 28; 21: 31, 43; Mark 9: 1; 15: 43 ; Luke 9 : 11 ; 11 : 20 ; 6 : 20 ; 7 : 28 ; 9 : 27 ; 12 : 32 ; 16 : 16 ; 17 : 21 ; 1 Thess. 2 : 12 ; Heb. 12 : 28 ; Rev. 1 : 9.) All these passages and a number of others say the kingdom of God or Christ was in existence, had a territory, and subjects in that kingdom. To a man that reads these passages and doubts their teaching there is little use to argue. The ar- guing such questions is wrong. All discussion of these questions is foolish and divisive. Who ever heard of such discussions in apostolic times and among spiritual men? Where are such, questions as those raised found in the Bi- ble? A man that draws or tries to draw such questions into discussion is crazy or worse. A man believes Jesus will come with greater power in time to come than he has heretofore. Such a thought need not be sinful even if wrong. But to make a hobby of such questions to raise strife is evil on both sides. It is raising strife over noth- ing. They are questions over nothing. 376 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, KINGDOM, THE, NOW EXISTS. Brother Sewell: I want you to explain Dan. 2: 44, 45. In conver- sation with a Baptist on the setting up of the kingdom, he says that the above scripture has not been fulfilled and will not be until the second coming of Christ, or in the beginning of the millennial age. I understand that all Christians are now in that kingdom, and that Je- sus is their King. According to the language in Daniel, the kingdom spoken of in the verses referred to is the kingdom of Christ on earth now. When he says, "In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom," the "these kings" means the kings of the Roman empire, the Caesars ; and it is a matter of certain historical fact that Christ came, was crucified and rose, and ascended to heaven in the days of the Caesars; and when he sent down the Holy Spirit upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost, endowing them with the Spirit of God, the promised power from on high, they on that day for the first time on earth preached the gos- pel, the plan of salvation, through Jesus our Lord; and on that day three thousand were saved by a plan and in a way that no soul of earth ever was before. But after that day no soul was ever saved in any other way than the three thousand were; hence on that day the kingdom of Christ was set up, and has been in existence ever since. It is spoken of both as a church and as a kingdom in such a sense as to leave no doubt but that the words church and kingdom are both applied to the same institution, and indi- cate that it was in full existence at the time mentioned. See Heb. 12. In that chapter both these words are used as referring to the same institution and as existing at the time mentioned. The apostle speaks of having "come to the general assembly and church of the firstborn;" and then in the close of the same chapter, and referring to the same institution, he says : "Wherefore we receiving a king- dom which cannot be moved." Thus putting it in the pres- ent tense shows beyond controversy that the kingdom of Christ was in existence in the days of the apostles, and the same kingdom is in existence now and will be till the close of time. KINGDOM, WHAT MEANT BY? Brother Sewell: (1) Please explain Matt. 13: 28-30. I under- stand the kingdom spoken of in this parable to have reference to the church of Christ. If so, in what way would the servants be likely to root out the wheat in separating themselves from the tares? (2) Also, harmonize verse 30 with 2 Thess. 3:6. (3) Do the "tares" rep- resent disorderly brethren in the church to-day? (1) Yes, it means the church of Christ; but the field is the world, the tares are the wicked people of the world. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 377 The field, the world, is the territory in which the church and the wicked people of the world all live. To "root up" would be to destroy. Hence the church must not try to destroy, to exterminate, the wicked. If they were to un- dertake that, they would not always be able to distinguish between the righteous and the wicked, and would sometimes "root up" (destroy) the wheat (the righteous). On the other hand, the righteous should seek to convert and save the wicked rather than destroy them. Jesus said that he did "not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them;" and his people should try to do the same thing. The field is not the church, but the world, and that is why there would be danger of destroying some of the righteous if they were to undertake to destroy the wicked. The Lord will attend to their case at the end of the world. (2) If you will only take notice that the field is the world, not the church, you will readily see these verses are already in harmony. The church is commanded to with- draw from disorderly members, but it is not to try to de- stroy the wicked people of the world. (3) Most certainly not. There are often wicked people in the church, and these are to be withdrawn from. But the "tares" are not in the church, but in the world ; and all the finally wicked will be sent to their doom at the end of the world. The trouble all comes from considering the field the church instead of the world, as Jesus distinctly put it. KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE THIEF. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Matt. 27: 44 reads thus: "The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth." Mark 15: 32 reads: "And they that were crucified with him reviled him." Luke 23: 43 reads: "To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Ministers say that one of these thieves was saved. Is it true? It is very certain from Matthew and Mark that both thieves railed on him at first — tormented him over his claim to be the Son of God. But one of them afterwards repented, as shown by Luke, or else he was speaking iron- ically, and still railing on him, when he said: "Lord, re- member me when thou comest into thy kingdom." It is probable that when this thief saw the wonderful manifes- tations that occurred at Jerusalem during the crucifixion, he was thereby convinced that Jesus was the Son of God, and began to plead for mercy. But whether the thief was saved or not is a very differ- ent question. His petition was to be remembered by Jesus when he should come into his kingdom. But what did he 378 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, mean by the expression, "thy kingdom ?" There is not a single thing to indicate that the thief had any proper con- ception of the spiritual kingdom that Christ was to estab- lish, either in this world or that which is to come. Even the apostles themselves who had been with Jesus during all his ministry and had heard all his teaching did not at that time understand this; and up to the very time that Jesus ascended to heaven the apostles still thought he had come to establish an earthly kingdom, as evinced by their ques- tion just before his ascension, which is: "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" This plainly shows that the apostles, who had a hundred times better opportunity to understand the nature of the kingdom of Christ than the thief, did not understand it. There is no reason, therefore, to conclude that the thief had any- thing in his mind but an earthly, temporal kingdom. And in this case the thief simply thought that Christ would at once come down from the cross and establish his kingdom by miraculous power, and that he could also save him from death. This is, almost to a certainty, all that the thief meant ; while the answer of Jesus was to let him know that both of them would die that very day and go into the unseen world. We have no idea that anything more than this was meant. But even if we were to admit that the thief was really saved, that would bring no comfort to any one now, for it is certain from the teaching of the New Testament that no one is ever saved that way now. Paul, in Heb. 9 : 17, says : "For a testament is of force after men are dead : otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liv- eth." The plan of salvation was not completed when the thief made his petition. The Savior was still living, and his last will had not yet taken effect, was not then in force. But he died that very day, and from that very day until now no sinner has been saved except by believing the gos- pel, repenting, and being baptized, so far as the word of God indicates. Therefore it is no use for the people to spend time trying to show that the thief was saved, for not a sinner on earth can be saved that way now. So men were once pardoned, saved, by offering sin offerings and burnt offerings and burnt incense, and such like; but who can be saved that way now? Not one. And we may just as well expect pardon through the offering of a lamb or kid as to expect to be saved as the thief was. No matter, therefore, how often men might prove that the thief was saved, it is at the same time true that no mortal of earth will be saved that way since the establishment of the kingdom of God by the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost in the city of Jeru- salem, and the attempt is only a waste of time. E. G. S. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 379 KINGDOM, THE KEYS OF THE, ETC. Brother Lipscomb: Please explain through the Gospel Advocate what you understand Christ meant by "the keys of the kingdom." (Matt. 16: 19.) Does the last clause of the same verse give the apos- tles right to make laws for the church, or what does it mean? Please give us some light on who should and who should not officiate at the Lord's Supper. The use of keys is to lock and unlock, to close and open the door. Peter was authorized to open the door of the kingdom to the world. He made known the terms on which men could enter and the terms that would bar their en- trance into the kingdom, or church, of God. "He that be- lieveth and is baptized" tells the conditions of entrance; "He that believeth not shall be damned" gives the condi- tion that bars an entrance; "Repent, and be baptized," gives the conditions of entrance. To refuse this is the bar to the entrance. If it was intended to ask why keys are in the plural, I do not believe it has any significance. Keys is more euphonious and more easily pronounced than key; so the plural form was used. The clause, "whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatso- ever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven," only means to say the Spirit shall guide in this work of declaring the conditions of entrance, and they will all be sanctioned in heaven. There is no legislative power for the church of God, save God himself. The apostles were only the agents through whom God made known his laws. A church that has other laws or introduces anything not ordained by God into its service so far rejects God as the lawmaker and ceases to be a church of God. I have never found a word in the Scriptures about officiating at the Lord's table or any service of God. The Lord's table is for his disciples. They are to give thanks and give one to an- other. All formality in it is without divine warrant. One, of course, leads in giving thanks. This is not officiating, for any disciple can do this. It does not pertain to any of- fice. The elders, or those who preside, can call on any dis- ciple to do this. He only expresses aloud and leads in what every disciple does. That one who stands up and hands the bread and wine to the others any more officiates in the sense of official duties than he who partakes is a priestcraft that does not pertain to the new institution. Every one is a king and priest to offer his own sacrifice or offering to God. Each should break of the loaf for himself as each sips of the cup for himself. He who stands up and gives thanks is not a whit above him who receives and partakes 380 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, of it. I find not a thing taught concerning this except all as brethren and equals are to participate in the service. One has as much right as another, save the elders should direct and see all things are done decently and in order. KISS, THE HOLY. Brother Lipscomb: I have recently been thrown among the Dunk- ards, and have heard a good deal about the "holy kiss." Are the in- structions given by the apostles an injunction to kiss, or only to regu- late a custom which prevailed at that time? At what time, and where, did the Savior wash the disciples' feet? I think, beyond all doubt, the object of the Holy Spirit in referring to the kiss was to regulate a social custom, and not to institute an ordinance. It was customary to greet with a kiss, and the apostles wrote it should be a holy one, not a lascivious one. The ordinances were instituted and observed by Jesus and recorded in his life and teachings as part of his work. They were observed by the apostles in their practice as set forth in the Acts of the Apostles, and then emphasized in the Epistles. Note how baptism and the Lord's Supper were ordained by Jesus, practiced by the apostles and churches as set forth in the Acts of the Apos- tles, and then urged in the Epistles by specific directions for observing them. Jesus said nothing of it, never kissed or was kissed, save by Judas, so far as we are told. There is no account in Acts of any such custom by the apostles or churches, and it is only mentioned in the concluding saluta- tions of three or four Epistles. Institutions and practices ordained by God, to be observed by his people, are never treated in this way. It is mentioned only when the apostles were sending salutations to others, being thereby reminded of their method of salutation. If it was intended as an ordinance of God, I do not see why it was treated so differ- ently from his other ordinances and commands. Brother Sew ell: Please explain what is meant by the "holy kiss." (1 Thess. 5: 26.) I have understood that it was but one of the salu- tations, and that when it was used it should be "holy;" but this com- mands us to salute all the brethren with a holy kiss. Can we lay aside this plain command? If not, how can it be obeyed? It was customary among the patriarchs and Jews to kiss each other as a salutation and as an expression of friendship and confidence, as hand-shaking is in this country. Kiss- ing, it is said, is still the common salutation in the Oriental countries where the patriarchs and Jews lived. Kissing as a salutation has been quite common among lady acquaint- ances in this country ; but promiscuous kissing between men and women has never been common as a salutation, except BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 381 among close family relations. Promiscuous kissing be- tween men and women might not be always holy. Hence the New Testament emphasizes to Christians that kiss each other that their kissing must be holy. The custom of salut- ing by a kiss did not originate with Christianity. It had long been customary among the Jews and other Orientals as a salutation, and was kept up among Christians when Christianity was established. So the Lord did not forbid it, did not demand that it should cease, but safeguarded it by putting the word holy before it. KISSING, THE ORGAN, ETC. Brother Lipscomb: I see in the papers lately a great deal about the organ in "church worship;" and since we are to speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent, and since the Bi- ble says so little concerning the organ, I think all that has been said amounts to very little. Some say that "we do wrong in doing any- thing the inspired apostles did not teach the brethren to do at that time." Now, any sane man knows it is just as wrong for us to leave undone anything taught by the apostles as to do anything not taught by them, and they exhorted the brethren to greet one another with holy kisses. If we were to practice such now, we would be called "Kissers" instead of "Campbellites." What do you say? Shall we let out to kissing every Lord's day or not? I, for one, say no; for it would cause a fuss, and a shameful report would get out on the church that would hinder the cause of Christ all over the land. But now back to the organ question. Let us carefully examine Ps. 87. The Psalmist here is speaking of, or rather pointing to, the coming of Christ and his kingdom. In verse 7 we read: "As well the singers as the players on instruments shall be there." An apostle tells us that all that was written was written for our admonition and our learning. The expression, "Speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where it is silent," is no scripture. It was a rule adopted by Thomas Campbell in seeking to return to the order of the New Testament, as used by him and Alexander Campbell. We will teach what the Bible teaches; we will teach nothing that is not taught in the Bible. It was a worthy axiom and a good rule. As perverted, to forbid in- vestigating what the Bible does not teach, it is an abomina- ble rule for perverting the word of God. Fidelity to the will of God requires the Christian to prove all things, test every teaching and practice by the word of God, accept and maintain what it requires, reject and op- pose what it does not approve. As applied to prevent the discussion of things not required in the Bible, but sought to be introduced in the service, every practice of evil can be brought in. Under that interpretation of the rule, card playing can be introduced into the worship of God, and it is wrong to oppose it. 382 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, I hardly know what to think of a man's state who says we are not to speak of a thing used constantly in the church service because it is not spoken of in the Bible. If it is not right to be spoken of, a thousand times more it is not right to be used. "Let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints." Things not to be spoken of are such as do not become saints. Things that become saints should be talked of and approved. They ought to be encouraged and cherished and practiced. "Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report ; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." Think on them, talk of them, and commend them. There never was a more absurd position than that things could be practiced in the church and not talked of, tested, weighed. "Prove all things ; hold fast that which is good." Polygamy, sprinkling, the mourners' bench, and every other unscriptural practice could be introduced and maintained, and all discussion objected to on the same ground. But our brother shows the spirit of these innovations in saying kissing is commanded ; but he is opposed to doing it. because it would be ridiculed. To refuse to do what God commands for fear of ridicule or persecution is to refuse to confess him before men — is to deny him ; and such Jesus will deny before his Father and the holy angels. When we refuse to do what God commands because people will ridi- cule us, we are not worthy to be in the church of God. When we practice things not commanded because they are popular, we are ruled by the same spirit. There are churches that require their members to kiss ; and while they are not numerous, the world respects them for fidelity to what they regard God requires at their hands. The Dunkards (or German Baptists) and Mennonites do it. If I believed the Bible required it, I would insist on doing it every Lord's day, let the world deride or pity as it may. I do not believe the Bible ever commanded it to any one. It was customary in some countries to greet one another with a kiss. The Bible did not seek to change the custom, but said : "Let the kiss be a holy one, not a lascivious kiss." I do not know whether Ps. 87 has reference to the estab- lishment of the kingdom of Christ or not. I do not know what it means. I find all the commentators who have stud- ied it say it is difficult to understand. Dr. Clarke says: "Those who. are for mystic meanings think that it refers to BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 383 the church. To pretend to have found out the true mean- ing would be absurd." If our brother can give an explanation, he will confer a lasting benefit on the religious world. We know that no one played instruments at the establishment of the king- dom. Then if our brother will read the revised scripture, he will see there is no players on instruments in the Psalm. Neither is there in the Septuagint. Dr. Clarke gives the translation of Symmachus and Aquila: "And they shall sing as in leading up to a dance. All my fountains are there." He says the translator cannot be far wrong. There is just as much authority for the dance as the or- gan in the Bible. KNOWING MAN WOULD SIN, YET GOD MADE HIM— DID NOT THIS MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR MAN TO AVOID SIN? Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Will you please give me some light on 1 Pet. 1: 20? It reads: "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you." Also please explain Rev. 13: 8, which reads: "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." I have had several controversies on this subject. Some say that God knew man would sin and had Christ slain for him before he created him, and, as a necessary con- sequence of that knowledge, he must sin. Others have gone so far as to say that God is the author of sin, and quoted the passages re- ferred to in proof of their position. Now, brethren, my design in writing is to find out how man could avoid sin if God knew that he would sin. Nine-tenths of all the controversies and difficulties that arise among men arise not half so much from what the word of God says as from what men say about it in giving their vieivs of what they think the Bible teaches. Men say that God knew before he created man that he would sin. The Bible says no such thing. All this trouble, therefore, arises over the imaginations and speculations of men, not from what the Bible says. The Bible nowhere says that God knew that man would sin before he created him, and we see no room for trouble on that subject. Untaught questions are the ones generally that give us trouble. When Peter declares that Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world, even granting that the word world here means the physical earth, which is by no means cer- tain, we can very easily believe what is said without fram- ing another intricate proposition not found in the oracles of God. We need not trouble ourselves over what God does not say, for beyond what he says on this subject man knows nothing. The idea that God is the author of sin arises from this other proposition — that God knew that he 384 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, would sin. And thus one assumption or speculation gives rise to another; and when we once step beyond the plain expressions of God's word, there is no limit and no chance at all to settle questions of that character. We know noth- ing of what God knew, or what he did not know, except what he tells us about it in his word. The argument that God knew before he created man that he would sin is gen- erally founded upon the claim that God foreknew all things, and consequently must have known that man would sin. But this again is a human proposition. The Bible nowhere says that God foreknew all things, nor does it anywhere say that "God foreordains whatsoever comes to pass." The Bible plainly speaks of God foreordaining some things ; and whenever we read, as in the above passage in Peter, that a certain thing was foreordained, let us just believe that as a fact and stop there, and by this means all trou- ble will be avoided, and in no other way. The whole trou- ble in the Calvinistic doctrine of decrees arises from prop- ositions of their own framing, and not from what the word of God says. The Bible says : "God hath made man upright ; but they have sought out many inventions." Men have sought out inventions (sins) ; God did not force them out by decrees. "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." This passage plainly expresses that sin is something that man does, not something that God does. As to the passage in Revelation, that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, the book of Revelation is highly figurative, and its figures must be explained as far as possible by plain passages. From the time that God determined to send his Son into the world he evidently de- termined that he should be slain. But, in reality, he was not slain till he came, and was, in fact, slain (crucified) for us. From the time that man sinned, lambs — literal lambs — were slain ; and the blood of these lambs pointed to the blood of Christ, was typical of the blood of Christ, as is plainly taught in Hebrews; and the very fact that Christ is called a "Lamb" in the New Testament shows the intimate connection between the lambs of Jewish altars and the Son of God. Hence, Christ was slain, both in the purpose of God and through the figure of lambs, from the foundation of the world, but literally and in fact eighteen hundred years and more ago, when Jesus suffered literally upon the cross, and thus made an end of sin offering through the offering of Jesus once for all. E. G. S. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 385 KNOWING THE LORD IN THE NEW COVENANT. Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: For the benefit of our Bible class, give us through the Gospel Advocate an explanation on Heb. 8: 11. The verse is : "They shall not teach every man his neigh- bor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest." This is a quotation from Jer. 31, in which he is telling them that a new covenant will be established unlike the first. The first, or Mosaic, covenant was based on fleshly birth. Persons came into that covenant wholly ignorant of God and his law. There was a necessity of teaching God and his law after they became members of this covenant. It is not so in his new covenant. None could enter that until they knew the Lord, until that law in its leading char- acter was written on the heart of the individual. The knowledge of the Lord and the law of submission to God written on the heart are necessary to membership in the church of God, or the new covenant. It was not in the old. The specific requirements and applications of the law in the varied relationships of life must still be learned. But the authority of God expressed in the law of submission to him must be written upon the heart of every one who would come to Christ. D. L. KNOWING IN PART AND PROPHESYING IN PART. For the benefit of our Bible class, we wish your views on 1 Cor. 13: 9, 10, which is: "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." Some say it has reference to this life and the one to come; others say it has reference to oral teaching and proph- ecy in the days of the apostles and the completion of the written word or New Testament Scriptures. The world is not agreed as to what the passage refers to, but perhaps the majority of Bible students understand that it refers to the full development of the word of truth. The Bible was all given in parts, a little at a time, as was needed to give the will of God at the time. The New Tes- tament was given in the same way. No one of the apostles understood the whole plan of salvation in all its parts at once, we presume, and were not inspired in that way. But the Holy Spirit only presented through them such things as were needed at the time they were spoken or written. When Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, he did not have a full comprehension of all that pertained both to be- coming a Christian and living the Christian life; but the Spirit spoke through him just what was needed on that occasion, and he only understood what he spoke, just as others had a choice to understand what was spoken by him, 386 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, or rather through him by the Spirit. And when the time came for him to teach Christians how to live, the Spirit through him taught that also, just as needed. None of the apostles knew all at once; and when the time came for them to write the things pertaining to the practical work of the church and all things else composing the New Tes- tament, the same was true. The Spirit gave to each one what he should write at the time, and he wrote accordingly ; and in this way, little by little and by different men, the whole was completed. No one, therefore, could have a full and comprehensive view of the whole until all had been given ; and, more than likely, this is what the apostle refers to in the above passage. Any one that will study the New Testament carefully may soon have a more extensive knowledge of the plan of salvation in a short while than any apostle had at one time until the whole had been given. Hence they knew in part, a little at a time, and prophesied in part, a little at a time, until all the prophecies were completed. No one knew how to give or write down all these matters at once; but when by littles all had been written, then the power of prophecy ceased, and all direct inspiration, all power of knowing or teaching without learning, ceased. Those, therefore, that come after the apostles and will carefully read and study what they have written have the advantage of them in these things. They have them all before them at once in the New Testament, while the apostles and all others in their time received it in parts and parcels ; and we are inclined to believe this is what the passage means. Yet this is one of the passages about which men will perhaps always differ, and we do not know that the other view would contradict any other passage. E. G. S. "LAST DAYS," THE, AND OTHER THINGS. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: What period of time did Joel re- fer to in the expression "the last days?" Was there any law of par- don from the death of the Savior till Pentecost? What should be done with an elder who offends a brother and refuses to make amends? We understand "the last days" as spoken of in Acts 2, as from Joel, to refer to the Christian institution as the last of God's divine arrangements for the recovery of man. God first governed men by what are usually called "patri- archal laws ;" then by the law of Moses ; and, lastly, by the gospel of Christ. The gospel, the kingdom of Christ, is God's final arrangement for man's salvation. "The last days" began at the establishment of the kingdom of Christ. "The last days" as spoken of in that passage are now at hand, and will be till the close of time. As to the law of BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 387 pardon, between the death of Christ and the day of Pen- tecost we have nothing revealed ; but we are satisfied that those who were faithful to obey God, either according to the law of Moses or the teaching of John and of Christ in his personal ministry, were taken care of by the Lord. And, in the third place, when an elder commits an offense, the matter should be looked into by the congregation ; and if the guilt of the elder is fully established by two or more witnesses, and he remains stubborn and will not yield to the will of the Lord, deal with him as you would with any other offending brother, promptly, but tenderly, regard- ing his age, position, and work. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain through the Gospel Advocate this passage of scripture: "It shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." (Acts 2: 17.) Does "the last days" here spoken of have reference to the last days of the Christian dispensation or the Jewish dispensation? We do not understand the expression "the last days" to apply especially to the last days of the Jewish economy as such nor of the Christian dispensation as such. It more likely refers to the Christian institution in comparison with other covenants — the patriarchal and the Jewish. The pa- triarchal was first, and lasted about twenty-five hundred years; the Jewish came next, and lasted near fifteen hun- dred years ; the Christian came in next, and is the last one that will ever be established on this earth. This one will last until the close of time. Hence "the last days" began on the day of Pentecost, and we are in "the last days" now, as "the last days" will continue while time lasts. The pas- sage expresses that the time had come when the last insti- tution from God to man was to be fully set up, which in- stitution will not end till time ends. The Jewish economy ended when Christ died, fifty days before Peter used the expression; and, therefore, Peter could not have referred to that, as its last days had already passed. Nor could he have referred to the last days of the Christian dispensation, for nearly two thousand years have already elapsed since Peter used the expression and the end is not yet. Hence it must refer, as we think, to the new order of things, which began then and will go on till time ends. LAW, CHRIST'S, THE OLD, ETC. Brother Sewell: At what point in Christ's life was the old law done away? At what point in his life did his law (or the new law) come into force? Was there ever a time when the people of earth had no law? If so, when? Could Christ's law, any part of it, be in force before it was fully completed? When was it fully completed? 388 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, The old law — the law of Moses — was done away at the death of Christ, not at any period of his public teaching. "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. " (Col. 2: 14.) This shows precisely at what time the old law came to an end. The new law — the new covenant, the gospel of Christ — went fully into effect on the day of Pentecost, when the apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit and "spake as the Spirit gave them utterance.' , They for the first time preached the gospel in fact, by which preaching about three thousand souls were saved — saved as no human being was ever saved before — by preaching such as was never pro- claimed till that day, but was all the time and everywhere preached to the end of the New Testament, and which is to be preached to the end of time. We learn what this preach- ing was, and when men were first saved by it, from Acts 2. There is no record of any preaching of any law, new or old, from the death of Christ to the day of Pentecost. Faithful Jews, no doubt, kept on obeying the law of Moses as best they could during the fifty days that elapsed between the death of Christ and the day of Pentecost, as they did not then know that their law was dead ; and if it did them no good, we think it did them no harm, as they thought that it was still in force. Also, those who had received the preaching of John, on through the same preaching by Christ and the apostles, and remained firm in that reformatory state till Pentecost, were doubtless safe, as there is no in- timation that that order of things, which was the prepar- atory state of the kingdom, lost any of its power till the fully established state of the kingdom on the day of Pentecost. Besides, as a matter of fact, the Lord has the destiny of those people in his hands, and he is certain to do right with them; and we can do nothing for them, anyway, and we need not trouble ourselves about them nor speculate about their condition. The Lord will be sure to save every one of them that ought to be saved, and we can neither help nor hinder him in that work. There was no part of the gospel plan of salvation, as such, in force till the day of Pentecost. But how much force or power the moral teaching of Christ may have had over the hearts and lives of those who heard it, we do not pretend to say now ; yet we are inclined to think it was in- fluencing men for good all the time. But, of course, the precepts of the gospel had no effect till promulgated as we read it in Acts 2 ; and it is equally certain that since that day no other sort of preaching was ever done by divine au- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 389 thority to save any one. But all who will become Chris- tians as the three thousand did, and then continue to live the Christian life as taught by the apostles until death, will be eternally saved. LAW, PAUL KEEPING THE. Brother Sewell: Please explain Acts 21: 20-27, especially verse 23. Why was it that the four men took a vow on them, and what kind of vow was it? Why was it that Paul was to purify himself and be at charges and shave their heads, and what kind of charges had he ref- erence to? What kind of purification does he refer to in verse 26, and why was it that he (Paul) purified himself with them? It seems that after Paul had requested the Jews to forsake Moses' sayings, he (Paul) vowed with the same people again to do the same thing he before commanded them not to do. The vow that these four Jews had taken upon themselves, we doubt not, was the Nazarite vow, an account of which you will find in Num. 4, in which, for some purpose, they had vowed to entirely separate themselves to the Lord for some specified time, for some specified end. And at the end of the days of separation, offerings of some expense had to be made by those who had made the vow; and at the time of the offering of the sacrifices which were required on such occasions the persons making the vow had to shear their heads and burn their hair in connection with their offerings, and they were not allowed to trim their hair dur- ing the days of their separation by their vows. At the end of this time they were to trim and burn their hair, and this was evidently the custom referred to in the above pas- sage. These four men who had made a vow had in some way violated it, and were unclean, and had to be purified ; and Paul entered into the purification with them and was to pay the charges or expenses of the affair. Now, as to why Paul did this, is perhaps more difficult to explain; but to us the probability is that Paul did not un- derstand at this time as thoroughly as he afterwards un- derstood that all those Jewish customs connected with the law were entirely done away in Christ ; or if they had been fully revealed to him, this was simply a case of human weakness, like that of Peter, when he, after fully under- standing that the law was broken down and the Gentiles called in, was so weak that he on one occasion withdrew from the Gentiles when certain Jews were present and caused Barnabas to dissemble; and Paul withstood him to the face, for he said he was to be blamed. Very certain it is that when Paul and Peter did these things they were not acting under inspiration at the time they did them. Those inspired men did not at any one time receive the full 390 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, development of the gospel scheme nor fully understand at any one time all its relationships to the Jewish economy. Whenever the time came for any particular thing to be taught, they were fully inspired on that subject till it was fully made known, and then were left to act in reference to these things, like all others, upon their own responsibil- ity. And, therefore, if we find these apostles at any time acting contrary to their own teaching, we are not to con- sider that a contradiction of the revelations of God, but only that the apostles, when left to their own individual re- sponsibility, sometimes failed to live up to the things they taught when acting under the inspiration of the Spirit of God. Peter was not acting under inspiration when he de- nied his Lord, although before this he was empowered to raise the dead or cast out devils ; but he was simply acting under his own weakness as a man. Even if we regard that a full revelation in regard to the complete doing away of the Jewish law had been made to Paul, we are only to consider that in this case he was acting upon his own re- sponsibility and doing as his Jewish brethren at Jerusalem requested him. It was almost impossible to convince the first Jewish Christians that they were to entirely lay aside the customs of the law. This same apostle Paul labored extensively in his epistles to convince them that the law was done away and that they must let it alone. The Jews had strong prejudices in favor of the law, and, in spite of all the revelations that were made, they for a long time kept up many ceremonies of the law. The action of Paul was not an act of the Spirit of God in contradiction to itself, but simply a specimen of Jewish prejudice and weakness. E. G. S. LAW THE ALIEN IS UNDER, WHAT? Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: Please answer through the Gospel Advocate what law the alien is under, or what kingdom does he (the alien sinner) flee from when he comes into the kingdom of Christ? The alien is under the law of sin and death which reigns in our members. (Rom. 7: 23.) The devil is the author of that law. While under his law we are in his kingdom. We ought to flee from his kingdom when we enter the king- dom of God. But many think now we can serve both kings ; so they do not leave it on entering God's kingdom. LAW, WAS THERE FORGIVENESS UNDER THE? Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In Lev. 6 we have an account of a man who, if he sin by telling a falsehood, can, by complying with the conditions therein set forth, be forgiven. Now, I have always under- stood from the reading of Paul to the Hebrews that under the law BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 391 there was no forgiveness of sins. Am I correct? Paul to the Gala- tians says: "The law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them." Were the people under the law required to be- lieve anything, or were they commanded to do the things of the law, regardless of faith of any kind? If the law required faith, it must to that extent have been of faith. When God said to the Jews upon their making the sin offerings as he commanded, "And it shall be forgiven him," we believe he meant just what he said. We believe he did forgive them. But that he forgave the sins through the blood of animals as looking forward to the blood of Christ is most likely. God could certainly forgive sin through blood, looking forward to the blood of Christ, as well as in any other way; and whatever may be true regarding the blood of those animals deriving its virtue from the blood of Christ that was to be shed, the pardon was real, so far as the men were concerned that made the offerings. But the character of those offerings was such that one offering could atone for the sin for which it was made, but could avail nothing for any sin that might be committed after- wards. Hence a new offering had to be made for every recurring sin. The offering of Christ was a complete and final sin offering, sufficient for the sins of the whole world, and no further offering has to be made. Those offerings under the law could not permanently take away sins, but the blood of Christ can. One offering is enough. But this does not hinder the pardon of those persons who offered sacrifices according to the law. It is also evident that those Jews were required to believe the truth of God's word, which declared to them that they should be pardoned when they made the offerings prescribed. If they did not have that faith, the promise of pardon brought no comfort to them. Yet the faith they had in a law of works was very different from the faith of the gospel of Christ. Paul was teaching the Hebrew Christians that the law of Moses was only the shadow of good things to come, while Christianity is the reality; that the law was disannulled on account of its weakness and imperfection ; and that they must turn from the law and adhere to the gospel, which is emphatically an institution of faith. E. G. S. LAW, NO— NO TRANSGRESSION. Please explain the following scriptures: "Where no law is, there is no transgression." (Rom. 4: 15.) "Sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3: 4.) "As many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law." (Rom. 2: 12.) Now, how can a man sin without law when sin is the transgression of law? Again, John (Rev. 20: 12) says: "I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which 392 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." Now, Christ said: "The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12: 48.) Taking these scriptures together, by what law will the heathen be judged or condemned? First, then, a man can transgress a law without know- ing that law. "And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the command- ments of the Lord ; though he wist [knew] it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest : and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist [knew] it not, and it shall be forgiven him. It is a trespass offering: he hath certainly trespassed against the Lord." (Lev. 5: 17-19.) "That servant, which knew his Lord's will, and prepared not him- self, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes." (Luke 12: 47, 48.) Here is the clear enunciation of the truth in both the Old and New Testaments that the law of God may be broken by those ignorant of it. When that law is broken, penalties flow from the breaking of the law, whether he who breaks it is aware of it or not. Many ex- amples of this are found in both the Old and New Testa- ments. The whole Jewish nation in the days of Ezra pre- sent an example of this. So does Paul, who sinned igno- rantly in unbelief. These, to my mind, clearly indicate that God does not make mere arbitrary enactments and tests for man (there are tests) ; but the commands of God are fixed and unchangeable principles growing out of God's own being. He has in the Scriptures declared these laws that man might be warned not to violate them ; but the violation of them brings the penalties as much as violation of the material laws brings the penalty, regardless of whether we are cognizant of those laws or not. The fire burns the ignorant and innocent child as well as the man having knowledge that fire burns. To sin knowingly is to violate two laws — commit two sins. One of them, pre- sumptuous in its character, involves a deeper ruin. Then God's law will govern in the moral and spiritual world, whether we know the law or not. To violate that law will bring the penalty, whether we know it or not. To be "without law" was simply to be without the knowledge of the law. "Where there is no law" means there is no sin where God has no law. But we sin or transgress the law without knowing the law. Hence those without the law BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 393 sin in ignorance of the law — live in violation of it without knowing it. Those who do this sin without law — without knowing the law. These shall be condemned "without law" — without knowing the law; and those who, without knowing the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, become a law unto themselves and are saved by doing the things contained in the law. Note well that all who, ignorant of the law, sin against the law, perish. Only those who, not having the law, yet do the things contained in the law, become a law unto themselves, and so are saved by doing the law. No passage of scripture was ever more perverted than this one. It teaches that even the heathen, not having the law, must yet do the things contained in the law in order to be saved. The law clearly is the revealed law of God ; indeed, he has no other for judging and saving man. But some may think this unjust. Who art thou, man, that judgest God? Then the parable of the potter and the clay ap- plies. But in the first chapter of Romans, Paul clearly ex- plains why the heathen were without law — "because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God/' They "changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds," etc. "Changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator." "As they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind," etc. Clearly the heathen were ignorant of God because they did not desire to know and worship him. It is clear, too, that as God is no respecter of per- sons and he sent his word to some of the heathen who were willing to serve him, he sent and now sends it to all who are willing to receive and honor him. I cannot believe that God gave his Son to die to save man and ever let a single soul die and be lost for lack of a knowl- edge of that gospel. But it saves no responsible person who is ignorant of it. God does not cast his pearls before swine. Then the fact that God has not sent his gospel to a people is evidence clear to me that no one of that people would receive it if presented. There is no doubt but that the Scriptures, both Old and New, regard all those who sit in darkness as lost, and God has but one law by which all will be judged. That law Moses nor Christ made or enacted; they only made it known, that through it man might be saved. D. L. 394 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, LAW, WHAT ARE "WORKS" OF? Brother Lipscomb: Will you please give us a clear, scriptural com- ment on Rom. 4: 2-6? There is no difficulty in understanding these verses if it is kept in mind that the works here referred to are the works of the Jewish law. All through this letter there is a contrast between the Jewish law and the faith of Jesus Christ, between the circumcision and the uncircumcision, between the Jew and the Gentile. In verse 19 of the pre- ceding chapter he says, "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law," referring to the Jewish law, which had then been taken out of the way. Verse 20 : "By the deeds of the law [the Jewish law] there shall no flesh be justified." "It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." (Heb. 10: 4.) This blood sealed that law. So there was a remembrance of sin every year until Jesus came and took it away by the sacrifice of himself once and forever. "Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law ? of works ? Nay : but by the law of faith. There- fore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also." (Rom. 3: 27-29.) He contrasts here the deeds of the law and the hearing of faith, the law of works and the law of faith, the Jews and the Gentiles corresponding to these two laws. He asks: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." (Verse 31.) The Jewish law was not made void by the faith that Christ brought, for the object of the law was to bring them to Christ, that they might be justified by faith. The con- trast was between justification under the law of Moses and justification by the faith of Christ. He then, in chapter 4, shows Abraham was not justified by the works of the law. The law, with its works, was not given in the days of Abra- ham. Abraham was justified by faith, and not by the works of the Jewish law. He believed God, and it was im- puted to him for righteousness. But when was faith im- puted to him for righteousness? James (2: 21-23) says: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God." James explains when Abraham's faith was imputed to him for righteousness. It was when that faith "was made per- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 395 feet by works." What "works" made the faith perfect? The works of the Jewish law? No ; but the works required by the law of faith. The law of faith had to be obeyed as well as the law of works, and the works to which faith led made the faith perfect. God commanded Abraham to sac- rifice his son. To do this was to be led by faith, was to obey the law of faith, the law addressed to his faith, and was to make the faith perfect by doing things required by the law of faith. The law of Moses was not addressed to the faith of people. The law of Christ is addressed to faith. To do the things required by Christ is to walk by faith ; to do the works of faith is to make faith perfect by works of faith. By this a man is justified, and not by the works of the Jewish law. "Now to him that worketh [the works of the Jewish law] is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not [the works of the Jewish law], but believeth on him [Jesus] that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness," be- cause he obeys the law that justifies by faith, not the law of works. David presents the same truth. The law of works could not justify, but the law of faith could; but faith never justified or was imputed for righteousness until it had been made perfect by works required by the law of faith. There is not an example in the Bible of God's bless- ing in response to faith before that faith proved itself by an overt act, a bodily act of some kind. Where God had given a law to guide and test the faith, as in the case of Abraham and in the law of faith given by Christ, that faith must prove itself by obedience to the law of faith be- fore it could be accepted of God. So read the connection, and see the contrast is between the works of the law of Moses and the requirements of the law of faith, and there is no difficulty in understanding these and all similar pas- sages. LAW, APPEALING TO THE CIVIL. Brother Lipscomb : Is it right, under any circumstances, to appeal to the civil law for protection? A case in point: A man who is thought to be dangerous and vengeful, after having threatened the life of a man and his wife, goes to their house and raises a row. Has a brother the right to prosecute him for so doing? There is a fearful crime behind the man who did this. I think it right at times for a Christian to appeal to civil law for protection. Paul gave us an example of this when he appealed to Caesar to protect him from the Jews who were using the law and the offices of the law to punish him. (Acts 25: 1-11; also Acts 22: 25.) As they bound him with thongs, Paul asked the centurion that stood by : "Is it 396 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and un- condemned ?" He appealed to his rights as a Roman citi- zen on this occasion to save himself from punishment. At Philippi he said: "They have beaten us openly, uncon- demnned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison." He made them come and bring them out, but he did not prose- cute them. To prosecute them, if I understand the mean- ing, is not to protect yourself from injury, but to take vengeance for wrong done. To bind him over to keep the peace, or to have him so confined as to prevent injury, might be to protect yourself against him ; but to prosecute and punish him is to take vengeance on him for injury. "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (Rom. 12: 19.) If a Christian knows of a crime committed, it is right for him to make it known, that society may be pro- tected, but not that he may be avenged for wrong done him. LAWSUITS AMONG BRETHREN. Brother Lipscomb: When prominent members of a congregation resort to law to settle their financial differences, refuse to speak to or in any way recognize each other, and the elders for any cause fail to settle the matter, what is the duty of the congregation to its pas- tor, officers, the offended parties, and itself, and what is the duty of a congregation that has one of the parties to the lawsuit employed as its pastor? The law of God is just as clear and distinct in directing how difficulties between brethren must be settled as it is how a man shall put on Christ. Jesus lays down the law : "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church : but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt. 18: 15-18.) The same authority is given to the church in this case that is given to Peter (Matt. 16) when he delivers the terms of entrance into the kingdom of God. It ought not to be neg- lected in any case. Sometimes persons think trouble has gone so far and has become so public that it is needless to attend to the first requirement, but this is a mistake. It is God's order, and should be observed. If there is any goodness or sincerity in men, if they will to themselves talk over and try to settle the difficulties between them- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 397 selves, they will do it. Troubles and difficulties grow in magnitude and number because when they arise the parties get wrathy and refuse to talk them over quietly and try to understand each other and remove the difficulties. They can never go so far as to be beyond the reach of God's means, nor can a Christian afford to ignore the means pro- vided by the Lord. I need not dwell upon the successive steps if this fails. They are plain and easily understood and obeyed. It is ordered the offended party, the one that first feels himself wronged, shall take the lead in this. If he does not, it is the duty of the elders to see that he does it. This law of God should no more be neglected or set aside than any other appointment of God. It is the duty of the elders to insist on the one aggrieved doing this. If they do not, they fail of their duty and are accountable for the trouble in the church. When we do what God tells us to do, and trouble comes despite it, as it will sometimes, then we are not responsible; but if we do our duty, and evil comes, we are clear. I do not believe God approves of pastors separate from elders, nor do I believe God makes distinction as to the ob- servance of his law between persons — that is, his law ap- plies with equal force and authority to all the servants of God alike= If one of another congregation violates the lav/ toward one of this congregation, it is none the less the duty of all to try to induce him to comply with the law of God, and, if he does not, to lay it before the congregation of which he is a member. To follow the law of God is the only way to secure his blessings and to carry out his work here on earth. LAWFUL THINGS AND THINGS EXPEDIENT. Please give us your views on 1 Cor. 6: 12, which reads as follows: "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." Paul in this passage, when he said, "All things are lawful unto me," had reference, as we suppose, to such things as eating meat. All meats are lawful — that is, under Chris- tianity no meats are forbidden; but it might not be expe- dient at all times to eat meat, as in that day meats of certain kinds were offered in sacrifice to idols, and heathens thought if a man ate the meat offered to an idol, he thereby wor- shiped the idol ; and under such circumstances it was better not to eat on account of our influence upon others. So of all other things of like nature. But Paul never meant to say that it was lawful for him or any one else to do what 398 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, the word of God forbids. Disobedience to the word of God will bring ruin to all. But things indifferent, that under some circumstances would be no harm in the world, might under other circumstances be inexpedient on account of the influence they would have upon others. LAZARUS, IS THE STORY OF, AND THE RICH MAN A PARABLE? Brother Lipscomb: Please explain Luke 16: 19-31. Was the rich man in a literal hell, or was it a parable? Suppose I were to say it was a parable, what would be the conclusion? A parable literally means to put two things side by side, and so to compare them with each other. This would be a parable whether both things are real and true facts or not. The parable is used greatly to place an un- known fact beside a well-known one so as to explain the unknown by the well-known one. So a great many under- stand it means to compare an unknown something with a well-known one. Usually they conclude the well-known thing to which the unknown is compared is itself uncertain as to its meaning and we can fix an uncertain and indefinite meaning. A parable is a comparison between things. What are the things compared in the passage in Luke? It is a plain statement of matters of fact. "And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels into Abraham's bosom: and the rich man also died, and was buried. And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom." If this is a parable, how could one tell that such a thing occurred — not as a parable, but as a reality? Then if it were a parable, what would it mean? Would it mean that sinners would not go to hell and suffer torments? Does the man who claims it to be a parable mean to say Jesus used a parable to hide and conceal the meaning of what was done? If not, what was done except just what he says was done? LETTERS, CHURCH. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Some of the members of this con- gregation have moved near other congregations and are debarred the privilege of membership on account of not having letters of recom- mendation. As we are commanded to make all things according to the pattern, we wish you or some of the brethren who demand such letters to give us the model. There is no direct authority for letters of commendation, and yet we have something near it. Paul, in 2 Cor. 3 : 1, says: "Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 399 we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?" This at least implies that where members go where they are not known, they need letters of commendation from their own church, from those by whom they are known. But when members move into the bounds of a congregation where their character and standing are already known, then a letter would only amount to a matter of form ; but where they are not known, a letter would be advantageous, both to the member him- self and to the congregation where he is seeking member- ship. And no brother or sister ought to move from one congregation to another without at the earliest convenience taking membership with the congregation where they lo- cate. If not personally known, we think from plain impli- cation by Paul they should take a letter; but if known, let them take membership at once ; and the congregation where they moved from only need be notified of the fact, that they may make record of the same, and all will be right. E. G. S. There is nothing more clearly taught in the New Testa- ment than that Christians, going into strange communities, were given letters of commendation — not dismissal, but commendation. A member of a church in one place is a member wherever he goes, but a certificate of this member- ship and of his character as a Christian is proper. Paul, in his letter to the Romans, wrote a commendatory letter of Phoebe. (See Rom. 16: 1.) It is a model letter. He says: "When I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality to Jerusalem." (1 Cor. 16: 3.) Here whoever had letters of commendation from them he would send to Jerusalem. Then in verse 10 he writes a commendatory letter to them of Timothy if he should come to Corinth. In 2 Cor. 8 : 22 he gives commendation of Titus and other brethren, and says they are messengers of the churches, who doubtless bore the letters of the church which sent them. In the letter to the Ephesians, last chapter, he gives a commend- atory letter of Tychicus. The letter to Philemon is very greatly a commendatory letter of Onesimus, assuring Phi- lemon he had become a Christian and was now a beloved brother and to be treated as such. John 3 is a letter to Gaius commendatory of Demetrius. In 2 Cor. 3 : 1 he asks : "Need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?" He preached to them and had begotten them through the gospel, yet they had turned against him ; so he asked if he needed, as some 400 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, others, letters of commendation from them or to them — showing plainly it was customary in the churches in early time. Some, as strangers, required letters of commenda- tion to them; others, letters from them. I do not see how the ends of Christian brotherhood could be carried out without them. We would look on every man who came claiming brotherhood and help with suspicion. 0, yes! The Scriptures teach that letters were common, and with- out them the ends of Christian brotherhood cannot be car- ried out. LIFE, EATING OF THE TREE OF. Recently in your comments on the Sunday-school lesson you said: "While man ate of the tree of life in the midst of the garden, in Eden, he knew no death." Did Adam and Eve eat of the fruit of the "tree of life?" My understanding is that they ate of the tree of the knowl- edge of good and evil. "And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever: therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden," etc. (Gen. 3: 22, 23.) I understand that death (separation) was the penalty for eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. "God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. ,, (Gen. 2: 8, 9.) The two trees were, by superior importance, worthy of special mention. "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the gar- den thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowl- edge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Verses 16, 17.) They were certainly permitted to eat of the tree of life. It was good to perpetuate life. It would be strange if they did not eat of a tree so important and help- ful. The women knew their privileges. Gen. 3: 6 shows they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil : and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever : therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man ; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a naming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." (Gen. 3: 22-24.) Had he eaten of the tree of life after he sinned, BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 401 he would have still lived ; to prevent it, he was cut off from it. He was permitted to eat of the tree of life, and did eat of it until he sinned. God then cut him off from it, and he became a dying, perishing mortal. D. L. LIFE-INSURANCE POLICIES. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I have read your views given in the Gospel Advocate upon many queries with much interest, and I do not recollect ever seeing anything from you upon the propriety of Christians taking out life policies. If it is of Christ, should not all Christians take out one? But the afflicted child that needs the physi- cian is denied. If it be not of God, should not all Christians deny themselves of it? Taking out life policies is certainly not a Christian duty, for there is not one word of anything of the sort in the word of God, and nothing is to be urged as a Christian duty unless it can be shown in the word of God. To say the best that can be said of it, it is but a matter of worldly wisdom and policy, by which the policyholders propose to provide for the future financial well-being of their fami- lies; and whether so doing is contrary to any of the re- quirements of Christianity or not, is the question. While we will not be dogmatical in the matter, we will, neverthe- less, present a few passages for the consideration of the thoughtful. In Matt. 6 the Savior teaches that we should not be anxious about the things of this life, speaks of the grass to-day in the field and to-morrow cast into the oven, and asks : "Shall he not much more clothe you, ye of lit- tle faith?" After thus giving very forcible illustrations of watch care over his people, he concludes that part of his sermon in these words: "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil there- of." Now, it rather occurs to us that this passage is against the idea of looking away into the far-off future and investing surplus money that might be used for the im- mediate advancement of the Master's cause. It does look as if there is a manifestation of distrust in the Savior's promise that God will take care of his people when such anxious thought is exercised as an oversight of this com- mand to take no thought (be not anxious) for the morrow. Again, the Savior says : "Lay not up for yourselves treas- ures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal : but lay up for your- selves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Now, it does look like laying up treasures on earth — 402 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, and that, too, in a sense that the Savior forbids — when we lay up our money in a life-insurance company. That cer- tainly is not laying up treasure in heaven. But, plainly, it is laying up treasures upon earth. If we use our money to honor God, then we are laying up treasure in heaven, as is clearly taught by the Savior in Matt. 25, where he speaks of the righteous having fed the hungry and clothed the naked, etc. Treasures thus laid up cannot be consumed by moth nor rust, nor can thieves break through and steal these treasures ; but when we lay up treasures in life-insurance companies, they are liable at any time to be stolen by thieves ; and this one fact, if there were nothing else in it, would make me very slow to invest in such schemes. Life- insurance companies have been breaking and sinking peo- ple's money from the first origin of them until now. Much as may be said of policies paid and widows saved from pov- erty, but a mere pittance of what is paid in is ever paid out. If anything like the amount of money was paid out that is paid in, every company in the land would break. Again, the Savior says to his disciples: "And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of un- righteousness ; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations." (Luke 16: 9.) We understand this passage to teach that the followers of Christ shall make such use of their earthly goods as to make God and Christ their friends, that they may at last receive them into eter- nal mansions. The question is: Can we make God our friend by putting money into a life-insurance company in- stead of taking care of the orphans and advancing the cause of God by sounding out the word of God to a perish- ing world? We think these passages, and other similar ones, are worth the consideration of the brethren. The blessing of God is worth more to the Christian than all the strength of this world combined. We cannot make God our friend with our worldly goods or money, unless we use it accord- ing to his word. These passages, we think, are sufficient to at least make it doubtful whether Christians should in- vest their money that way or not. But no one, we pre- sume, will say that it is wrong to let them alone. No one will say that we neglect a Christian duty by so doing. Therefore we are sure that it is safe, beyond all dispute, to let them alone. Whenever there is doubt whether it is safe to go into anything or not, but no doubt in the world but that it is right to keep out, then let us always be on the safe side. Merely as a financial arrangement, we think it is not a very good one. Only a few of the number that BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 403 take out policies keep up their payments till completed, so that their families can draw money on them at their death ; and when they cease paying, their policies are generally forfeited, and what money they pay is lost. Besides, sickly people, that are likely to die soon, cannot obtain policies upon any reasonable terms. They call for healthy men that are likely to live long enough to pay the full amount that their policy calls for, and that class of men has but little use for them. If these life-insurance companies would make as full a report of the moneys paid in that are never received back at all as they do of the policies they pay, the probabilities are that they would make quite a different impression upon the world. And, finally, when we are so careful to lay up treasures upon earth in this way,, it looks a little as if our hearts were there. E. G. S. LIFE ETERNAL, DO WE HAVE, NOW? Brother Sewell: Does the word of God teach that a person has eternal life in his possession as soon as he becomes obedient to the gospel? I discussed this question with a brother. He affirmed; I denied. His main proof texts were John 3: 36; 5: 24; 1 John 5: 11-13. It is certain that no man actually possesses eternal life while living in mortal flesh; for so long as life lasts, a man may sin and miss eternal life. When the Scriptures speak of Christians' having eternal life, as though they already possessed it, that only means that they have started for it, have entered upon a course of service that will ultimate in life eternal if faithfully followed through life ; but if at any time the child of God abandons the narrow way, lapses into sin, and continues therein, he will as certainly be lost as that the Bible is true. Evidently the apostle Paul came as near having eternal life while still in mortal flesh as any man can; yet as long as he lived he realized there was danger to him of missing heaven. He said when far ad- vanced in the Christian life: "But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection : lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." (1 Cor. 9: 27.) Since Paul, devoted and confident as he was, struggled so earnestly to keep the mastery of his fleshly body, lest he should be cast away at last, what Chris- tian can claim to-day that he is not in the same liability that Paul was ? But when Paul had come to the end of his life, he could then say, with all assurance: "Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appear- ing." (2 Tim. 4: 8.) When Paul's course was finished, 404 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, when he had kept the faith to the end of his life, he was then sure of eternal life, but not till then. When a man becomes a Christian and while he faithfully lives the Chris- tian, he is in a state of preparation for eternal life, which he will be sure to receive on the other side; and this is as near to it as men get in this life. LIFE, THE, HID WITH CHRIST. Please explain Col. 3: 3 through the Gospel Advocate. It reads: "For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." What life is hid with Christ in God? We understand the life referred to here is eternal life, which Jesus has gone to prepare and to which all the Lord's people will be taken when he comes to judge the world and to take his people home. He said while on earth to his dis- ciples: "I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and take you to myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." (John 14 : 2, 3.) This is the life we understand Paul to refer to in the above passage. LIFE, WHAT THE BOOK OF. Brother Seivell: There are different ideas in our Bible class con- cerning "the book of life" mentioned in Phil. 4: 3. Some think it has reference to the New Testament; others, to a record book. Is there any scripture to prove that there is a record book? The book of life in the passage you name, as we under- stand it, is the Lamb's book of life kept in heaven, in which the names of God's children are kept. In Rev. 3 : 5 we have this language : "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before ,my Father, and before his angels." This indicates very clearly that the names of the saints are kept in heaven and that none of those who continue faithful until death will ever be blotted out. We quote this also: "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God ; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life. . . . And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (Rev. 20: 12-15.) These passages certainly show that there is a book of life kept before the Lord in heaven, and that when the Lord's people stand at the judgment this book will be opened, as well as the books of the Bible, and that all the faithful ones whose names are still on the book of life will be passed through the pearly gates; and this is, doubtless, the book of your passage. So the thing for Christians to BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 405 do is to so live on earth that their names will never be blotted out, for it is quite certain that if we are not faithful unto death our names will be blotted out of that precious book. LIGHT, THE, WHICH LIGHTETH, ETC. Please tell what this passage teaches: "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1:9.) How is the light imparted? Is every man in the world enlightened in regard to duty? Does not the word world mean the world of men? If not, why not? To what event did Jesus refer when he said: "Here- after ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man?" (John 1: 51.) The world means the world — the earth on which we live. We do not think the reading is exactly correct. It would be better because clearer: "That is the true Light, which cometh into the world, which lighteth every man." The expression, "that cometh into the world," ought to be con- nected with "the Light" that enlightens every one instead of with "every one." This, however, does not materi- ally change the point of difficulty. The point is : "Is every one enlightened ? If so, how ?" There are styles of speech peculiar to every language that are difficult to be translated literally into other languages. Hence, they are a little awkward in expressing the true meaning in other lan- guages. An example of this is : "There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." This literally would indicate that we must, of ne- cessity, be saved. The true meaning is : Every one who is saved must be saved through the name of Christ. There is none other name under heaven given among men through which it is possible to be saved, is the true meaning. It is an idiom of the original language that is difficult to trans- late into English. The passage under consideration is al- most identical in character. It does not mean that "every man is enlightened by that light which cometh into the world." It means of those who are enlightened, all are en- lightened by that light which cometh into the world; it means that he is the only light of the world ; that no man in the world ever has been or can be enlightened save by that light. All who are enlightened are enlightened by that light which cometh into the world. Many are not enlight- ened, but all who are enlightened are enlightened by that light. The point was in reference to John and Jesus. John was not that light, but Jesus was the true light. It inci- dentally teaches that there is no true light in the world save that which comes through Christ Jesus. There is nothing in human reason, nothing in the conscience of man 406 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, to enlighten him; only the true light which cometh into the world can enlighten any man. Hence, "no man can come to the Father, save through me." The light is sufficient to enlighten every man in the world, and none can be enlightened save through this light ; but some refuse to come to the light. "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." Some come not to the light because their deeds are evil. We have suggested that the idea that every one who de- sires to do the will of God will know that will ; to him, un- der the providence of God, it will come. But God casts not his pearls before swine ; he does not carry that light to him who is unwilling to receive it. So the light coming into the world enlightens only those who open their eyes to behold that light — those who are willing to be enlightened. The enlightening is done by the teaching and example of Christ and the Spirit he sent into the world, which taught through the apostles and gave to us the Scriptures. It is not merely an instinct or of the intellect. It is an example that reaches the heart, molds it, instructs, develops, and en- lightens the conscience. It, in a word, is the true and only source of good and of all good to man. The angels ascending and descending upon him possibly was not literal, but meant that he would be constantly watched over and guarded here in the world by the angels of God, and that their ministration to him as the Son of God would be manifested to Nathanael in the care and love God would show him. D. L. LIQUOR TRAFFIC, ASSISTING IN THE. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Some of the brethren are dissatis- fied with my business and want me to write to you in regard to it. If I am doing wrong, I wish to know it. I am doing business for the firm of M. H. Puckett & Co., who are dealers in dry goods, groceries, and whisky; but there are two houses. I do not stay in the saloon, but tend solely to the dry-goods house, and have nothing to do with the saloon, only I accept a certain part of the profits of the firm for my salary. I invested no money to carry on the saloon. Now, is it right for me to have anything to do with a firm that sells whisky? No person dislikes the whisky business more than I do. Selling whisky as a beverage is a business that degrades men and women, brings much evil and no good to society. Such a calling is sinful. The profits from it are the price of human degradation and human crime. A Christian man cannot engage in the work of degrading his fellow man. The price of that degradation he cannot use without bring- ing a curse upon himself and family. He cannot bring the BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 407 price of crime into the house of God. Christians ought at any price to keep free from all responsibility for human sins and human degradation. It is the wicked one that de- grades and corrupts men. Christians cannot assist him in this work nor take wages for the degradation. Christ lifts up, elevates, and purifies. Christians must be coworkers with him in the redemption of the world from sin. D. L. LIVES, LAYING DOWN OUR, FOR BRETHREN. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: The latter clause of 1 John 3: 16 reads as follows: "We ought to lay down our lives for the brethren." Give us an example or a case in which we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. The opportunities for laying down our lives for the brethren in this country are not as frequent as they were when and where this sentence was penned. The devil, the great author of all evil to the church, has in these latter years and in our country been playing the role of an angel of light, which he sometimes does, as the Scriptures inform us. When acting this part, he does not persecute ; but, un- der the garb of friendship, he compromises and flatters and seduces from the path of right by offering things very similar, by proposing to work in harmony with the people of God, by proposing to educate, moralize, refine, and ele- vate the people ; and in this work, so plausible and promis- ing, he calls upon God's children to form alliances with him in this work. He is willing to educate them to be moral, religious, zealous, devoted, refined, and even professed fol- lowers of God, if they will only work to upbuild his king- dom and let the substantial fruit of their labor inure to his benefit. The Christian world has accepted the compro- mise, and is working to-day under the direction of the devil in the garb of "an angel of light." He does not destroy the lives of Christians when he can use them. They are too profitable to him. Were they to reject all his advances, spurn his compromises, refuse to work for him, and deter- mine that whatsoever they do shall all be done in the name of the Lord Jesus, it might not be long until he would offer opportunities for them "to lay down their lives" for Christ and the brethren. But there are occasions when a man may lay down his life for the brethren. When the yellow fever visits Mem- phis or the cholera Nashville, and the brethren are poor, needing help, care, comfort, sympathy, and counsel, then a brother can lay down his life, or he can offer his life, and leave to God's providence whether it is laid down or pre- served for the brethren. A Christian can only offer to lay 408 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, his life down for Christ or his brethren. He cannot pos- itively do it of himself. He cannot take his life himself. This would be to cowardly fly from duty. He can only offer it by firmly treading the paths of duty, even when this path leads to danger. Then it is left to the providence of God whether that life is "laid down" or preserved for the good of Christ and his children. God demands living sacrifices as well as dying or dead ones. The living sacrifices are just as precious in his sight as the dying ones. Paul preferred for his own sake to lay down his life, which was one of suffering, toil, pov- erty, and persecution; yet for the sake of his brethren he bore the burden of life still longer. His body was a living sacrifice for God and his brethren. While, then, it is true that Christians ought to be willing to brave danger in times of persecution, face the pestilence, and incur poverty, want, hatred, and the scorn of men, whenever fidelity to Christ or the good of his brethren demand it, still to continue and suffer and live and labor are frequently better for our brethren than to depart and be with Christ. We can give our bodies as sacrifices, living or dead, by standing to the truth, incurring even the hatred and wrath of brethren themselves, even in maintaining the truth against the world, the flesh, and the devil, including sometimes the brethren themselves. Man may suffer for the truth, may bear odium for the truth, may become poor for the truth, may incur danger from cold or hunger or neglect for the truth, may expose and sacrifice life in overwork in efforts to teach the world and the brethren the right and true ways of the Lord. When he does it, he lays down his life for the brethren just as much as when he braves danger and to shield them from harm incurs persecution for Christ's sake. We may not all wear the victor's wreath won at the stake of martyrdom, but we may do just as praiseworthy acts by quietly taking up the burden of life, great or small, and pa- tiently bearing all ill incurred in the performance of duty. If in that performance death comes, then the life is laid down for Christ and the brethren. If death does not come, but suffering be endured and the cross borne for Christ and his truth, then the body is a living sacrifice, well pleas- ing and acceptable to God. LOAVES, HOW MANY IN THE SUPPER? ETC. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please answer the following: (1) Is it right to have more than one loaf in partaking of the Lord's Sup- per, and is it necessary that an elder shall break the loaf? (2) What is meant by the command: "Honor widows that are widows indeed?" (1 Tim. 5: 3.) BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 409 (1) Just so many loaves represent the body of Christ as are necessary for the observance of the Supper by those par- taking. We have known brethren to stickle over the fact that the Savior spoke of but one loaf of bread, yet would use two or three or four cups or glasses in serving the wine. The Savior used one cup only, as well as one loaf only. But one individual partakes of only one loaf, should there be fifty present, and that one loaf represents to him the body of Christ. The controversy over this is magnifying a molehill into a mountain. The idea that the elders must break the loaf is a part of Romish ritualism. If there is but one loaf that needs to be distributed to different persons waiting on the congregation, he must needs break it for con- venience, but not because Christ broke it. He is not Christ nor in Christ's stead to the congregation. (2) The passage from Timothy ought to be very easily understood, yet is sadly misunderstood, simply because the connection is not observed. The passage refers to the sup- port of widows by the church. The word honor in the verse ("honor widows that are widows indeed") means to support them. They are to be supported by the church, or honored ; but if any have children or nephews, these are to "show piety," or support their widowed mothers, grand- mothers, or aunts at their home. He tells who are widows indeed that are to be supported by the church — they are to be devoted and blameless. Verse 8 says: "If any provide not for his own [widows], and especially for those [wid- ows] of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." This verse is almost universally misunderstood. We remember to have seen Brother Jo- seph Franklin not long since apply this verse to the sup- port of wife — only the second time we ever noticed a mis- application or misinterpretation of a passage of scripture by him. It is right to support a man's wife and children, but this verse does not teach it. This verse applies exclu- sively to the widows related to him, and especially to those connected immediately with his family household. After telling what widows are to be honored or supported by the church and which by their relatives, he says: "Let not a widow be taken into the number [to be supported by the church] under threescore years old," etc. In verse 11 he says the younger ones supported by the church, with nothing to do, would wax wanton and marry. He advises them to marry, etc. He sums it all up in verse 16 : "If any man or woman that believeth have widows [mothers, grandmothers, or aunts, as described in verses 9, 10], let them relieve them, 410 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, and let not the church be charged [with their support] ; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed" — those who have no believing relatives to support them. The whole passage is direction in reference to the necessity of honoring or supporting widows, telling which should and which should not be supported by the church. D. L. LORD'S DAY, THE. Will you please give Bible authority as to the Lord's day? Have we, the Gentiles, changed the day? If so, what will be the conse- quence? There has been no change of day by anybody. The old Jewish Sabbath was done away at the time Christ came and took the law out of the way. The Sabbath day was a part of that law, and Christ took the law all away at his death, as is plainly taught in Col. 2, 2 Cor. 3, and many other passages. The Lord's day, the first day of the week, is a new day entirely, and is to be kept by Christians in memory of the resurrection of Christ from the dead and as the day on which to meet and remember his death by taking the Supper, and thus honor the Lord and strengthen their own hearts and lives in the cause of the Master. So men have no responsibility in the matter, only to observe it to the honor of the Savior. LORD'S DAY, TEACHING CHILDREN ON. Brother Sewell: We read the Gospel Advocate, and we think it an excellent paper; and we especially enjoy reading your articles. Please give us an article in the Advocate on the duty of parents and the churches to children, the best way to teach children on Lord's day, etc. We have no special method to lay down as to how this work should be done; but as to the importance of it, too much could scarcely be said. It is well for parents, and especially mothers, to begin early to tell little children some plain and simple facts or stories in the history of Christ, and thus get them interested in Bible facts. Chil- dren, as a rule, love to hear Bible stories when quite young ; and if told simple incidents in the life of Christ, they will love to hear them and will be interested in them, and grown-up people will often be astonished at the accuracy with which small children will remember them. This sort of teaching should be done at opportune times and never continued too long at a time, or they may tire out on it and not be benefited by such exercises. As soon as they get so they can begin to read and take an interest in what is read to them, read short stories in the life of Christ, and sim- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 411 plify them so that they may be able to understand them. But such exercises should be brief. Nor should they ever be made to feel that a task is being imposed upon them when they are too young to appreciate such matters, but keep them feeling as if they were only for their pleasure. As soon as they are old enough to go into a class in the Lord's-day school, get them interested in that, and go with them, and see that they are put into something they can understand and profit by. It is a nice point to get children started in Bible studies in a way they will be both pleased and benefited. If little children are properly managed, it will be interesting to grown-up people to see what an in- terest they will take in them and how rapidly they will ad- vance in learning Bible history. One defect in the educa- tion of children is that the Bible part of it is too much neg- lected, and what little is done is not done in such way as to be effective or of permanent benefit. Instead of the Bi- ble being considered the most important part of the educa- tion of children, it is generally made the matter of least importance, when in reality it is by far the most important part, and should be so impressed upon children as soon as they can begin to appreciate its plain historical facts. Teachers in Sunday schools should be careful to impress the importance of Bible history and the teaching of the Savior as they are capable of appreciating it. Especially should they teach the plan of salvation. Children should not be troubled with the profound and difficult problems of Bible teaching till they get old enough to understand them. But to neglect to begin teaching the plain and practical things that are taught in the Bible is a great neglect of duty on the part of parents and others who are responsible in the work of teaching the young. The gospel plan of salvation as written in the New Testament is exceedingly plain and can be as easily understood by the children as the plainest stories in their school books. Children thus taught are likely to become Christians while they are young and before their hearts begin to be filled by the vanities and follies of this life. There is no other branch of education so impor- tant as this, and yet no other part of education so much neg- lected as this. The responsibility of parents and teachers is wonderfully heavy along this line. No man can tell how many souls have already been lost by neglect of this duty. We hope that parents, teachers, and all who are in any wise responsible for the teaching of the young will think more seriously on these things. Think how happy you would be to meet with many in the glory home that you assisted in preparing for a place in that happy home. Let nothing, 412 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, therefore, hinder you from so grand a work. Especially let Christian parents work in earnest in the matter of help- ing their children prepare for such a happy and glorious outcome. LORD'S SUPPER, QUERY ABOUT TAKING. Brother Sew ell: Is there a positive command to take the Lord's Supper to God's children? If so, please give chapter and verse. Some think there is as near a command to wash feet as to take the Lord's Supper. It seems strange to me that any child of God should be inquiring after a positive command to eat at his own Fa- ther's table, and thereby commune with Jesus, who has done so much for him. It occurs to me that Christians should esteem it as a privilege to eat at the Father's table, and thus feast upon the spiritual food the Lord has or- dained for them. It would seem just as rational for help- less, dependent children of an earthly father to ask for a positive command to eat at their own father's table. Yet this is never done. These helpless little children embrace the privilege provided and extended to them as the only means of perpetuating their earthly lives, and never think of asking if their father has commanded them to do it. God's children are as dependent upon his divine provisions of spiritual food for spiritual life as earthly children are upon the provisions of earthly parents for life in the flesh. Instead of asking for positive authority to go to the Lord's house on the first day of the week to eat at the Lord's table, they should rejoice in the privilege extended to them, and rejoice and thank and praise his holy name that he has per- mitted them to enter into such close relations with him, to enjoy such rich communion with him at his own table. They should be glad indeed when they may go up to the house of the Lord to feast with him and his children. But when people hold back and ask for a positive command to take the Lord's Supper, it really looks as if they do not want to go, and that unless it is a thing that must be done or they will miss heaven they will not do it. But if such must have positive authority, a positive command, it is at hand. When Jesus instituted the Supper, he said: "This do in remembrance of me." (Luke 22 : 19.) When by mi- raculous vision he gave the Lord's Supper in charge to the apostle Paul, he repeated the same words: "This do in re- membrance of me." (1 Cor. 11: 24.) Here is not only a command, but a repetition of it. This do is the same as Do this. I do not see how a more positive command could be given. The command to repent or to be baptized is no BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 413 more positive than this. This do — that is, attend to the Lord's Supper; for that is the very thing he was talking about. This condensed and impressive sentence accomplishes two ends. It gives, in the first place, the positive command to attend to the Lord's Supper, and. in the next place, in the latter clause gives the design of it — in remembrance of me. I thank the Lord for that grand expression : This do in remembrance of me. It tells us at the same time what to do and gives the purpose for which it is to be done. 0, how full and explicit is the Lord's word ! When Paul re- peated this sentence to the Corinthians, he was not merely giving them information as to what the Lord had given him, but was giving it as a positive command to them to do this very thing — that is, attend to the Lord's Supper. The command is a general one in its bearing, meaning all Chris- tians to the end of time. Therefore, here is a divine and positive command, first given by Jesus himself and repeated by the Holy Spirit through Paul, applying to all the Lord's people through all time. Not only have we this positive command to attend to the Lord's Supper, but the Lord has set the time. "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow." (Acts 20: 7.) Paul had tarried at this place seven days — that is, as we would express it, he got to Troas on Monday, and remained over the next first day of the week, which made the seven days, and departed at the end of the seven days — that is, probably on the morning of the eight day — having been there seven days and nights. Then also, in 1 Cor. 16, Paul speaks of their meeting on the first day of the week as a fixed custom. Thus by divine precedent and example of inspired men the first day of the week is fixed as a divine appointment to the end of time as the day on which the disciples of Christ are to meet to break bread. Then, in Heb. 10 : 25, the apostle says : "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the man- ner of some is," etc. The question arises: What assem- bling is this which Christians are positively required not to forsake? There is but one assembling required in the New Testament, and that is the assembling of the saints together on each first day of the week to worship the Lord in his own appointments. The first day of the week is, therefore, the time divinely set as the day upon which the Lord's people are required to meet to break bread. Therefore we have the positive com- mand from Jesus himself, and repeated by the Holy Spirit 414 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, through Paul, to attend to breaking bread. Then we have also the day divinely set on which it is to be done and the positive divine requisition not to forsake it. The first church at Jerusalem began at once to comply with the di- vine command of Jesus : "This do in remembrance of me." They began at once to break bread. "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine [teaching] and fellow- ship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." (Acts 2 : 42.) Thus from the very day the church of God was es- tablished on earth the disciples began to obey the injunc- tion, This do, etc.; and it was the universal custom of all Christians everywhere in New Testament times to meet on the first day of the week to break bread. This day is called in Revelation "the Lord's day." Now, surely here is au- thority enough, if that is all that is needed. Shall we, then, observe it? Jesus said : "If a man love me, he will keep my words." The command, This do, is the command of Jesus ; and every soul that loves him will keep these words to the full extent of his ability. And, doubtless, there ought to be a much larger measure of the love of God cultivated in the hearts of many who claim to be the disciples of Christ. With a good measure of love welling up in the hearts of the Lord's people, they would not spend much time hunting for commands on this institution. Nay, they would sooner in- quire: "Will the Lord's table be set to-day in my reach, and can I have the exalted privilege of remembering the death of my Lord and Master with my Father's children ?" This will be all they will want to know when the Lord's day comes. Ah, what a gracious privilege to true and loving disciples of Christ to sit at the Lord's table with his peo- ple and feast with him and his servants, his followers ! Instead of more authority, we need more of the love of God in the soul. We have the authority. Now let us cultivate the love for God and Jesus that will lead us to comply with the demands made upon us. The man that wants to go to heaven in the proper sense of the expression, loves to honor and obey the Savior who died for him, will love to sit at his table and remember the great sufferings of Jesus to pro- vide the way by which he may go to heaven, and will love these things more and more as the years go by. As to foot washing, that is a positive requirement, too, but not as a church ordinance. It was done by the Savior in a quiet, private sort of way, after supper, and not the Lord's Supper, either. It was done as an example of kind- ness and courtesy that Christians ought to do for one an- other, and is mentioned but once more in the New Testa- ment, and then mentioned as a private duty — done at home. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 415 This is where Paul, speaking of the private home services of a widow, says, among other things : "If she have washed the saints' feet." In that sort of way, foot washing, if needed, should be done now. But it is not now, and never was, a church ordinance or something to be done in public assembly ; but the Lord's Supper is something to be attended to by all Christians in public assemblies as long as there are Christians on earth to assemble. E. G. S. LORD'S SUPPER, MAY WE EAT WHERE THE ORGAN IS? Brother Sewell: Business called me away from home, and on Lord's day I reached a certain town in Arkansas just as the bells were calling the people to their respective places of worship. I de- cided to go to church. I had been in the house but a few minutes when a young lady began playing on the organ, while another young lady played on some other instrument. They played and sung sev- eral songs; then had Sunday school; then prepared the table; and, after giving thanks for the bread and wine, the deacons passed the emblems to the congregation; but while this was being done, the or- gan was kept going. This made me feel sad, and I refused to par- take of the emblems. Now, my question is: Did I do right, or did I do wrong? We could scarcely give a direct, positive answer to this question. It depends upon how much it takes to vitiate the Lord's Supper and make it of none effect to an individual child of God. If the brother had himself thrust this hu- man innovation upon the Lord's appointment, to gratify his own ear or pride, that fact, in my judgment, would have destroyed the design of the Lord's Supper to him and would have turned it into a mere human affair, and such we understand it was to those who thrust this human inven- tion upon this sacred appointment mentioned by our brother. But in the case of this brother it was different. He had nothing to do in introducing the innovation, and in his heart repudiated all that part of the procedure; and I would not say positively that it would be wrong for a Chris- tian, in such a case, to take the bread and wine, repudiating in his heart the human part. But there is another feature in the case that should be considered. Paul laid down this general principle when discussing the matter of eating meat, observing certain days, and such like: "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing un- clean of itself: but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." (Rom. 14: 14.) If our brother considered that the introduction of the organ so far corrupted the Lord's Supper that it ceased to be the Lord's Supper to any one, then he certainly did right, ac- cording to Paul, not to partake on such an occasion. "For 416 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, whatsoever is not of faith is sin/' (Verse 23.) But if, on the other hand, a Christian, on such an occasion, should understand the sin was altogether on the part of those who put the innovation in, and that he had no part in that, and that taking the bread and wine would be the Lord's Supper to him, I would not say he would do wrong to partake ; nei- ther would I say that he could continue to do so to such an extent as would seem to encourage the innovation. In such a case he would become a party to it and would sin by recognizing and encouraging a human invention as though it were of God. While there are so many human inventions connected with the work and worship of the church, it is sometimes a very nice point to determine just what we ought to do. LORD'S SUPPER, CARRYING THE, TO THE SICK. Brother Seivell: Is it right to carry the Lord's Supper to any brother or sister when they are sick? One of the sisters of this con- gregation called for the elders to come and bring the Supper to her for the last time, and one of the elders said he would never carry the Supper to one if all of them died. I want to know if the elders did right, and are there any grounds or commandments for so doing? If it be inconsistent with any principle of Christianity to carry the emblems to one that is sick on the first day of the week, I am unaware of it. It is a matter of history that in the first age of the church, when any of the members were known to be sick and unable to attend the meetings on the first day of the week, as soon as the services were over at the place of meeting, the deacons were sent with some bread and wine to wait upon the sick ones, so that all might have the opportunity to partake. This item of history is given in Mosheim's church history. And I have known it done often, and I cannot see how there can be anything amiss in it. There surely must have been some other diffi- culty in the way of the above elder besides the mere mat- ter of carrying the bread and wine to a sick member on the first day of the week. I do not see on what ground any one could oppose that. I have many times assisted in that work, and would at any time do so again if called upon, and that with pleasure and with a perfectly clear conscience. But as the brother's reasons for not being willing to carry the bread and wine to this member are not given, of course I could not undertake to meet them. E. G. S. LORD'S TABLE, OR WITH WHOM "NOT TO EAT," ETC. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please give us your views on 1 Cor. 5: 11 — whether it has reference alone to the Lord's table or a literal table. What should be done with one called a "brother" that says BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 417 God has commanded an impossibility — for a man to feed his family and live the life of a Christian? Brethren differ in their notions of this passage, as to whether it refers to the Lord's table or an ordinary table. We understand it to refer to an ordinary table at home, in private life, and that, as Christians, we should not so far recognize a man guilty of the things mentioned in the above as to sit down and eat with him while he is thus act- ing. We may, and ought to, admonish such and try to in- duce them to live a different life ; but we should do nothing that would in the least indicate that we fellowship them in their wicked course of life. Let all such understand that they have to leave off their sins or they cannot enjoy the society of the children of God. Too much friendship is often shown to downright wickedness by associating with men called "brethren" engaged in wicked practices, as though nothing was wrong. As to the second question, no man that knows enough about the Bible to be a Christian believes any such thing. No man that fears God and desires to serve him believes that a man cannot live the Christian and support his family. Men who love the world more than they love the Lord and determine to make money at all hazards and do things to make money that they know are contrary to the will of God, and want an excuse for it, may make such a claim; but no one that appreciates Christianity and desires to go to heaven at last will for a moment indulge such a thought. Men who make such an excuse as that for their wickedness and dishonesty are not on the road to heaven and will never reach that happy home without an entire change in their course of life. Any man can live the Christian and sup- port a family that will, and those who do not will be held accountable. E. G. S. LOTS CHOICE. Brother Sewell: Do you consider Lot a selfish man for taking choice of the land near Sodom, where he pitched his tent, after Abra- ham had given him the privilege of making the choice? Also, do you think that Lot was a good man? There certainly was a good degree of selfishness in the action of Lot in choosing the plain of Jordan and turning his attention toward Sodom. He chose this country be- cause it promised more outcome and more wealth than any other section that he could find. "And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well wa- tered everywhere, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar. Then Lot chose him all 418 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east: and they sep- arated themselves the one from the other." (Gen. 13: 10, 11.) This shows what prompted Lot in his choice. It was a goodly land and promised wealth, and he wanted it. If he had been free from selfishness, he would have said to Abraham, as he was his uncle and the older man : "You take your choice, and then I will find a place to go to." But in- stead of that he quickly and greedily accepted Abraham's proposition and chose that country because it was the best he could find. The country was the richest he could find, and for that very reason he chose it, and left his uncle to do the best he could. If this does not show selfishness and a disposition to appropriate the best to himself, I do not know what would. And when he got started in there and found the country was so fine, he continued there, although he knew the people there were exceedingly wicked, and thus jeopardized the future spiritual good of his children for the sake of gaining wealth and prosperity. But this very same thing that influenced Lot is to-day in- fluencing thousands of Christians to look wholly after that which promises greatest wealth and prosperity, to the neg- lect of spiritual good, both to themselves and their fami- lies, and especially that of their children. Selfishness is by no means the only bad quality mani- fested by Lot. He allowed his greed for gain to lead him into temptations and under sinful influences that led him and his family to ultimate ruin. Although he and his two daughters were saved from the terrible overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, yet those daughters had become so accus- tomed to the sinful habits of the people of Sodom that it prepared them for the great sin they committed against their father, and thus became the mothers of two nations by their father, which are known in the Bible as very cor- rupt people. These were the Moabites and the Ammonites. Thus the sun of Lot went down behind a dark cloud and his posterity a disgrace to the world. So now when Christians allow the love of money or prop- erty to lead them instead of the word of God and a desire to honor God and to put their families under influences to help them into spiritual lives and spiritual good, they are not likely to come out any better for themselves or families than did Lot and his family. Let Christians be sure to fol- low that which will make for the spiritual good both of themselves and families, and all things else will be well. They will be sure to have enough of this world's goods to take them through, if they will be faithful to the Lord. Abraham left a posterity that has been, at least in one BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 419 sense, blessing the world till now, and will to the end of time ; while Lot left a posterity that, as long as they existed, were a curse. Let all, therefore, take warning from Lot's course and its terrible outcome. People do not study the lives of men as given in the Bible and their outcome as they should. It will do any one good to study and contrast the lives of Lot and Abraham and their outcome, if they will study to adopt the good and reject the evil. E. G. S. LOT, HOW WAS THE, CAST? Please tell us through the Gospel Advocate how lots were cast. Two men were selected. The apostles prayed and cast lots. There had to be an expression made in some way. In John 19: 24 we find that the soldiers cast lots for our Lord's coat. There was an expres- sion made. Please explain how this expression was made. As to the process of casting lots, we are not informed in the word of God. One method of casting lots is to put the names of two or more persons for whom lots are to be cast in a basket or vessel in such a way that the one who draws cannot read the names or tell anything whatever about whose name he draws. He simply puts his hand into the vessel and draws out a name at a venture; and whichever name he draws settles the question as to the one chosen, and no expression beyond that is needed. The name drawn out is the one chosen, and that ends the matter. In some such way as this, no doubt, Matthias was chosen. In Bible times many things were satisfactorily settled by lot that could not have been so settled by. voting. When the day of general atonement came on among the Jewish people, they were to present two kids of the goats to be used on that day; and the high priest, arrayed in his priestly garments, was to bring the goats before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. "And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats ; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat." (Lev. 16: 8.) Here both goats were to be used, and the lot was to determine which was to be used for the Lord and which was to be for the scapegoat. Also, Joshua was to divide the land of Canaan to the Jew- ish people by lot, as you may read in the book of Joshua; and the history of it impresses the idea that in this matter the Lord directed or determined the lot, and that was an end to the matter. Brother Seiuell: (1) What was the process of casting lots (Josh. 18: 6) — that is, how did they do it? (2) Why and when was the tribe of Manasseh divided? (Josh. 22: 7.) ' (1) There were perhaps a number of different methods of casting lots in Bible times, but none of them were ex- 420 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, plained. Some think it was done by rocks of two differ- ent colors, one color to represent one side of the question and the other color to represent the other side; that they would mix; them up together, and have some one satisfac- tory to both parties to draw out upon some prescribed rule. In all cases where the Lord's people engaged in it they ex- pected the Lord to have a hand in it and to settle the ques- tion right. As used by the righteous, it was neither a game of chance nor of gambling, but simply a way of having things decided by the Lord. It is not supposed that there was any fixed or universal method of casting lots. (2) It was simply a matter of choice that the tribe of Manasseh was divided. The tribes of Reuben and of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh chose to take their part of the land of Canaan, on the east side of Jordan. They chose this before the crossing of the river into the main body of Palestine. These two and a half tribes located their families and their herds and flocks before the crossing of the Jordan. But the men of war among them went over with the rest to help them fight the Canaanites, leaving their families till they should return. (See Num. 32.) "LOUISVILLE PLAN," THE. After the "Louisville Plan" is dead and buried in a State, how long should a preacher boast the title and authority of "State evangelist" under the plan? This comes from Georgia. We are not fully posted as to the inner working of the plan. We have noticed, how- ever, that where an empty title is all that comes of an office, it is clung to with the greater tenacity, like an old militia captain, major, colonel, or a district squire that had nothing but an empty title and it lasted him through life. It was clung to with pride and tenacity and handed down as a her- itage of honor to the children. "Talk about Sam Snooks 'cause his dad's a squire; my dad's a militation major and has been to the legismilator, county courtship." We sup- pose the empty title of "State evangelist" is treasured as the one memento of honor, to be transmitted as an heir- loom to their children to give them respectability and stand- ing in their courtship and matrimonial alliance. As to the authority of the office, the whole move was to get things in a condition that power could be exercised. Consolidate the churches into a society, and then power can be exercised through the society by men who desire power, but are lacking in the elements to exert influence. Such men are very loath to surrender even the shadow of power that seemed once to be within their grasp. They BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 421 doubtless think, too, it gives weight to flaunt such titles, although we are certain it excites the contempt of right- thinking men. An effort to exercise authority by such persons ought to be resented by the churches as gross im- pertinence. It was bad enough to have a man claiming superiority over his brethren and equals when there was a society to back him. For a man to be claiming it years after the society has ceased to exist is bad taste as well as an evil in tendency. D. L. "LOVEST THOU ME MORE THAN THESE?" A Baptist sister and subscriber to the Gospel Advocate desires to know the antecedent of these in the query of the Savior to Peter : "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?" (John 21: 15.) The usual interpretation given to it is that these refers to the other apostles and disciples who were with him, and attribute his asking such a question to Peter's bold declaration: "Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be of- fended." But we are sure from the structure of the sen- tence, both in English and in Greek, that it refers to the fishes and things of like character. "Peter, do you love me more than you love these things of the flesh — bread, rai- ment, the worldly pursuits?" We think fishes stand as the antecedent of these. The Greek more clearly indicates this than the English. D. L. LYING, IS ALL, DECEPTION? Brother Lipscomb : Do you believe that all forms of deception are lying? My impression is that just certain forms of deception are lying. Webster defines: "Lie- — (1) A criminal falsehood; a falsehood uttered for the purpose of deception; an inten- tional violation of truth. 'It is willful deceit that makes a lie. A man may act a lie, as by pointing his finger in a wrong direction when a traveler inquires of him his road.' (Paley.) (2) A fiction in a ludicrous sense. (3) Any- thing which misleads or disappoints, as false doctrine and the like." As a verb he defines it: "To utter falsehood with an intention to deceive ; to exhibit a false representa- tion ; to do or say that which deceives another, when he has a right to know the truth, or when morality requires a just representation." Certainly, under these definitions, to in- tentionally deceive by word or act is to lie. All intentional deception is lying. When a man keeps his mouth shut for the purpose of deceiving, he lies as much as when he opens it to deceive. Intentional deception constitutes the essence 422 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, of the lie, not the motion or nonmotion of the lips or body. Sometimes a person can utter words that are not true and not lie. He may utter them in a tone or in connection that shows he does not mean what he says. There are numbers of examples of this in the Bible. One in our lesson recently occurs to me. Micaiah, the prophet of God, was appealed to to give favorable counsel to Jehoshaphat to go to the bat- tle, and he said: "As Jehovah liveth, what Jehovah saith unto me, that will I speak." When he came, the king asked : "Shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we for- bear?" He answered: "Go up and prosper." There was something in his saying it that let the king know he did not mean what the words mean. So the king said unto him: "How many times shall I adjure thee that thou speak unto me nothing but the truth in the name of Jehovah?" And he then told him that disaster awaited him if he went up to the battle. (See 1 Kings 22: 13-20.) The words were not true; but he did not lie, because he uttered the words so as not to deceive. The deception constitutes the lie, not the form of the words or the movement of the lips. Fre- quently people wish to know things that we think they have no right or business to know, and we may not wish to tell. Then we may properly decline all information ; but to inten- tionally deceive is to lie. MAJORITIES, DECIDING THINGS BY. Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: A few months have passed since we called a preacher for the present year by a majority of nearly two to one. Those that did not get their choice drew off and organized another congregation, and have been having a great many hard say- ings. When proof is demanded, they fail to bring it. What would be the proper course to pursue? In the first place, the congregation should have reasoned and conferred and prayed together until they could have agreed on the matter of employing a preacher. The idea of carrying things by majority in churches is subversive of the will of God. Christians are required to be subject one to another and to be of one mind and bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. Better do without a preacher than to divide and break up the peace and hap- piness of a congregation. There should never be division in a congregation, except upon one principle, and that is, if some of the members become factious and contentious and will not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, such members should be put away as heretics till such time as they may learn to submit to the law of Christ. The majority of two to one had no right to force some- thing upon the minority that they did not wish, and espe- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 423 cially when the thing done was something the word of God does not command to be done, as in the above case. Churches should never set out to carry things by majorities, but should be agreed in all such matters before they act. Then, in the next place, those who withdrew and formed a party acted as factionists, and have thus divided the church of God — if, indeed, they were really members. They have done wrong in separating themselves, and they con- tinue wrong by continuing to remain in a faction. . If the majority would undo what they have done and appoint a prayer meeting and invite the party that has gone off, and then would all come together, fasting and praying, they might mend the breach and be one again and get along in harmony hereafter. E. G. S. MALICE AGAINST GOD. Brother Lipscomb: (1) Can any one be saved that bears malice against God for not answering his prayer while he was a member of a denomination? He prayed to God to spare one that was dear to him, but that one died. He says he never prays to God now. If a preacher calls on him, he refuses to pray. He will not hold family prayers and will not meet on the first day of the week. Can such a person be right in the sight of God, and can he be saved? (2) If such a person was taken with sectarian baptism and should repent and be baptized, do you not think he would be all right, and without that can he be saved? (1) This person never prayed to God. He directed God what to do. God did not obey him, and he now seeks to spite God. He proposes to boycott him and not patronize him any more. This thing of dictating to God and calling it prayer is too common. Prayer always recognizes God's right to withhold what is asked. Men very frequently di- rect God to do what they wish, and call it prayer. It is the opposite of prayer; it is directing God what he must do. Men frequently are anxious for God to do what they wish, and persuade themselves they are trying to please God. when all the time they are insisting on God's doing what they wish, so pleasing them. Men frequently deceive them- selves on this point in dealing with one another. A man thinks and insists he is trying to please his fellow man, when all the time he is laboring to get his fellow man to do what he desires. There is a wide difference between pleas- ing another and getting him to please us. I knew a man to sow seed ; and because God did not change his plans and send rain to produce a good crop, this man vowed he never would sow any of that seed again. Because the Lord did not change his order to please him, he boycotted God and would not patronize him in that line any more. A great 424 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, many of us, in what we call prayers, tell God if he does not follow our will we will not work with him at all. This poor, mistaken soul is refusing to let God rule. He is try- ing to boycott and spite him because the Lord did not obey his directions. He will fare worse in this effort to spite and control the Almighty than he did when God refused to obey his orders to heal his dear one. It is a great folly and sin to deceive ourselves and imagine we spite God by our rebel- lion against him; we only bring eternal ruin on ourselves. This poor, mistaken soul ought to be shown his folly — how he is working his ruin and not spiting God ; that he is sepa- rating himself forever from the one he loved if that one is saved, and that he is advertising his folly to God and the world. Every true prayer says: "Not my will, but thine, be done." Strong terms in such a case are words of love. (2) I do not think his baptism has anything to do with his condition, nor do I think his condition would be helped by any baptism. Persons bring baptism into ridicule by claiming for it what God has never attributed to it. MAMMON OF UNRIGHTEOUSNESS, THE. Please explain Luke 16: 8, 9, which reads: "And the lord com- mended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the chil- dren of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mam- mon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations." The unjust steward had made such a use of his master's goods as to make friends out of his master's debtors. His master commended him for his sharpness, not for his dis- honesty toward his master. But he had sharply used the goods of another for his own profit. The Savior then said to the disciples: "Make to yourselves friends of the mam- mon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may re- ceive you into everlasting habitations." By "the mammon of unrighteousness" is here meant money, property of this world. The earth and the fullness thereof belong to the Lord. The idea, therefore, is that we, as Christians, must so use the money or property that comes into our hands as to make God and Christ our friends, so that when we die we may be received into everlasting habitations — into heaven. Christians should remember that they are not their own; that the money or property that comes into their hands is not their own; that they and all that they have belong unto the Lord and must be used to his honor and for the good of his cause. And if they do this, all things else being equal, they will go home to heaven when done with this life. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 425 MAMMON, MAKING FRIENDS OF. Brother Sew ell: Please explain this passage: "And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness ; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations." (Luke 16: 9.) Jesus had just finished the parable of the unjust steward who had swindled his employer in order to make friends that would take care of him when he should lose his stew- ardship. Then he gave the charge in the above passage. The "mammon of unrighteousness" means money, or money's worth, which is evidently the meaning of "un- righteous mammon," because the masses of those who have much of it use it in an unrighteous way. Christians are but stewards of God, since they and all they have belong unto the Lord; and all they have and are, money and all, should be used to the honor of God ; and Christians who do this make God and Christ their friends, and they only can receive their faithful followers into everlasting habita- tions — into eternal life — and that is promised to all those that "use the world as not abusing it." So the meaning is that when money and all earthly things fail to help those that use their money and all they have to the honor of God, the friends they have made in so doing, God and Christ, will take them home to glory. MARRIAGE AND OTHER THINGS. Brother Lipscomb: (1) Please explain 1 Cor. 7: 7-16, 26-29. (2) Explain also 1 Tim. 5: 3-10. What is meant by children and nephews? What is meant by if she have washed the saints' feet? Who are the saints ? (1) The chapter is a discussion of the relations of hus- band and wife and of the married and unmarried state in the then existing circumstances. Verse 7 says: "I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God." He was unmarried, and able to restrain his lusts. While he wished all were so, he recog- nized each had his own gift, or ability, and that some could not do as he did ; so each was to accept it as from God and live as this gift, or ability, enabled him. Every one was not able to restrain his lust, and could not remain unmar- ried, as Paul did. Verse 8 : He said to the unmarried and widows it was good to be as Paul was — unmarried. Verse 9 : But if they had not power to restrain their lusts, let them marry. It is better to marry than to burn with lust. Verse 10: The Lord directs a wife should not separate from her husband; but if she could not live with him, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband ; and 426 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, the husband should so act toward his wife. Verse 12: Paul gives some direction that he had not received from the Lord. If a brother has an unbelieving wife and she be content to dwell with him, he should not leave her. Verse 13 : The same direction is given to a woman that has an unbelieving husband. Verse 14 : For the unbelieving hus- band has been sanctified, or set apart, by their marriage to the use of the wife, and the unbelieving wife to the use of the husband. If they were not so set apart to fidelity to each other in the marriage relation, their children would be illegitimate. Verse 15 : But if the unbeliever refuses to live with the believer, let him go. The believer is not un- der bondage in such cases. There is doubt with some as to whether this means the believer is released from the mar- riage vow and at liberty to marry again, or if it only means he is not under obligation to live with the one who departs. I am inclined to believe the former is the true position. Verse 16 : The believer does not know but he or she may be instrumental in converting and saving the unbelieving companion. This provision for the separation from the unbeliever if he desires indicates strongly that believers should not marry unbelievers. Verse 26: Paul thought on account of the prevailing persecution it was good for every man to be as he was. Verse 27 : But if he was mar- ried, let him not leave his wife; if unmarried, let him re- main so. Verse 28 : But if he married, he did not sin ; and if a virgin married, she did not sin; but marrying would bring them trouble in the flesh, and he would like to save them from that trouble. Verse 29 : While these rules were prudential for their good, life was so short it did not make much difference whether they married or not, so they were faithful to God. (2) 1 Tim. 5:3: He tells there are widows that are real widows, poor and without children or grandchildren (the Revised Version reads) to care for them. But if any have children or grandchildren to care for them, they should do it, and thus show piety at home in taking care of their mother or grandmother in need, and not let them become chargeable to the church. Verse 8 : If any of these chil- dren or grandchildren refuse to care for the helpless mother or grandmother, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. Verse 9 : The widow that is to be supported by the church is described. The saints are the servants of God ; and the widow in her life, among other good works, should have washed their feet when they needed washing. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 427 MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, ETC. Brother Lipscomb: A brother marries a sister divorced from her former husband not for a Bible cause. He did so against the warn- ing of the elders of his congregation. The elders then brought the case up in church to withdraw from the offending parties, when it was alleged in behalf of the sister that she did have a Bible cause for her separation from her former husband, although she did not allege it in the bill for divorce. I think the congregation should have withdrawn from them. It did not; and, therefore, I and a few others withdrew our fellowship and are meeting in a house near my home. I base my right to do so on Paul's declaration in 1 Cor. 5: 11: "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no not to eat." Does not to eat mean to refuse to take the Lord's Supper with such a person? Should the congregation, upon this explanation, re- tain the brother and sister? There is no doubt that the Scriptures forbid the marriage of one separated from a husband or wife, save when sep- arated for the cause of adultery. We do not see that what was done in the suit in court has anything to do with it, save that we are to submit to the requirements of civil law that do not interfere with our duties to God. Had she al- leged in the suit for divorce the violation of the marriage obligation, it would have been evidence that her plea before the church is sincere ; but it would have been only evidence. If this evidence is wanting, and there is other evidence suf- ficient to prove that was her reason for separating, the failure to produce that evidence does not destroy the other evidence in her favor. Suits in courts are more generally based on the reasons and causes the lawyers think proper and available than on the complaints of the client. If the evidence otherwise is sufficient to satisfy the church that she separated from him for this cause, the failure to allege the cause in the civil suit ought not to set aside this evi- dence. But there is so much looseness in the churches on the sanctity of the marriage relation, so little regard for the Scripture teaching, it is well to guard another point. The violation of the marriage vow not only must exist, but it must be the cause and ground of separation to justify the remarriage of the separated party. Frequently the guilt of a husband is known. The crime is condoned by the wife. She lives with him knowing his guilt. Finally other causes lead to a separation; and then, when she wishes to marry again, the infidelity of the husband, which did not cause the separation, is made the excuse to justify the new marriage. Unless the separation took place on account of the lewdness of the companion, it cannot be ground for remarriage. Frequently a woman lives with a lewd husband who is one with a harlot. She becomes 428 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, one with him who is one with a harlot — lives this life of doubtful virtue, and some other trouble grows up. She separates from him for this, and makes his lewdness merely the excuse for marrying again. This is not allowable. She is in adultery all the time. I wish to emphasize the thought that if the lewdness of the former husband was the cause of the separation, the failure to allege it in the bill for divorcement could not annul the fact nor affect her right under it. Not only must she have separated from the former husband because of his adultery, to justify her, but the present husband must have been satisfied that was the cause of it when he married her, else his marriage was in intent and at heart adultery. The intention has everything to do with obedience to the command of God. It must not be an incidental happening to obey God when we go and do as we please, but a clear and distinct purpose to be gov- erned by the law, to justify it. For a man and woman to recklessly rush ahead in marriage, determined to do it, law or no law, and after it is done to look around and see if they can then find any ground to justify, does not relieve them from the intentional guilt of marrying whether there be law or no law. I do not know that any of these restrictions apply in this case, but we do know that frequently men and women get in a fever to marry, and determine to do it regardless of consequences ; then, after it is over, they begin to hunt up something to excuse or justify the marriage. Then the church is so ready to say, "They are married now; it is best they should remain so," and excuse it. But a marriage should never be entered into that cannot, on clear scriptural grounds, be justified to the disinterested, especially the eld- ers of the church, before it is entered into ; and the special duty of elders is to advise the young members as to what would or would not be scriptural marriage. While this much is true, I am not sure that, even if all these requirements were disregarded by a church, there is any authority for a member withdrawing from the church. We have never found a single admonition or intimation that members should withdraw from the church of God. The Holy Spirit admonishes the church to withdraw from disorderly members. Some of the churches in the days of the apostles had very bad people in them. One — the Co- rinthian church — had a man who had taken his own step- mother for a wife; and the church was "puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken from among you." We understand by this they were disposed to justify him. Did he recommend that BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 429 anybody should withdraw from the church on this account? Never once. He tells the church to withdraw from him. But if the Holy Spirit ever saw a case that justified an in- dividual in withdrawing from the church, we have never found it. The church — the congregation — is the body of Christ ; we are members of that body. To withdraw from the church is to withdraw from the body of Christ. All the pleas for union, all the condemnation and denun- ciation of division in the Scriptures, are directed to the in- dividual congregations. The congregation is the body of Christ. To divide it is to divide the body of Christ. We have a great horror of denominational divisions, and plead strongly for denominational unity. Christ nor the Holy Spirit ever said a word about these; but we lightly divide the church of God, for the unity of which Christ pleaded most earnestly. The scripture quoted by our brother certainly does not mean that he should not eat at the Lord's table with the disorderly person, for it immediately adds: "Yet not alto- gether with the fornicators of this world." This shows that he forbade them doing with the disorderly in the church what he permitted them to do with the same class out of the church. But they did not eat the Lord's Supper without the church. Then it did not apply to the Lord's Supper. The facts were: Among the Jews to sit at table and eat an ordinary meal with a person was to recognize and approve such person as worthy. Hence the charge against the Savior: "He eateth with publicans and sin- ners." The Jewish brethren contended with Peter, and said: "Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." (Acts 11: 3.) Again, Peter, under the pressure, refused to eat with his Gentile brethren. Among these people, to eat a common meal with a person was a recognition of them in a way that the Holy Spirit forbade the orderly members to do with the disorderly. I do not think one so disorderly should be encouraged to come to the Lord's table; but that it would hurt any one if he should come is borrowed from sectarianism, and not from the Bible. Even admitting the case as bad as our brother reports it, I do not believe there is ground for his dividing the church of God. It is the Christian's duty to protest against wrong constantly and earnestly and oppose it within the church. When the church, for his constant, earnest protest, with- draws from him, it will be time for him to shake the dust off his feet against the church, which has deliberately adopted another law than God's as its own, and so changed 430 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, the church of God into a synagogue of Satan. So long as it is a church of Christ, to withdraw from it is to withdraw from Christ. Men sin in nothing more frequently or more heinously than in lightly esteeming the church of the living God and dividing the body of Christ. D. L. MARRIAGE, ARE JESUS AND PAUL IN HARMONY ON? Brother Sewell: Please harmonize Matt. 19: 9 with 1 Cor. 7: 11, 39. It seems to me that Paul contradicts Jesus. No two inspired writers of the New Testament are in conflict with each other. If at any time we see anything that seems to be in conflict with what any other inspired man says, we may know at once that the trouble is with us, for the Holy Spirit never contradicts himself. Paul does not in any way contradict what Christ said. If there were really such contradictions, that would at once show that one or the other was not inspired, and then we could not tell which to believe, and that would soon destroy faith in the whole business of inspiration. Christ was viewing mar- riage from the loose custom of divorce and remarriage among the Jews. Among them, a man could divorce his wife for almost any cause and marry another woman. Je- sus lets them know that this was granted under the law of Moses on account of the hardness of their hearts, but that from the beginning it was not so. Then he tells how it re- ally is : "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, com- mitteth adultery : and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery." (Matt. 19: 9.) This pas- sage shows that the sin of fornication by either party breaks the marriage tie, and it is the only sin that can break it while both live. It was always true that the death of ei- ther husband or wife would break it, and these two were the only things that could break it. When Jesus spoke thus, he only mentioned fornication; but, of course, death was understood as the other cause that would break the tie. If that had been mentioned at all, he would have said the same of that also. Paul was considering separation from other causes, not from either one of these. There were troubles on hand in Paul's time that he called the "present distress," on account of which it would be better for people not to be married. But while this was true, it was not a cause for separation; that did not break the marriage tie. Hence, Paul taught them that, if they separated for any cause like that, they must not marry any one else, for they were still husband and wife. At that time also among the heathen sometimes husband or wife would became a Chris- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 431 tian and the other not. It was then a question whether they should separate or not. Paul taught them, if they did, to remain unmarried, which shows that did not break the marriage bond. The subject of fornication was not up be- fore Paul. If it had been, he would have said the same that Jesus did. They were viewing things from different stand- points, but there is no conflict between them. MARRIED TO CHRIST, ARE CHRISTIANS ALREADY? Do the Scriptures teach that Christians are already married to Christ, or is the marriage to take place at the end of time? Marriage is used in Scripture as a figure to denote the union of God with the church. It was typified by his union with the Jewish people. God said: "Turn, backsliding children; . . . for I am married unto you." Many scriptures testify this same truth. Paul says : "I have es- poused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." (1 Cor. 11: 2.) Espoused does not mean necessarily married; but when joined with the word husband, it means married. The church certainly has as close a union with God as did the Jews. Then the church is bearing and nurturing children to God. Certainly the church is not bearing children before she is married. I know of no single passage of scripture that intimates that anything like a marriage is to take place at the resurrection. MARRIED, WAS PAUL? Brother Lipscomb: I have a question to ask you, and here it is: Was the apostle Paul ever a married man or not? Is there any other place in the New Testament that says anything about his not being married, except what he says in 1 Cor. 7: 8: "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I?" You see that he uses the widows last. Well, he also says that Tim- othy is his beloved son. Well, in 2 Cor. 6: 13 he says: "Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children)." Now, if Paul had no children, how would he know how to recompense some one else like a child — if he never was married or had no children to recompense? Then we notice that the whole book of 2 Tim. is a charge to Timothy, like any other man would give to a son. Then in 2 Tim. 1: 5 he says: "When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice." So we see that Paul never has given a charge to any one else like this one to Timothy, or he never has talked about other women like those two. He also says that Timothy has known the Holy Scriptures from a child. And then he speaks of his son, Onesimus, "whom I have begotten in my bonds: . . . whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bow- els." (Phile. 1: 10-12.) Also: "If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, put that on mine account." (Verse 18.) So now, Brother Lipscomb, this language does sound very much to me like a man that has been married, or he has raised two sons by a bondwoman; so if 432 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, you have any other to prove that he never was married than 1 Cor. 7 : 8, let me hear from you. I do not know that it is a matter of importance whether Paul was married or not. Some have thought he may have been married in his early life and his wife was not living in his older days. The reasons given above do not prove it. Timothy was not the son of Paul after the flesh. "Him [Timothy] would Paul have to go forth with him; and he took and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those parts : for they all knew that his father was a Greek." (Acts 16: 3.) Paul was not a Greek, but a Jew, of the house of Benjamin, "a Hebrew of the Hebrews.'' (Phil. 3: 4, 5.) He said he had begotten Onesimus in the gospel while Paul was in bonds. He was in bonds three or four years. Certainly in that time he did beget a child, and it grew up to be a helper to Paul in his work. Read the epis- tle to Philemon, and see he was a slave of Philemon, had run away from him, had met with Paul, been converted by him, and Paul sent him to his master from Rome, where Paul had converted him. We are willing to accept the gen- eral understanding that Paul and Barnabas "had no wives ;" and as there is nothing in it to save or destroy a person, just leave it so. MARRYING, A CHRISTIAN, ONE NOT A CHRISTIAN. Brother Lipscomb: Please tell me through the Gospel Advocate whether a Christian would be justifiable in marrying a woman that was not a Christian; if so, where will I find the scripture for it? The New Testament nowhere gives specific directions to a Christian man as to whom he should marry. The only direction given restricting marriage is that a widow "is at liberty to be married to whom she will ; only in the Lord." (1 Cor. 7: 39.) I know of no reason why a widow should be restricted in the matter more than maidens. Perhaps it might be considered better for a man to marry out of Christ than for a woman, since he is supposed not to be so much under her control as she is under his; but under the law of Moses the man was prohibited marrying out of the family of God, save when the woman would identify her- self with the people of God. The reason given was, lest they draw them into idolatry. Solomon violated the law; and, despite his wisdom and power, his wives drew him into idolatry. Influence is frequently more potent for good or evil than authority or power. The sons of Elimelech and Naomi, when they went down into the land of Moab, mar- ried heathen wives — Ruth and Orpah — and it brought Ruth to the service of God. This marriage was when there were BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 433 none others to marry. The law of Moses is an earthly type of the law of Christ. The inference would be that the chil- dren of God could not marry out of the family of God. "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers : for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what con- cord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel ? and what agreement hath the tem- ple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them ; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing ; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." (2 Cor. 6: 14-18.) To be yoked with a person is to be so bound to them that one will be influenced or controlled by the course of the other. I know of no relationship that more effectu- ally yokes them together, causes one to be influenced and controlled by the other. The spirit and teaching of the Bi- ble seem to me against it, and yet there is no direct and spe- cific prohibition of it. God recognizes it as a necessity for some to marry, in order to live virtuously. If such cannot marry Christian wives, they will marry those not Chris- tian. Then it is their duty to try to convert them to Christ Jesus. Brother Sewell: Please explain 2 Cor. 6: 14. Do you think it is a sin for a Christian to marry one that is not a Christian? This is the verse referred to: "Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with dark- ness?" The principle of this passage, as I understand it, is involved in your question. Paul says : "A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth ; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord." (1 Cor. 7 : 39.) So a widow that is a Chris- tian is limited in a second marriage to a man that is a Christian, if she should marry again. I do not suppose the law in the case of a young Christian woman differs in principle from a widow that is a Christian. If it is wrong for a Christian widow to marry a man not a Christian, why is it not wrong also for a young Christian woman to marry a man not a Christian? So while the passage you name was written regarding business compacts with wicked un- believers, the principle involved in marriage is very much the same. In either case it would be likely to be a hin- drance to a Christian in living the Christian life. The 434 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, next verse to the one you ask about says : "Or what portion hath a believer with an unbeliever?" While it may not be as great a risk to marry a man that is not a Christian in this Bible land as it was in heathen, idolatrous lands, it is certainly a great risk in two respects. In the first place, it is a risk to undertake to be a faithful Christian with one who rejects the gospel ; in the next place, it is a step out of harmony with the word of God to do so. MARRYING RELATIVES. Brother Lipscomb : Do you think it wrong for relatives as near as first cousins or second cousins to marry? Is it anywhere forbidden in the Scriptures? There is no scripture forbidding it. It was encouraged among the Jews to keep the families separate and distinct. The family of Abraham was superior to the other families, and it seemed that intermarriage with them would deterio- rate Abraham's family. Some think in latter days that in- termarriage deteriorates the family. I think it likely that when a weakness, bodily or mental, becomes fixed in a fam- ily, marriage between members inheriting the weakness will intensify the weakness in the children of the marriage. So bodily or mental weakness may be increased by the in- termarriage of relatives; but when there is no weakness peculiar to the family, I cannot think that God encouraged an order that would be detrimental to the children. MARRYING AFTER SEPARATION. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: If a lady marries and she and her husband separate for some other cause than that of fornication, and after they separate she becomes a disciple, is she then at liberty to marry again? Does her becoming a disciple free her from her first marriage? According to the language of Christ, such a one is not released, but, on the other hand, more firmly bound not to marry again while her former husband lives. E. G. S. MATT. 18: 18 EXPLAINED. Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Will one of you be so kind as to give us your views of Matt. 18: 18? Now, Christ was talking to his apostles, and I understand him to mean this: If you forgive a man, that act is ratified in heaven. I acknowledge that to be right. If you deliver one to Satan, so do I. Now, if the church was to with- draw from one to-day, and he was to give evidence of repentance, and we were to receive him back into the fellowship of the church next week, would that act be ratified in heaven? Would whatever the church does now be acknowledged to be right? No act of an apostle was ratified in heaven unless that act was in accord with the will of God. Whatever a church or an individual Christian does that is in accord with the BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 435 will of God is ratified in heaven. Nay, more; whatever a church or Christian does under the direction of God, it is God himself doing it. In this case it is God working in his servants "to will and to do of his own good pleasure." Christ tells his servants if a brother who has sinned turn and repent, forgive him. If we forgive him when he does this, it is God doing it in and through us — in and through the church. The only point of difficulty is, we cannot know the heart as God does. We may sometimes forgive when the heart is not right. God, who knows the hearts of all, does not forgive in this case. D. L. MELCHISEDEC. Brother Sewell: Please tell me who was "Melchisedec king of Sa- lem," spoken of in Gen. 14: 18; also in Heb. 7: 1, "king of Salem, priest of the most high God." We cannot undertake to say with certainty who Melchise- dec was. From what is said of him in Gen. 14 and in Heb. 7, he seems to have been a man who lived where Abraham lived, and who met Abraham when he was returning from the slaughter of the kings, and to whom Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils he had taken from those he destroyed when he rescued his nephew, Lot. He is represented to have been a priest unto God; but that is nothing strange, for all the patriarchs were priests in the sense that each one could make his own offerings to God without the aid of a special priest, as was the case under the Jewish law. Melchisedec is said to have been without beginning of days or end of life and without father or mother. This is under- stood to refer to his priesthood, as priests in his day were not confined to a certain tribe, as the Jewish priesthood, and had no fixed age to begin or to leave off the exercise of the priestly office or work. But some understand that Melchisedec was a personal representation of Christ which was manifested in Abraham. But really our salvation does not depend upon understanding who he was. Melchisedec was evidently a man that lived in the days of Abraham. When certain kings had captured Sodom and had carried away much spoil, and had captured Lot and his family and goods and were carrying them away, Abraham armed his servants and pursued the marauders, overtook them, overpowered them, took the spoil from them, and re- captured Lot and his family and goods, and was returning. "Melchisedec king of Salem brought forth bread and wine : and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high 436 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, God, possessor of heaven and earth : and blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all." (Gen. 14: 18-20.) I see no way to avoid the conclusion that Melchisedec was a man, as was Abraham. But Paul says some things in Hebrews about him that have led some people to think that he was more than a man. He said of him that he was "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." (Heb. 7:3.) If we apply this passage to him simply as a human being, it is certainly a puzzling one. We cannot see how a mere man could be without either father or mother or with- out beginning of days or end of life. But if we understand it to have reference to his priesthood, the trouble vanishes. In the Jewish priesthood none could be priests but the sons, the posterity of Levi, while the high priest must be of the posterity of Aaron. The Levites, not of the son of Aaron, were to begin their service at the age of thirty and leave off that service at fifty. So, in the law of Moses, Levi was the father of all the priests, while Aaron was the father of the high or special priests. So the Jewish priesthood had father and mother in that office, while the common priests had beginning of days and ending of life in their priestly work. But the patriarchal priesthood was different. They did not have to be descendants of a particular father, nor did they have to begin and leave off at certain ages. And as Melchisedec was a priest of the patriarchal order, he was a lifetime priest ; and Christ was made priest after his order — that is, was to be a priest without limit. Mel- chisedec was king of Salem, which is generally understood to have been Jerusalem. He was a Canaanite, as is gener- ally understood, and one that had held on to the patriarchal form of worship, being a lifetime priest of that order. If he was not simply a man, we have no means of ever set- tling what sort of being he was. But understanding that Paul was discussing the priesthood, and was showing the difference between the patriarchal and the Jewish priest- hood, and was illustrating that of Christ by the patriarchal, all is plain and in full harmony with all that is. said on the subject. MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH, HOW PERSONS BECOME. 1. Do faith, repentance, confession, and baptism make a person a member of "the church," or does it require some subsequent action to make a person a member of "the church?" 2. Does the expression "kingdom of God" in John 3: 5 mean the same thing as the expression "the church?" BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 437 3. Is there any distinction between the expression "the church" in Col. 1: 18 and the same expression in Rom. 16: 5? 1. There can be no doubt but that faith, repentance, and baptism put men into the church, the kingdom of God, the body of Christ. All these expressions, when used in a gen- eral sense, to signify the whole people of God on earth, the entire kingdom of God, mean the same thing. The word church may be used to signify only an individual congre- gation — a sort of family of Christians meeting together at one place to keep the ordinances of God. In this latter sense, generally, for convenience' sake and to keep from be- ing imposed upon, individual congregations have some for- mal method of receiving new members into their number — into their family. This is usually done by extending the right hand of Christian fellowship to those who come in, whether through obedience to the gospel or by commenda- tion from other congregations. But this reception of mem- bers into individual congregations has nothing in the world to do in making them Christians, or members of the body of Christ, as such. If they are not already Christians when they present themselves for membership in an individual congregation, receiving them by the hand of fellowship a thousand times would never make them such. The denom- inational idea of first becoming Christians and then after- wards becoming members of the visible church, or body, on earth, is wholly unknown in the oracles of God. The very same process that makes a man a Christian makes him at the same time a member of the church of God, the body of Christ, on earth, and makes him to all intents and pur- poses a child of God, and entitles him to all the privileges of a Christian. Receiving members by the right hand of Christian fel- lowship is only an act of Christian courtesy, of Christian kindness, by which the new member is made to feel that he is welcome, just as an individual Christian family receives a brother and makes him feel that he is welcome by greet- ing him with a hearty shake of the right hand upon his en- trance into their house. And we think it just as proper and important that congregations, in receiving new mem- bers into their number to sojourn with them for a time to serve the Lord with them, should receive them with a hearty greeting and shake of the hand as for individual families to do the same when their brethren call in to sojourn with them for a time. Some congregations refuse to receive new members by extending the right hand of Christian fellow- ship, because they say there is no authority for it in the word of God. No one who understands the word of Go: 438 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, thinks of claiming it as something that God requires, but simply as an act of Christian courtesy to make members feel that they are heartily welcome in the congregation, an act also of social enjoyment among Christians. We fre- quently see congregations become happy and shed tears o" joy while extending the right hand to new members. We can see no reason why it should not be done. So far as authority for the practice is concerned, it is about the same as building meetinghouses and such like — something that Christians do for their own happiness and well-being and to make others feel happy and at home among them. 2. We have no doubt in the world but that the expres- sion kingdom of God, in John 3: 5, has reference to the very same institution that Christ referred to when he said : "On this rock I will build my church." The word church here and the phrase kingdom of God mean the same insti- tution. Whenever a man is born of water and of the Spirit, as is the case with every one who obeys the gospel of Christ, he is at once in the church of God, the kingdom of God, on earth, and should then at once attach himself to the most convenient congregation and meet regularly with them to keep the ordinances, and thus serve the Lord in his own appointments. 3. The words the church, in Romans and Colossians, do not mean exactly the same thing. The word church, in Rom. 16: 5, has reference simply to one single congrega- tion which was meeting at a private house in Rome, while the same word in Col. 1 : 18 has reference to all Christians on earth as constituting the body of Christ, of which body Christ himself is the head. The word church is sometimes restricted in its application to a single congregation of Christians, at a single place, while in other places the same word embraces at once every child of God on earth, as is clearly illustrated in the above passages. E. G. S. MEMORIAL, MARY'S. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: We read in Mark 14: 3: "And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spike- nard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head." Verse 9 reads thus: "Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her." Now, I want to know the reason this is neglected. It seems to me that it would be good to tell wherever the gospel is preached. We suppose that wherever the Bible goes this is told con- cerning the woman; at least the Bible tells it. This is all we understand the passage to mean. D. L. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 439 "MESSENGERS," CHURCH "APOSTLES," OR. The Christian Courier says "the messengers of the churches," in 2 Cor. 8: 23, are really apostles of the churches. The Greek word translated messengers is apostoloi — the same word that is used to in- dicate the apostles of Christ. Is this correct? It is correct. Apostolos, or apostoloi (plural), means the person or persons sent. Any one sent on any kind of an errand is an apostle of him sending. The messengers of the churches were sent by the churches and sustained the same relation to the churches sending them as the apostles sent by Christ sustained to him. The apostles of Christ were sent by Christ to deliver a message. They had no authority except to deliver the message and perform the work Christ sent them to do. They had no authority as delegates. They had no right to confer one with another, to determine what or how the Lord or Christ should act. They had no right to change or modify any decision, sit in judgment upon the will or work or order of God. They had no right to legislate for God. The apostles or messen- gers of the churches had no more right to assemble, confer, determine what was best for the churches than the apostles had the right to legislate for or determine what or how Christ and God should do. The messengers of the churches were sent to carry the message and do the specific work the church sent them to do, without discretion or power to change or otherwise direct the work of the churches. Some ridicule the idea of a distinction between a messenger and a delegate. They only show their lack of discrimination be- tween things that essentially differ, or they purposely ig- nore an important distinction to mislead persons as to the character of their works. Delegate is to send as one's rep- resentative, to empower as an ambassador, to commission, to depute ; as, to delegate commissions. It implies the right to confer, consider, determine what is best, and, to a certain extent, legislate. Delegates may meet and organize a new body. That one body will possess the power of all the bod- ies sending delegates. A messenger is one who bears a message. He has no discretionary power, no right to con- fer, devise, or act for the one sending, no more than the apostles or messengers of Christ possessed. Messengers have no right to meet other messengers and organize a body, nor to consider or to determine what is best or to form a new organization or to legislate. Scripture messengers carried a message or gift, went to do a work and return. Their power was limited to this. A bearer of dispatches is a messenger ; a minister pleni- potentiary is a delegate. A representative or a senator is 440 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, a delegate; a page or messenger that carries dispatches from one member or one legislative body to another is a messenger. The electors who meet to elect a president are delegates ; the man who carries the vote to Washington is a messenger. The churches sent messengers to deliver their messages and receive others and to bear their gifts. Messengers were sent to the churches in Judea to bear the gifts of those sending. Messengers were sent with gifts to Paul. Mes- sengers were sent by Paul to the churches to urge them to make gifts, to tell how it was with him, and to learn how the churches did or receive their gifts and return. Paul and Barnabas were sent as messengers to the apostles at Jerusalem to report the troubles and facts about the cir- cumcision question to the apostles, to receive their response and bring it back; but no delegate was sent, no delegate meeting was held during the apostolic age. MILLENNIAL REIGN, WHEN THE? Brother Seivell: The "Millennial Dawn" says the prophecies of the Bible will be fulfilled, and that Christ will come in the year 1914, and then the millennial reign will begin. What do you think about it? The Millennial Dawn people do not know a single thing more about when the so-called "millennium" will begin than I do, and I do not know anything in the world as to the time when that wonderful event will begin. That period may begin this year or next, or it may be five or five hun- dred years. Peter by the Holy Spirit said : "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up." (2 Pet. 3: 10.) Je- sus indicates no man will know when the end comes, but tells us to watch and to be ready. Peter also says regard- ing the end of things earthly: "Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for these things, give diligence that ye may be found in peace, without spot and blameless in his sight." (2 Pet. 3: 14.) This is the great matter for us to look after. If we will live all the time so as to be ready when the end does come, we will enjoy what God has in store for his people just as much as if we had known all our lives when it would come. On the other hand, believing it will come at a certain time will not prepare any one for the blessings in store for the righteous. People may believe they know the day of the end for a lifetime and be lost when it does come, unless they are found faithfully doing the Lord's will when it comes. The great matter, there- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 441 fore, is to be all the time doing the Lord's will and not bother ourselves trying to find out what the Lord says we cannot know. It is a great worry and loss of time and brain power to be trying to find out that which is shut up from us and which would be no benefit to us if we did know. MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS. Is there any scripture to exclude a member from the church for an offense after he has repented and asked forgiveness and asked to live in the church? Does 1 Cor. 5 show that the incestuous man had quit his sin, or ever did repent, or was excluded from the church at Corinth? Can the church of Christ afford to sacrifice the word of God for the sake of decency or the good name of the church? Is it generally understood among Christian denominations that every church is an independent body of Christian believers, with Christ as their head and the word of God as the man of their counsel, or has any one a right to dictate to God's people save the word of God? Does not God look at all sin alike, except the sin against the Holy Ghost? Salem Baptist Association, that met with the Baptist church at Woodbury, Cannon County, Tenn., September 16, 1892, excluded one of her sister churches from her fellowship for retaining a member that had been guilty of an offense. He acknowledged and repented of the sin, and asked the church to forgive him and to let him live in the church. Undoubtedly the admonitions of Scripture all teach that a man is to be forgiven on repentance. In Matt. 18 : 15-17 the Savior says : "If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." This begins as an offense against an individual ; but it comes to the church, and shows plainly that if he hears the church, or repents of his course, that must end the matter. In- deed, the whole direction shows that the end to be reached is the repentance of the sinner. The moment that is reached the discipline ends. If the personal remonstrance of the injured one brings repentance, that ends the matter. If the intervention of the two or three taken with the in- jured man produces repentance, that ends the matter. If, when it comes before the church, he repents, that ends it. It shows, too, that the same course governs the course of the individual injured and the church. If one member suffers, the whole body suffers with it. In verses 21, 22 Peter says, "Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, 442 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, and I forgive him ? till seven times ? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven" — showing that whenever repentance takes place, forgiveness must follow immediately. If it is the duty of one Christian, and especially the injured one, to forgive, it is equally the duty of every member and the whole church to forgive. Repentance is the end of disci- pline. When the sinner repents, he must be regarded as though he had not sinned. There can be nothing against him. This passage is followed up by an illustration of the stew- ard that owed his lord ten thousand talents; and when he had nothing to pay, he fell down and worshiped him, and said: "Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all." Then the lord of this servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him and forgave him the debt. That the servant afterwards sinned and forfeited the forgiveness of his lord militates nothing against the fact that he did forgive him when he asked for mercy. But if the sinner is not forgiven when he repents and asks forgiveness, when is he to be forgiven? If the re- pentance does not bring forgiveness to-day, what will make it better to-morrow or next week or next year? If for- giveness is not conditioned on repentance and confession, on what is it conditioned? If conditioned on repentance and confession, it is a sin to withhold forgiveness when the conditions are complied with. In 1 Cor. 5: 1, 2 the man who had his father's wife clearly had not repented. "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, . . . that one should have his father's wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you." Not only the sinner had not repented, but the church had not regretted and mourned over it ; but the inference is that it rather sustained, or at least excused, him in the wickedness. Paul says: "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered to- gether, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruc- tion of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Certainly if others had not regarded it as sin, he had not. Then when he did repent, Paul admon- ished them: "So that contrariwise ye ought rather to for- give him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow." (2 Cor. 2: 7.) Those who insist on withdrawing from a member, whether he repents or not, do it, we believe, to satisfy pub- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 443 lie sentiment — to make the impression on the world that they are just and condemn such crimes. It means they are merely acting for effect on the world. Remember that what the church does in accordance with the will of Christ, Christ does. Then it would represent Christ as a mere ac- tor before men. He forgives when the man repents, but he pretends not to do it until he is justified before the world. The idea is a slander on Christ, and introduces the most dangerous rule into the church that ever influenced it — that is, to act to secure the approval of the world. If and when he repents, forgive him, is heaven's law to the chil- dren of God, individually and collectively. We hardly know what is generally understood among the Christian denominations. The Methodists and Presby- terians hold that their general assemblies and conferences can supervise the actions of the congregations. Their creeds or disciplines clearly show this. The Baptists, in theory, deny that there is any higher authority than the single congregation of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that no general organization has any power to coerce or condemn or overrule the action of the church ; but in practice they contradict that theory and do exactly like the Methodists and Presbyterians. The Baptist association exercises all the authority that a Methodist conference or Presbyterian synod can. They can do nothing more than declare non- fellowship with a church that violates their rules. This the Baptist association does. The association rejects from the fellowship every church that fellowships the condemned church. Owing to the manner of deeding the property, a Baptist church can hold its property despite the associa- tion, while the title of a Methodist or Presbyterian church inheres in the conference or synod, we believe. But so far as the question of retaining in or rejecting from the fel- lowship is concerned, the Baptist association exercises as much power as does the Methodist or Presbyterian assem- bly. They do it in contradiction of their own principles and of what they claim to be the teachings of the Bible. The Bible recognizes no assembly or organization above the church of Christ. Anything above this is an invention of man. It is a usurpation of the rights of the congrega- tion. In primitive times the church sought the counsel and instruction of the apostles and inspired teachers that it might understand the law and act upon it. But the church acted. It may be right for the church to seek the counsel of those skilled in the Bible teaching, that htey may act ac- cording to it; but no power can overrule the action of the church of Christ. D. L. 444 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, MONEY CHANGERS, WHAT WERE THEY DOING? Brother Sewell: Please explain Matt. 21: 12. What were the money changers doing? Why were they driven out? Here is the verse: "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that sold doves." Many of the Jews at that time lived far away from Jerusalem and had to come there to make all their offerings. To such as these it was too far to carry their offerings, and they could dispose of their offerings and buy other offerings in their place when they got to Jerusalem from those dealers, who were Jews. Also all the Jews from twenty years old and upward had to pay a half shekel each, which was to be used in the ex- penses of the temple. This half shekel was a Jewish coin, and the Jews that came from far, where Jewish money was not in circulation, had to change their money with money changers at Jerusalem for Jewish coin in order to pay the half shekel tax. These money changers were there for these purposes, and were carrying on their business in the temple, which was a profanation of that holy place ; and on that account Jesus drove them out. He did this more than once. He also accused them of changing the temple from a house of prayer into a den of thieves. The Jewish people had at that time become very lax in the temple service, and the Savior gave them a terrible rebuke on this occasion for their departures from the true use of the temple. "MOON," THE, AND "TWELVE STARS." Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: It is written in Rev. 12: 1: "And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars." Please tell us what you understand by the moon un- der her feet and the crown of twelve stars. The language is so highly figurative that we do not un- derstand it. The time doubtless will come when it will be very plain ; but the time has not yet come for us to under- stand it. We are not even willing to venture an opinion about its meaning. When we cannot see our way clearly, we are not in the habit of venturing. E. G. S. MORMON, BOOK OF, AND ISA. 29. Brother Lipscomb: Please explain Isa. 29: 4, 11, 12. This is be- ing used all over this country by the "Josephite branch of the Mor- mon Church" to prove the false claim of the "Book of Mormon." These passages do not come within five hundred miles or years of the Mormon Church of either branch. What BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 445 would be thought of one who in a trial for. a few dollars would introduce a witness who never spoke a word that any one could say referred to the case or even heard of the case? There is not a man living that can say with the least shadow of truth that these or any other scriptures have any refer- ence to the Mormon Bible, since this is not mentioned by name nor an intelligent reference in the Bible. A man that would propose such testimony in a money case would be regarded a lunatic. One who depends on unfulfilled proph- ecy to prove facts connected with revealed things depends on uncertain props. Who could take the unfulfilled proph- ecy and beforehand interpret as it was fulfilled and ex- plained by the Holy Spirit? The prophet seems to be re- citing curses that God will inflict or see inflicted on the re- bellious nations of these times. He gives a statement that God shall overrule all, then overthrow Assyria (chapters 8-12), then Babylon (chapters 13, 14), Moab (chapters 15, 16), Damascus (chapter 17), Egypt (chapters 19, 20), and Tyre (chapter 23). Then he gives the sentence on his own people — first Israel and then Judah. These last were to be brought low, but not destroyed. Chapter 29 is de- voted to the evils that came upon Jerusalem, the chief seat, under the name of "Ariel," where David dwelt. A number of curses are pronounced here: "I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee. And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust. Moreover the multitude of thy strangers shall be like small dust, and the multitude of the terrible ones shall be as chaff that passeth away: yea, it shall be at an instant suddenly." (Isa. 29: 3-5.) Read the whole chapter. It and the following chap- ters are repetitions of curses upon Jerusalem and Judea for their sins, with promises of deliverance when they shall repent. Israel was to be brought low and speak as from the ground because of her sins. There is not the most re- mote reference to anything else than this in this and some of the following chapters. There is no reference to Mor- monism. MORMONS ON MARK 16: 17, 18. Brother Sewell: Some of the readers of the Gospel Advocate are closely associated with a people who call themselves "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints." Said readers are not able to answer all the arguments of said people, and would like to have some scriptures explained. They quote from the commission as given in 446 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, Mark 16: 17, 18; Luke 10: 19; and others of like import. Please write an article giving the strongest arguments of this people and explain them. The first passage referred to in the above is this: "And these signs shall accompany them that believe : in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues ; they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." The second pas- sage is of the same character, only shorter : "Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy : and nothing shall in any wise hurt you." These and some other passages of like import are used by the Mormons, now calling them- selves "Latter-Day Saints," to support their claim of abil- ity to perform miracles at the present time. But they fail to notice the fact that these passages were applied to men that were able to perform miracles even during the lifetime of the Savior. The passage in Mark was addressed to the apostles, who from the time they were called and sent out in their first commission were empowered to work miracles — to heal the sick, raise the dead, and cast out demons. (See Matt. 10: 8.) The passage in Luke was addressed to the seventy when they were sent out. These passages, therefore, were not addressed to all disciples and were not intended to apply to any for all time. Neither these pas- sages nor any others like them were ever applied to the disciples as a whole, and to so apply them now is a mis- application of the word of the Lord. During the time of writing the New Testament miracles were common among Christians ; but we are plainly taught that miracles were to cease. Paul tells us plainly that they were to be done away: "Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away ; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away." (1 Cor. 13: 8.) The principle of love will never cease in the church; but the time was to come when there would be no more prophets, nor any that could speak with tongues. This does not mean that proph- ecies already uttered would cease to be fulfilled, but that the inspiration that enabled men to foretell future events would cease, would be done away, and that the power to speak with tongues, to speak in tongues they did not under- stand, had never learned, would cease to be given ; also that knowledge, the power to know things without learning them — that is, by the power of inspiration — would cease. This passage includes in its broad sense and principles all the miraculous powers that were given in the first age of BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 447 the church. It includes the very powers named in the pas- sages above quoted and all the miraculous powers that were given in revealing and establishing the church of God on earth. These powers were given to help men do what they could not have done without that power, as the New Testa- ment had not then been completed. Paul tells us about these things in the following passage : "He that descended is the same also that ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things. And he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the per- fecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ: till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: that we may be no longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error; but speaking truth in love, may grow up in all things into him, who is the head, even Christ." (Eph. 4: 10-15.) In this passage Paul explains the whole matter ; tells what these miraculous powers were given for, which was the upbuilding and edification of the church. He also plainly indicates to us that these miracu- lous powers were not intended to be permanent, but only to continue till certain ends should be accomplished — till all should come into the unity of the faith; till the whole matter of revelation pertaining to the church of God, the New Testament in all its parts, should be finished, and a full standard of everything pertaining to the work and worship of the church should be furnished, which was done in giving the New Testament. When this divine volume was completed, there was no longer a necessity for the miraculous powers, because it contained all the information that was in the spiritual gifts that were so very necessary before the New Testament was given. Hence, when that wonderful production of the Spirit, the full presentation of the new and everlasting covenant, was completed, miracu- lous powers were taken away and have not been possessed any more. The claim, therefore, of working miracles since these powers were taken away is without a particle of foundation in the word of God and utterly unknown among men, and the claim of such power is always brought to grief when put to the test. It is a fact that the passages the Mormons quote to prove that they possess these powers yet are among the very things the Holy Spirit, through Paul, said should 448 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, be done away. They were given and exercised just as promised in the first age of the church, when the gifts of healing, of prophecy, of tongues, and all such gifts, were given to the church for the accomplishment of these needed ends; but when these ends were filled, those miraculous powers were ended by him that gave them; for, with the New Testament in hand, we repeat that there was and is no further use for them. Those, therefore, that accept and use the word of God in its proper division and application make no claim of any such power. They learn from their divine Standard that all the promised gifts came, filled their mission, and have been taken away, and that the New Tes- tament gives all the light these miraculous powers ever gave. It is only those who are living in the dark shadows of error, and who are building up theories and parties in religion, that are laying any claim to such things. But it is certain that such people will never be able to bring back those miraculous gifts. MOSES, THE LAW OF. 1. What evidence have we that obedience to the law of Moses se- cured eternal salvation? I heard a preacher say that it secured a timely or temporal salvation only. 2. What evidence is furnished that the Gentiles could be circum- cised, obey the law of Moses, and be saved as well as the Hebrews? 1. The law of Moses was temporal and temporary. It per- tains to things present in this world, was of short duration, was added because of transgression until the people were educated and prepared for the coming of Christ. Paul (Acts 13: 38, 39) says: "Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins : and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justi- fied by the law of Moses." 'Tor if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh : how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might re- ceive the promise of eternal inheritance." (Heb. 9 : 13-15.) I understand this to teach that the redemption of the trans- gressions that were under the first covenant was completed only when Christ was crucified, or his blood shed. The typical blood cleansed and sanctified the flesh for a time. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 449 The sins were postponed, or atoned for, for a year at a time, and were finally washed away by the blood of Christ. The same lesson is taught in Rom. 3 : 25. "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." (Rom. 8: 3.) "Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were of- fered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the con- science." (Heb. 9: 9.) I think it clear that the sacrifices and services of the Mosaic law were typical. The salvation was temporary and typical, and was perfected only when the types and shadows gave place to the perfect and true sacrifice of Je- sus Christ, the righteous. This shows no sins — past, pres- ent, or future — can be forgiven without the shedding and washing of the blood of Christ. The blood was shed by Christ; the washing in that blood must be done by man. Man must come to the blood-sealed appointments and, in walking in these, wash himself in the blood of the Son of God. 2. "When a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let. him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land : for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. One law shall be to him that is home- born, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." (Ex. 12: 48, 49.) All through the Old Testament Scrip- tures down to the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit de- scended, proselytes were found attending upon the service of God on equal footing with the Jews. D. L. Brother Sewell: Please explain Matt. 5: 17: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to de- stroy, but to fulfill." A young Methodist brother quoted this to show that Moses' law is still binding on us. The Methodist brother has not studied to show himself approved, rightly dividing the word of truth. If he had, he would have learned that when Christ had fulfilled the law in his personal life, he took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross, as is plainly taught in Col. 2. Paul argues, again, that if there had been a law given that could have given life, then that would have been sufficient; but he shows the insufficiency of the lav/ — that even while the law existed, God counted all in sin, whether Jews or Gentiles, and that, therefore, the law was wholly insufficient for the redemption of the world. Among other things, he says: "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto 15 450 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." The law was, but is not now, our (the Jews') schoolmaster, and has not been since Christ died and nailed it to his cross. The Gentiles never were under it; only the Jews were un- der it; and Paul says of himself and other Jews: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." Hence, since Christ died, the law is no longer binding upon anybody. The law was not intended to last. Hence, the apostle says again of the law : "Where- fore then serveth the law ? It was added because of trans- gressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made." These passages and arguments of Paul are found in Gal. 3, and they show beyond a doubt that Christ is the end of the law ; that he fulfilled it and took it out of the way; and that, therefore, no one can be saved now by obeying the law. The only hope of the world now as through Christ, and our only hope through him is by obedience to the gospel through life. MOTHERS, SHALL THEY TEACH IN THE HOME? Brother Lipscomb: Is it the duty of the wife to read a chapter and pray with her children, where the father cannot or neglects it? Is it her duty to go on with the worship and the father present? Please show us our duty. The father is a Christian, but cannot form words to express a prayer in public on account of very little school- ing. There is nothing that can justify a mother to fail to teach her children the Bible or to pray with and for them. The most sacred duty of life is that women shall bear and train children for the Lord. It is equally the father's duty with the mother's to do this ; but if one is incompetent and neg- ligent, it adds so much to the obligation of the other to do the work. God's requirement of the Jews to teach his will to their children (Deut. 6: 6-9) is the model of God's requirement to teach the children his will. "And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart; and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy chil- dren, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the doorposts of thy house, and upon thy gates." This is the model of instructing the children in the law sealed with the blood of bulls and goats. With this model before us to warn and admonish us of our duty, God gives us his law BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 451 sealed with the blood of his own Son. He says : "Children, obey your parents in the Lord : for this is right. Honor thy father and mother (which is the first commandment with promise), that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath : but nurture them in the chastening and admonition of the Lord." (Eph. 6: 1-4.) To "nurture them in the chastening and admonition of the Lord" is to train them to submit to his law and realize that his pun- ishment is for our good. They were to be trained, too, to listen, to hear the appointments and admonitions of the Lord. This demands a rigid study of and adherence to the word of God that the parents should require of the children. God commands the fathers to do this, but it is addressed to them as the head of the family. What they do through others they do themselves. The father may or must do this through the mother, the friend, the teachers he provides for the children. But the feeling of accountability to God must be upon his heart so he cannot rest content unless the teaching and training is first done to himself and to the children as the first and important concern of life. The father, as the head and the controller of the family, is first held accountable to God ; then the mother and those inter- ested in the family and under whose influence the children are to be taught and trained. MUSIC, DAVID, AND INSTRUMENTAL. Please give me a scriptural answer to the following: "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart." (Acts 13: 22; see also 1 Sam. 13: 14.) David made many musical instruments to praise the Lord with (1 Chron. 23: 5), for which he was not con- demned. When Solomon dedicated the house of the Lord, the Levites lifted up their voices; and when' the musical instruments sounded in harmony, the glory of the Lord filled the house. (2 Chron. 3: 13, 14.) Yet they were not condemned. Why, then, do the people condemn the use of the organ in the church? Let us try that logic and see where it leads us. David was a man after God's heart. David danced before the Lord as a means of glorifying him, and said: "Let them praise his name in the dance." (Ps. 149: 3.) "Praise him with the timbrel and dance." (Ps. 150: 4.) Now, why can we not have the young people join in a dance at the Lord's-day service on the Lord's day? It would draw big crowds of young and old to have a regular hugging round dance every Sunday. As a drawing influence, it would beat the organ a hundredfold. Again, David had a multiplicity of wives; yet he was a man after God's own heart. Why not all of us turn Mor- 452 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, mon, and, as one wife grows old, add a new and young one to our family? Again, David made burnt offerings of cattle and sheep and goats and birds ; he burned incense ; yet he was a man after God's own heart. Why not we do the same? This reasoning would restore the whole Jewish law, with all the additions and perversions, with its ordinances and bloody sacrifices. Christ came to deliver his people from these services — the bondage of the law. He "took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." Then it is not in force ; none of the order, the ritual, the service, is in force. Jesus Christ became our priest. "The priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." (Heb. 7: 12.) The Spirit also says that a man is "not crowned, except he strive lawfully." Now, Christ, in introducing his law, left the organ and all instrumental music, the dance, the burnt offerings and sacrifices, out of his service and condemned polygamy. When he and the apostles left these out of the service, who dare bring them in? Instrumental music was not only left out, but, notwithstanding both Jew and pagan worshipers had been accustomed to it, the leaving it out was regarded such an emphatic condemnation of it that none dared to bring it into the worship for over six hundred years. Then it was introduced into the Eastern churches, but not into the Western churches till 1200. Then the pope and the political ruler used their combined authority to bring it in. The same reasoning and the same authority that justify the use of the organ will justify the dance (I repeat, it would be worth a dozen organs to draw a crowd, and is just as acceptable to God as the organ), the burnt offerings, the incense, and will justify polygamy. They were all prac- ticed, not only by David, a man of God's own heart, but by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and thousands of others whose hearts were right before God. They practiced them be- cause God provided for them or tolerated them under those old dispensations ; but he does not do it in the Christian dis- pensation, but declares whoever adds to the appointments of God shall be accursed. We are forbidden both by oft- repeated commandment and many terrible examples to do anything in the worship of God that he has not commanded. A. Campbell always refused to speak where the organ was used. Even when invited to preach in a Presbyterian church in New Orleans, he requested the organ to be silent on the occasion. He maintained it was sensuous, wholly appealing to the fleshly feelings, and so was suited to the fleshly institution of Judaism, but was ill suited and wholly BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 453 antagonistic to the spiritual nature of the kingdom of Christ. Elder Isaac Errett, while assistant editor of the Har- binger, wrote the following : "The highest artistic skill has somehow been associated with the lowest spiritual culture, and has been far more promotive of sensuous than of spiritual attractions. The genius of this reformatory movement, like that of previous reformations, is not favorable to choir singing and instru- mental music. Its sympathies are with the bewildered and sin-oppressed masses, and it wants 'music for the millions.' Its original power will be largely lost when the stirring melodies of its early days shall have been supplanted by stately artistic performances. As the church of Christ is the common home of his people — 'barbarian, Scythian, bond, and free' — who are 'all one in Christ Jesus,' and as singing is part of worship in which the great 'mass of Chris- tians can personally practice, no choir singing or instru- mental music should ever be allowed to interfere for a mo- ment with this privilege and right of the saints. If such appliances can be made to assist rather than to hinder this great object of uniting the whole congregation in the wor- ship, the most serious objection to them is removed. The religion of Christ demands our best offerings. Let us cul- tivate a musical taste and musical talent in our churches. Let us have attractive singing in our families and in our public assemblies. Let us learn hymns, chants, choruses, anthems, in which we may suitably utter the high praises of our God and win the hearts of men to his altar." These are good and solid reasons why instrumental music was admissible in the church of God in the Jewish dispen- sation, but are not under the Christian. As Elder Errett prophesied, the original power and point of our plea to re- turn to the apostolic ground is largely lost when the stir- ring melodies of its early days have been supplanted by artistic performances of either choir or organ. Why any can fail to see that the introduction into the worship of either the choir or the organ violates the order of God and destroys his worship is strange. MUSIC, CONTROVERSY OVER INSTRUMENTAL, IN 1878. We have said but little on this subject during the contro- versy that has raged for some years. Although not speak- ing much concerning it, we have not regarded it with in- difference. We do not think we have any prejudices upon the subject for or against. We possibly at one time did. 454 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, We are sure we have got entirely clear of them. One rea- son we have said but little has been from the consideration that we wished to weigh the matter well. We have no musical taste or talent. Some have thought this disqualified us to judge of this matter. We thought possibly it might for a time. On mature reflection, we have come to the conclusion that this deficiency enables us to judge the more dispassionately in the matter. Persons passionately fond of music are liable to let their fondness for music bias their judgment. We have no fondness for music ; it is not offensive to us. This is a question to be de- termined by the Scriptures properly interpreted and ap- plied, not by taste. We have reasoned on it in this way : The taste for music is a sensuous feeling. It is in itself neither good nor bad. Music, vocal or instrumental, is the development of a talent in man that is neither good nor bad. The taste for music, gratified by a "concert of sweet sounds," is neither good nor bad. This talent and its development may be made to ad- minister and the taste be the recipient of either good or bad influences, as they are consecrated to conveying truth or error, virtuous or vicious influences. Vocal music, by its charms, warms the imagination and opens the heart to the easy reception of sentiments and feelings associated with the music. Instrumental music, it would seem to us, possesses the same power for good or bad as it is made the vehicle for conveying good or evil, religious or irreligious impressions. With these premises left to our own reason, we would certainly conclude that music, vocal or instru- mental, should be consecrated to the conveying of good im- pressions, to molding the character for good and not for evil; that it should be used to impress religious truths; hence that the use of instrumental music in religious wor- ship is proper and right. This, to our mind, is a logical conclusion ; and we confess we have tried to conform our convictions to this conclu- sion. We could easily do it did we feel free to form our judgment from these premises, from what seems reasonable to us. But we are so often in the Bible reminded, "Trust in the Lord with thine heart ; and lean not upon thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths" (Prov. 3:5), that we are unwilling to trust our judgment in a matter so simple as this seems to be. We go to the Old Testament and find there that instru- mental music was admitted in the Jewish service of praise. If it was acceptable to them, why not here? This has BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 455 weight with us, because the Old Testament examples are for our instruction. But we find no allusion to its observ- ance under the teachings of the Savior or the apostles. Why was it not practiced by them? The instruments used in Jewish worship — not only in Jewish, but in the worship of all Eastern nations — were small, easily carried around from place to place, and were, indeed, chiefly used when the performers themselves were in motion, carrying the instruments in their hands. They were simple in their na- ture, easily performed upon, and, with the musical tastes of the Jewish and Eastern nations, almost every one could perform on some of the instruments. Besides, they were cheap and inexpensive, so were in the reach of all. But there is no intimation of their ever having been used by the Savior, his followers, or the church for hundreds of years after his death. How shall this be explained under all the circumstances? That the Jewish converts clung tenaciously to all their customs, especially their religious rites, until directly forbidden, is very clear from the New Testament. We can account for it in but one way. The Savior himself dropped it out, and so tutored his apostles that they followed his example. There is our first and most serious difficulty. In pondering upon these things, we come to study upon its introduction and use among the Jews. It was used among them for hundreds of years. The temple band was certainly an imposing body of musicians, and to those pos- sessing musical taste their performances must have been impressive. Yet it is not clear that instrumental music was introduced among the Jews by direction of God. It was among the heathen nations. The invention of musical instruments was not among the children of God. But it was adopted and approved by the prophets and inspired teachers of Judaism ; was used under the sanction of Moses, the lawgiver, himself, and so stands approved of God. Other means of worship were introduced — the incense of- fering, the sacrifice of animals. The requirements of wor- ship were of a character to attract the attention of the sen- suous, fleshly feelings of man. They were calculated to appeal strongly to the imagination, to strike with awe. The religion of Judaism was intended to impress the wor- shipers with the idea of might, power, and grandeur; to excite feelings of awe and fear in the worshiper; and to govern man through these rather than through love. Hence, Paul calls them servants or slaves under Moses, while under Christ he says we are children in our Father's house. The forms and instrumentalities of worship were 456 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, calculated to appeal to the feelings through which he pro- posed to govern man. The incense offering, the bleeding sacrifice consuming upon the altar, the great overpower- ing bands of musical performers in the temple choir, some- times over four thousand strong — all had a tendency to ex- cite this feeling of awe and impress the worshiper with the sense of the power, majesty, and might of the great Jeho- vah. There was in the Jewish institution but little direct ap- peal to the conscience — the heart, the spiritual faculties — of man. God's sympathy for man in his sin and wickedness was but slightly revealed. He was a God of might to the Jew; to the Christian he is a God of tender love and pure sympathy for his weak and erring children. Man was not invited under Judaism to communion and fellowship with God. Constant, fervent prayer, as a source of union, fel- lowship, and communion with God, was not enforced. Prayer was but lightly taught in the Old Testament. Under the Christian dispensation, while the truth is not lost sight of that he is a God of might and power, he espe- cially reveals himself as a God of love, sympathy, and kind- ness; he appeals to man's love in turn. The heart — con- science, spirit — of man is more directly addressed. The means for approaching man — for reaching him, molding and developing his feelings and character — correspond to the manifestations of God and the faculties or elements of man's nature that are addressed and that are to be aroused and developed. Man is no longer a slave, held at a respectful distance from heaven's august and awe-inspiring majesty ; but he is the child of an all-powerful, but loving and kind, Father. The means of approach to him are adapted to this relation. His love is touched ; he is drawn by tender, gentle cords of a loving sympathy — a lamblike offering for man's own sins. He is prompted to act from love. His heart is touched, is purified; his conscience is appealed to ; his true spiritual nature is exalted as above all the sensuous and sensual elements in man ; and his spirit is directly addressed. The difference between the two insti- tutions is fitly shown in the lightnings and thunder and dark clouds and awe-inspiring surroundings of tempest- ridden Sinai, and the gentle, meek, suffering, loving con- descension of divine love on Mount Calvary. The charac- ter of the mode of service to God changes with this differ- ence in the character of the two institutions. Faith, trust, confidence, and love of God as a Father takes the place of servile fear as the moving principle. A walk with God, a copying of his life, an imbibing of his BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 457 spirit, a constant desire to walk in fellowship and commun- ion with God, is the spirit of the child of God. Constant, earnest, humble, but trustful, prayer to God is enjoined. The ordinances are such as speak of his condescension, kindness, and love to man, and inspire a gentle, humble, loving spirit in turn — a burial with him in baptism, a communion with him in the memorials of the broken body and shed blood of Him who loved us, singing with grace and making melody in our hearts to God. All the means he uses are to reach the heart ; all the worship he accepts comes from the heart, the spirit. He is a spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth. Only heart worship will be accepted by him. All those appointed means of approach that appealed to the imagination — the sensuous, carnal perceptions of man — gave place to others that speak to the heart. The incense offering passed away, gave place to that pure incense from the heart ; the bleeding, smoking sacrifice gave place to that which touches the heart, and which, unless the heart re- sponds, is sin. The instrumental music, which does not, cannot speak to the heart, but only to the sensuous imagi- nation, gave place to the song of praise that comes from grace in the heart and makes heart melody to the honor of God. Instrumental music passed away with the other appeals to the merely sensuous and imaginative in men. Instru- mental music, as a part of divine worship, was associated with bleeding beasts as sacrifices and the incense offering. There is just as much reason and authority for the revival of either of these as for the revival of instrumental music in the worship. They are both more directly the commands of God, and neither of them have been more clearly or defi- nitely excluded from his worship than instrumental music. Those who adopt one cannot reject the other. Those who introduce instrumental music give up heart worship of Christ for the formalism of Judaism. It is an- other indication of that which was the trouble in apostolic times and has been since — the tendency to go back to the forms, the ritualism, sensuousness, of Judaism. It shows how difficult, even now, it is to appreciate and cling to that which is purely spiritual in its nature. It was not accidental or incidental or unintentional or an oversight that Christ and the apostles ignored and left out of their worship instrumental music. They did it ad- visedly, because the nature of the religion was contrary to such worship. When Christ and the apostles left it out, 458 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, who dare replace it in their worship? The incense, as a sweet-smelling savor, affects the imagination of some per- sons just as powerfully as does instrumental music affect others. D. L. NAME, WAS THE "NEW," "BAPTIST?" Brother Sew ell: A Baptist preacher said here that the new name in Isa. 62: 2 was Baptist. He said the Lord was the first one to call John a Baptist. (Matt. 11: 12.) Is not the mention of John by Mat- thew (3: 1) the first time he was called a Baptist? (2) Who gave him the name Baptist — the Lord or some other man? (1) There was nothing said in the Old Testament as to what the new name spoken of in Isa. 62 should be, and it is mere assumption to say it was to be Baptist, meaning the Baptist Church. There is no such institution known to the Bible as the Baptist Church, nor till hundreds of years after the days of the apostles. Hence there is not the shadow of authority in the Bible for anything called the Baptist Church. The word Baptist, as connected with John, was no part of his proper name. That word is never heard in connection with John till he began preaching and baptizing people. He was named John by his father and mother, and was not known by any other name till he be- gan preaching. Then he was called John the Baptist. But the word Baptist was not a church name in any sense. The Greek word from which it comes is baptistees, and simply means a baptizer. Thayer's New Testament Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament renders it into English thus : "A baptizer ; one who administers the rite of baptism." John was the first man that ever administered the rite of baptism by divine authority. Hence he was called John the baptizer. And since the word baptize means to immerse, it means in plain English John the im- merser; and the Baptists render it that way in their ver- sion called the "Bible Union Revision." So the Baptists themselves do not regard the word as a church name, but simply as expressing the work that he did — that he im- mersed people, nothing more. If that preacher can get no better authority for the name Baptist than that, then he may as well drop it ; for there is nothing more in that word as connected with John in the New Testament than that he baptized, immersed, people. So it would be perfectly literal to render Matt. 3 : 1 thus : "In those days came John the immerser," etc. And the same is true in all the fourteen occurrences of the expression John the immerser. So that is all there is to it. But the New Testament shows that the new name foretold is the name Christian. (See Acts 11: 26.) BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 459 (2) In every passage where we have the expression John the Baptist it is given by inspiration, and in every case it means John the immerser, but never has any reference to a Baptist Church. NATIONALITIES, DIFFERENCES OVER RELIGION. Brother Sewell: (1) Should the deacons of a congregation, when passing the bread and wine, offer it to colored brethren when such meet with the brethren? (2) Is a negro, when "born again," still a negro in a Bible sense? If so, what meaneth Gal. 3 : 27, 28; Col. 3 : 11? (1) He certainly should. I see them do this often; but they generally, as far as I have observed, wait on the white members first and then upon the colored member or mem- bers that may be present. I have never known them to re- fuse the bread and wine to colored members, and it cer- tainly ought not to be refused them. Colored members have as much right to be Christians and to partake of the Lord's Supper as any other members. (2) He is just the same as to race and color after becom- ing a Christian as before, and so are white members. But so far as Christian privileges are concerned, there is nei- ther male nor female, neither Greek nor Jew, but all are one in Christ. In social life distinctions are made with most nationalities on account of differences of language, habits, customs, and such like causes. Hence, English- speaking people associate together because they under- stand each other better, and so with Greeks and Germans. These distinctions are especially true between the white and colored races. Each color prefers its own color in so- cial life, and these lines are so definitely fixed that they can- not be broken. Nor does Christianity require that they should be broken in social life. But Christian privileges are the same to all colors and nationalities. E. G. S. NATURAL MAN, THE. Please explain 1 Cor. 2: 14, which reads: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolish- ness unto him : neither can he know them, because they are spiritually- discerned. " The natural man either represents an uninspired man in contrast with one that is, or a man seeking to find out di- vine things outside of the word of God, which alone reveals divine things, and we would not positively say which. But in either case the teaching plainly is that no man can ar- rive at a knowledge of salvation except by the word of God, which has come to us through inspired men. 460 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, We suppose the natural man of this passage to be an un- inspired man, and that the things of the Spirit which such a one could not receive were the miraculous powers of the Spirit, which were given to certain ones for the upbuilding of the church. An uninspired man could not obtain or know anything definite about these miraculous powers. When God gave these powers to any, he gave them the power to discern and use them, while others could not. E. G. S. Brother Lipscomb : In 1 Cor. 2: 14 we read: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him : neither can he know them, because they are spiritually dis- cerned." In the Bible lesson at Berea on a recent Sunday it devel- oped that as to who the natural man is and who the spiritual man is, three theories are held — viz.: (1) The natural man is the unconverted man; the spiritual man is the Christian. (2) Man is a dual being; the natural man and the spiritual man are the same individual. (3) The natural man is the uninspired Christian; the spiritual man is the inspired man. I write these theories that you may understand fully our trouble. I was requested to submit the question to you, and will thank you very much for a scriptural answer. The context seems to me plainly to teach that man, by his natural faculties, without revelation, could not learn the will of God. One man cannot know what is in the mind of another man unless this latter tells it. So a man cannot by his natural faculties or reason know the mind or will of God unless God tells it. Then he shows how God tells or makes known his will or mind to men. The Spirit of God that knows the things of God was transferred to the apos- tles and made known to them God's will, and the apostles spoke it to the people. The natural man, then, would be the man who has never heard the will of God. He cannot know it save by hearing it as spoken by the apostles, to whom God revealed it. It means about the same as 1 Cor. 1:21: "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." Man, by his natural faculties or reason, cannot know God or his will. He must learn it by hearing the things revealed to the apostles or by preaching. The spiritual man was the man knowing the will of God. The natural man was without this knowl- edge. He could not know it save by revelation. When revealed, it is addressed to the spiritual, not the merely ani- mal, man. As in Rom. 7 and 8, it is presented that the an- imal, or fleshly, man of itself cannot be subject to the law of God, but the spiritual part in man must control. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 461 "NEW AND OLD" THINGS. A brother asks an explanation of the following passage : "Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a householder, which bringeth forth out of his treas- ure things new and old." (Matt. 13: 52.) The house- holder has things on hand, both new and old. He always has some things on hand which he saves up for a long time for special occasions, which are always ready, being always on hand. Then he has other things which he gets for the occasion, and in this way has a variety, so as to suit all oc- casions and circumstances, and in this way is always ready to entertain his guests as their position and circumstances may require. Such is the case with every scribe or teacher instructed unto (for) the kingdom of heaven. Any one instructed in the things pertaining to the kingdom of God has always a general fund of knowledge on hand, and is ever ready to get up such things from the word of God as are necessary for special occasions ; and in this way the teacher who thoroughly studies the word of God is always ready to teach the very things that are appropriate and needful on any and every occasion, and knows what is need- ful on any occasion and to any individual — as, for example, some teachers of Christianity never study but one part of the great lesson God has revealed to us. Some study only first principles, to teach aliens how to become Christians and to oppose errors on conversion, but never study the practical lessons given for the training and edification of Christians, and, when caught up before congregations of members of the church altogether, have nothing on hand for them suited to their case. Teachers of the religion of Jesus ought to study as thoroughly as possible every practi- cal subject pertaining thereto, so as to be ever ready to teach aliens anything that pertains to them and members of the church all things needful for their growth in the divine life; and so of everything else involving responsi- bility to God. E. G. S. OFFENDING HAND OR FOOT, THE. Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: What must we do in order to obey Matt. 18: 8, which reads as follows: "Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire?" The true reading of the passage is: "Wherefore if thy right hand or thy foot cause thee to offend," etc. The Com- mon Version of this passage does not give the meaning of 462 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, the original at all, and is calculated to puzzle the mind rather than to enlighten. It would be difficult for us to un- derstand how a right hand or a foot could offend us, but not quite so difficult to understand how a right hand or foot might cause us to offend or do wrong. The different mem- bers of the body that act in compliance with the desires or lusts of the mind as influenced by the passions are here placed to represent the lusts or desires or passions them- selves. If the hand takes something that does not belong to the individual taking it, the hand in such case only obeys the dictate or impulse of the mind. The hand is the me- dium through which the impulses and wrong desires act or manifest themselves, and on this account these different members of the body are personified as if they were respon- sible in the wrong. But the language is figurative in this regard, assigning responsibility to those members of the body when they are only the servants of our minds and impulses. The figure is a very forcible one, and is well calculated to make a deep impression. Suppose, for instance, that a man has an unconquerable propensity to lay his hand upon things that do not belong to him — to steal things, in other words. That propensity must be overcome somehow, no matter how strongly developed, if a man would be saved. And if he cannot overcome it otherwise, he had better cut off his right hand literally than go on gratifying the desire or impulse till he loses his soul. If in such case he should literally cut off a right hand, always from that time for- ward when the same impulse should arise, the absence of the right hand through which he had gratified such desire would so forcibly remind him of the wrong that he could readily overcome that desire or impulse, and in this way enable him to save his soul, which would pay him ten thou- sand times for the loss of his hand. With proper efforts, the flesh, with its affections and lusts, can be overcome with- out maiming the body ; but should such an extreme case oc- cur that the Christian cannot otherwise overcome the flesh, he had better lose any member of the body than lose his soul. This principle applies to any member of the body as well as the hand. E. G. S. "OFFICE," MEANING OF THE WORD IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. We often speak of the officers of the church. It is a ques- tion of grave importance whether we speak scripturally or whether we are using the language of Ashdod when we use such expressions. The word office signifies a posi- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 463 tion of authority into which men are placed, in which posi- tion they have the right to do certain things which they had no right or authority to do outside of that position. This is the sense in which the word office is used in the govern- ments of this world. When a man has been lawfully elected and installed into the office of county court clerk, he has the authority to is- sue marriage licenses and a great many other things of like character which he had no right whatever to do without being placed in that position. Such is the meaning of office in worldly governments. When a man has been duly in- stalled into the office of governor, he then has the right to perform all the functions of that office. He has the right to call the legislature together, to veto bills passed, to exer- cise the pardoning power of the State, to commission cer- tain other officers, and such like things, none of which could he do outside of that office, no matter how well he might be qualified. But is the word office used in this sense in the church of God? Are any of the members of any congre- gation in the New Testament so addressed? If so, then it is right. But if there be no such thing in the word of God, then the use of this word is wrong as now found among those claiming to be Christians. The word office, it is true, is used a few times as applied to Christians in our Com- mon Version ; and we will, therefore, briefly examine these passages. The first place is Rom. 11 : 13, where Paul says : "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office." Here Paul is made in our Common Version to speak of himself as an officer, as hav- ing an office. But in the new version, instead of magnify mine office, it is rendered glorify my ministry. The word office in this passage in the Common Version is from the Greek word diakonia, which is found about thirty-three times in the Greek Testament, and but this one single time rendered office. The word elsewhere is rendered ministry, ministration, service, but nowhere else rendered office; and it is clear that in this passage it does not mean office in the modern acceptation of that word. The word ministry means ivork, service. Ministering to the saints means the work of aiding them, or relieving their necessities. The word is rendered thus in 1 Cor. 16 : 15, where it is said of the household of Stephanas that they addicted them- selves to the ministry of the saints. The very fact that this Greek word occurs thirty-three times and is but one single time rendered office creates a doubt about its cor- rectness, and is in itself an argument in favor of the cor- 464 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, rectness of the new version in rendering it ministry. And, besides, the passage itself shows that Paul uses the word to signify the work he was doing in teaching the Gentiles, and not the dignity or authority of an office as such. There is, therefore, no authority in the Greek for this word office in this passage, and still less for the idea usually attached to the word office. Paul was only speaking of work as an apostle to the Gentiles, and that he was faithful in doing that work. The word apostle means one sent. God through Christ sent Paul to be a teacher of the Gentiles, and he was faith- fully doing that work. When Paul spoke as the Spirit gave him utterance, his words were with authority; but the au- thority of his words was because they came from God, and not because they came from Paul. The authority was from God, but the work of presenting these words to the people was the work or ministry of Paul. So Paul was only a worker, a servant, a minister, not an officer. Again, Paul says in Rom. 12 : 4 : "For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office." In this passage the word office is from- the Greek word praxis, which literally means work or deed. The word is found but six times in the Greek Testament, once rendered works, four times rendered deed or deeds, and once rendered office. It has reference to what men do, not to dignity of position. And, besides, if this proves that any member of the church is an officer, it proves that all are, and this proves too much for the common idea. The true meaning is that all the members have a work to do — not all the same work, but still all have a work to do in the church of God. There is nothing, therefore, in this passage to justify the popular use of the word office. The next passage is in 1 Tim. 3: 1, in which it is said: "If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work." In this passage there is no word in the Greek for the word office. It is manufactured by the translators out of the word episcopee, from which the word bishop comes. This word is found four times in the Greek Testament. It is found first in Luke 19 : 44. This is where Christ was foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem ; and in telling the inhabitants what should befall them, he adds: "Because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation." The same word is here rendered visitation that in 1 Tim. 3 : 1 is ren- dered office or bishop. In this passage in Luke there is not a shadow of authority for the word office, and so the translators did not give it. The same Greek word in Acts 1, when speaking of Judas, is rendered bishopric. In 1 BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 465 Pet. 2 : 12 it is rendered visitation again. These are all the occurrences of the word in the Greek Testament. The meaning of the word is inspection, oversight, visitation. There is, therefore, no authority in the Greek for the word office in 1 Tim. 3 : 1. We may render the word oversight, and thus give a lit- eral rendering of the passage, and thus relieve it entirely of the word office, which has no right to be in the passage. The oversight of a congregation is a work to be done, but not an office to be enjoyed. Hence, Peter required that the eld- ers shall take the oversight — that is, attend to the work of overseeing the congregation. If any man desires the over- seership, he desires a good work. This is the idea that Paul expressed in the Greek of the passage in 1 Tim. 3:1. The word office is also again found in this chapter, where Paul says in regard to deacons : "And let these also first be proved ; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless." (Verse 10.) Here, again, there is no word in the Greek for the word office. It was also manufactured by the translators out of the word diakoneoo, from which the word deacon is rendered. The word office originated in the minds of the translators, growing out of their religious education, and not out of the word diakoneoo. This word means to minister, to serve, to wait, or attend to, or upon. Hence the passage might be literally rendered: "Then let them minister, or serve." Paul did not mean to impress Timothy with the idea that he was to make officers out of those members, but workers. So far as we can learn about deacons, they were members of the church, appointed to do certain work in the church, to serve in certain capacities, not to be exalted to the position or dignity of an office in the usual acceptation of that word. Again, in the same chapter we have the expression: "They that have used the office of a deacon well," etc. Neither is there any word in the Greek for the word office in this passage. It is just like the passage we have last examined, and literally means: "They that have ministered or served well," etc. These are the passages that apply the word office to Christians in the New Testament, and we have seen that not in a single one of them is the word office used in the common acceptation of that term. The word just simply indicates a work, or service, and not an elevated position of authority in the church. All the members are officers in the sense of workers, but none are officers in the sense of having authority conferred upon them by ordination. We do not in this propose to discuss the matter of ordi- nation or appointment, but of one thing we are quite cer- 466 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, tain, and that is that ordination is not a process of in- stalling men into office. It is only an appointment of cer- tain men who are competent to do certain things, to do cer- tain kinds of work; and this ordination or appointment is not to impart to the persons appointed any more authority or right to do that work than they had before, but it cer- tainly does increase their obligation and responsibility to do the work. All Christians, by virtue of their relationship as such, are kings and priests to God, and as such have the right to do any work in the church that they are competent to do. Any brother who is competent has the right as such to preach the gospel, baptize believers, attend to the table in the Lord's Supper, to reprove, teach, exhort, or admonish his brethren, or anything that the word of the Lord re- quires to be done; and all the ordinations that can ever be performed can give no more right to do these things than Christians already have. To insure the doing of these things by those who are competent, appointment or ordina- tion is necessary; and if all would eradicate from their minds all idea of office or of being installed into an office by ordination, then we think the matter and process of ordi- nation might soon be understood and controversy upon it cease. There are no classes or orders in the church of God. All authority in religion comes through the word of God. A bishop, no matter how much he has been ordained, has no arbitrary power to rule in the church. He must rule by the word of God — must teach and enforce that word so that it shall be the ruling power. We hope the brethren will study these matters till all shall understand the truth. E. G. S. OFFICE OF TAX RECEIVER, CAN A CHRISTIAN FILL THE? Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: A brother buys a piece of land, for which he pays one part cash and gives his note for the remainder of the purchase money. He is a hard-working, industrious man; but subsequent to this purchase, and after he has added greatly to the place by improvements, such as a dwelling and other necessary build- ings, he becomes so much embarrassed pecuniarily that he finds him- self unable to pay the balance due on his place unless he can raise an income independent of the product of his farm. His friends see his need and nominate and elect him to the office of tax receiver, with a salary of five hundred dollars per annum. This will enable him to secure his home; otherwise he must forfeit what he has already paid, and, with an increased family, he must start again from beneath the level. Now, the question is: Can he accept and discharge the du- ties of the office without a surrender of his Christian principles? If not, why not? BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 467 We have time and again presented our reasons for be- lieving that a Christian cannot engage in political affairs. We shall not now repeat them. If they are valid, and the writer believes them to be so, the simple reason the man cannot accept the office is, he would sell his principles and convictions of right for five hundred dollars. The princi- ples of Christ are Christ himself. To sell the principles is to betray the author of those principles — is to betray Christ. Judas did this for thirty pieces of silver. The sum may differ ; the principle is the same whenever a man determines to sell his convictions of right for gain. Of course the intentional guilt is absent when a person does not think it wrong to hold office. Whenever a man fore- goes his convictions of right for the sake of gain, whenever he stills his convictions of right for the sake of money, he does precisely the same thing Judas did. Judas may have needed that money greatly; we do not know; we just know he persuaded himself he might betray the right for the sake of gain. Every one who does this does what Judas did. How many are there who repeat this crime! It is bad to be without a home; certainly it is; but it is worse to be without a conscience void of offense toward God and men. If our hearts condemn us, God is greater than our hearts and will much rather condemn us. The brother did wrong in going in debt. Another wrong will not right this wrong. Nor will the office pay the debt; you mark this. The office will create additional demands sufficient to take all it makes. Let us strive to keep our hearts pure and our lives void of offense. A home in the better land is worth a thousand homes here. D. L. OLD TESTAMENT, TEACHING THE. Brother Lipscomb : We have a brother in our congregation who objects to the lessons in the Old Testament as contained in the Sun- day-school quarterlies. He says it is all right to teach the Old Tes- tament to the church, but not to children or alien sinners, as the Old Testament was done away with, and hence it is a waste of time to teach it to children. Kindly answer his objection and give the prin- cipal reason why it should be taught to children and sinners. It is singular that a man should claim to believe the New Testament and take such a position in reference to the Old Testament. It is such a simple and self-evident principle that it is difficult to choose a reply. Every time the word scriptures is mentioned in the Bible it refers to the Old Testament; the other part, the New Testament, was not then written. If I counted right, in the concordance there are fifty-four references to the Scriptures in the New Testa- ment, and every time the Old Testament is referred to. 468 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, Most usually they are spoken to and of the unbeliever to help him to believe in Christ. The chief aim of the Old Testa- ment Scriptures was to foretell the coming, work, and char- acter of Jesus, that sinners by the fulfillment might be taught to believe in Jesus as the Christ. Jesus quoted the Old Testament to sinners. In Matt. 21 : 42 he quotes Isa. 28: 16 and shows it refers to Jesus, and in refusing him they called down on them the wrath of God. This passage is frequently quoted in the New Testament to show the wrath that rests on sinners for not believing the gospel. Another similar reference to the Scriptures, not understood by sinners, is Matt. 22: 29. In Luke 24: 27, Jesus "inter- preted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." "And they said one to another, Was not our heart burning within us, while he spake to us in the way, while he opened to us the scriptures?" (Verse 32.) "Then opened he their mind, that they might understand the scrip- tures." (Verse 45.) "Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me." (John 5: 39.) This was said to disbelievers. Paul "reasoned with them [the unbe- lieving] from the scriptures." (Acts 17: 2.) The Be- reans "were more noble, . . . examining the scriptures daily." (Verse 11.) Philip preached the scriptures to the eunuch. (Acts 8: 35.) The scriptures taught to Timo- thy when a child made him a Christian when grown. Read Acts 18: 24-28; Rom. 1: 2; 15: 4; 16: 26; 1 Cor. 15: 3; 2 Tim. 3: 16; James 2: 23; 4: 5; Matt. 21: 42; 22: 29; 26 : 54, 56 ; etc. When a man objects to studying any part of the Bible, gently and kindly tell him, in the name of the crucified Redeemer, he is sinning against God. He needs to know the first principles of the gospel of Christ. The chief evidence of the truth of the New Testament was to study it in connection with the Old and see how it fulfilled the Old. To cut children and sinners off from the Old is to deprive them of a strong evidence of the truth of the Bible. Read the last chapter of Peter's second letter and see how he wrote that the prophets as well as the writings of the apos- tles would remind them that God created and preserves all things, that the world was overflowed with water, that the heavens and the earth will be destroyed and good will come to the faithful. One great trouble with people to-day is that they are not familiar with the Old Testament or its fulfillment in the New, and they doubt the truth of the Bi- ble. No man can understand the New Testament that is not familiar with the Old. No man can understand the let- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 469 ter to the Hebrews unless he understands God's dealings with the Jews through Moses. Many other passages are the same. Jesus and the apostles relied upon the Old Tes- tament teachings to produce faith in Christ. This is no saying the Old Testament as a system of laws is not done away to give place to the New. The New grows out of the Old. OLIVES, HIS FEET ON THE MOUNT OF. Brother Sewell: "And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the moun- tain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south." (Zech. 14: 4.) This speaking of the mountain east of Jerusalem seems to be speaking of a mountain literally. Please give some ex- planation in regard to it. Likely no man can tell certainly what the passage means. It was given to the Jewish people near the time of the re- turn of those people from the Babylonian captivity, and the context of the verse you give speaks of another and terrible destruction of Jerusalem, in which many nations were to have a part. The chances are that the verse you give is a highly figurative allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, which occurred about the year 70 or 71 of the Christian era. But I know of no means of ascertaining with any degree of certainty the application of the passage. Some commentators give it as their opinion that the passage has reference to that awful catastrophe and the dispersion of the Jewish nation. There are many prophecies ex- pressed in highly figurative language that men may not be able to understand and explain. But we all have reason to be thankful that all things that pertain to our individual duties in the matter of our salvation are so plain. No man needs to be lost on account of any obscurity in these mat- ters. The New Testament is plain on these things, and all who will to do so can understand and embrace them, and thus be sure of their salvation. The Lord has been won- drously kind to man on these matters, making them plain and adapting them to our needs, and thus placing salvation fully in man's reach. Knowing the wonderful wisdom and power that gave the Bible, we need not wonder that there are things in the Bible that are beyond our comprehension. But the gospel and the conditions of salvation are all plain enough to reach all who are willing to be saved in the Lord's way. 470 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, "ORDAINED TO ETERNAL LIFE," WHO? Brother Sewell: In Acts 13: 48, how many were ordained to eter- nal life? And were the Gentiles ordained, or who? In Acts 9: 29, what does gainsaying mean? All were ordained to eternal life that were disposed to receive and obey the truth. One reading of the passage is : "And as many as were disposed for eternal life believed." (Living Oracles.) This indicates that the ordaining was not something done in the decrees of God, but by the peo- ple in inclining themselves to eternal life by a willingness to obey the gospel of Christ and serve the Lord through its di- vine requisitions. The whole matter is explained by the commission as recorded by Mark : "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." This is God's way of ordaining men to eternal life. To gainsay "is to contradict, to oppose in words, to deny or declare not to be true what another says." (Webster.) Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Give me your views through your excellent paper on Acts 13: 48, which reads: "When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord : and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." The word ordained in this passage is the word that oc- casions all the trouble, and this trouble all arises from an improper construction placed upon this word and others of a kindred character. Men have originated the idea that God has foreordained and predestinated everything that comes to pass; that he has foreordained certain individ- uals to be saved and certain others to be lost; that only those who have been specially ordained of God to be saved can believe; and, therefore, when this passage says, "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed," those who believe the Calvinistic doctrine of decrees and foreordina- tion of God find it very easy with the present translation of the passage to apply it that way, and thus make the im- pression that this passage without doubt teaches the above doctrine of decrees. The word rendered ordained in the passage does not signify something done by God, but by the individuals. The same word is rendered determined in Acts 15: 2, thus: "When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and eld- ers about this question." In this case the brethren at An- tioch determined (decided) to send Paul and others to Je- rusalem to have the question of circumcision settled. Now, BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 471 all we have to do in order to understand the passage in Acts 13 is to render the word thus : "And as many as were determined for eternal life believed." It is thus rendered in "Living Oracles." The passage just means that as many as were decided or inclined to eternal life believed. The word only refers to the decision or determination of the people, not to the decrees of God. Those that were willing to favorably consider the matter of eternal life as prom- ised through the gospel to the servants of God believed, while others would not favorably consider the matter and did not believe. The whole matter of the determination to receive or reject the gospel is upon the people; it is their responsibility. God has prepared salvation for man, and offers it to him through the gospel; and those that accept will be saved, while those that reject will be lost. The same thing is true now where the gospel is preached. As many as are inclined, or determined, for eternal life believe, while others not so inclined do not believe. E. G. S. "ORDAINED," BAPTIZING WITHOUT BEING. Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Mr. J. B. Murray, who is in the last stage of consumption, had been requesting the Baptists to bap- tize him; but they would not unless he would go to a church meeting and tell his experience and be received by the church. A short time since he came into my storehouse, and I said to him that I under- stood he wanted to be baptized. He said that he did. So I com- menced talking to him, and he became interested and invited me to come to his house and talk with him, which I did and taught him the way of the Lord more perfectly. I also sent him Brother Franklin's Gospel Preacher, which gave him great satisfaction. On February 2 he sent me a note, stating that somebody had been trying to per- suade him that it would kill him to be baptized, but that he told them he could not die in a better cause, and requested me to come and bap- tize him that evening. So I went and baptized him and his wife upon the same confession that Philip baptized the eunuch. The question is: Did I do right? I am not an ordained preacher, and for that rea- son some might think that I did wrong. There is not an ordained gos- pel preacher in the county. My aim is to do right; and if I did wrong- in doing what I did, I want to be set right. Our brother did exactly right. He would have done a great wrong to have acted otherwise. We have baptized several hundred, have never been what is called ordained, yet have no fear of being chided by the Heavenly Father as doing wrong for baptizing a believer in Christ. D. L. ORDER OF THE ACTS OF WORSHIP. Brother Lipscomb : As there is much being said in regard to the worship upon the first day of the week, I wish to ask you a few ques- tions, which I prefer you to answer through the Gospel Advocate. According to the divine record, what is to be done when we come to- gether? Please give us the things to be done and the order in which 472 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, they come. In 1 Cor. 14: 40 we find that we should do all things "decently and in order." Does Acts 2: 42 give us this order? Would we not be perfectly safe in following this order given by Luke? I have never seen in the Scriptures an indication of an appointed order in which the services on the Lord's day were to be performed. When a specific order was to be followed, it was carefully pointed out, as when an altar or priest was to be sanctified. "Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: sprinkle the water of expiation upon them, and let them cause a razor to pass over all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and cleanse themselves. Then let them take a young bullock, and its meal offering, fine flour mingled with oil; and an- other young bullock shalt thou take for a sin offering," etc. Here was a regular order to be followed, and it is pointed out clearly. No order is pointed out in Acts 2: 42. The things to be done are mentioned. They are to be steadfast in the apostles' doctrine or teaching. There are different ways of engaging in the apostolic teaching. The teaching can be read or spoken or sung. Any and all of these exer- cises should be engaged in, but in all of them care should be taken that the teachings of the apostles be read, spoken, or sung. Nothing should be read, spoken, or sung that is not apostolic teaching. They are to observe the fellowship. One act of the fellowship is contributing for the help of the needy and speaking words of sympathy and encouragement for our brethren in their temptations and trials. This may be done in the beginning of the service, during the service, or at or after its close. The breaking of bread must be at- tended to and prayers. I do not think it a sin to pray when we begin, during the service, or at the close. Pray with- out ceasing and everywhere, is the command. When the Lord's Supper was instituted, this order was not followed. Jesus, after the Supper, made the talk given in John 14: 17. concluding with the prayer. There is no specific order given in the Scriptures. To try to enforce one is to add to the law of God and to bring ridicule on the claim to obey God's commands. ORDINANCES, GOD'S. Brother Lipscomb: Please explain James 5: 16 through the Gos- pel Advocate. It reads: "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." I wish to know if James' design to teach confessing our faults is to be practiced as a religious ordinance in the church of Christ. I write this only for information, in order to do my Master's will. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 473 An ordinance is anything ordained. A private duty ordained or commanded of the Lord is as much an ordi- nance of God as a public observance. But God has or- dained both private duties and public observances. We generally call the public observances church ordinances. In that sense we do not think the command has any spe- cial reference to public ordinances. Whenever we com- mit faults, we ought to confess them. Sometimes they may be between individuals of such character as not to de- mand a public statement of them. Whenever a sin com- mitted comes to the knowledge of the church, the confession of it should be public — before all. There should be no hes- itancy or drawing back as to confessing our faults; and whenever Christians confess their faults to each other, whether it be to one or many, those to whom the confession is made should pray with and for the wrongdoer, that his sins may be forgiven him. But the Bible nowhere sets forth the idea that there should be regular stated times for a general confession, as a stated church observance, whether we have sinned or not. ORDINATION AND BAPTIZING. Brother Lipscomb : I am writing for information. Has any man the right to baptize who has only been ordained as a deacon, though he teaches the truth as any minister of Christ? I know of one that has baptized two persons. Now, if he teaches the truth and baptizes those that believe, is he acceptable with Christ and his church? I have never seen where the Scriptures required a man to be ordained to anything to authorize him to baptize per- sons. In the New Testament the disciples all are repre- sented as teaching the way of life and as baptizing them. The disciples were scattered abroad from Jerusalem and went everywhere preaching the word. Many received it and became followers of Christ. Ananias, who went to Saul, and who likely baptized him, is only called a disciple. We know of neither example nor precept that indicates per- sons should be ordained to qualify them to baptize. This idea of requiring ordained persons to baptize I do not think comes from the Bible. It is a relic that has come down from Rome to her daughters, and is borrowed by disciples from them. Any disciple of the Lord Jesus is authorized and required to teach the truth to all in his reach ; and when he teaches them and they desire to be baptized, then he should baptize them. I think, as a matter of good or- der, it is well, where there is a regular congregation, to have some one or more designated to do this work. 474 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, ORGAN, MY POSITION ON THE. Brother Lipscomb: It is reported that you are not opposed to the use of the organ in the worship when the church is united in desiring to use it. Is that your position? It discourages me to receive such questions from those who have been readers of the Gospel Advocate. It seems to me there is just as much reason for asking me if I be- lieve the Bible is true or that Jesus is the Son of God. I believe it is a greater sin for ten million to introduce the organ than for one, as it makes ten million sinners instead of one. I do not believe God excuses one person for violating his law because thousands of others do it. I be- lieve the person who acquiesces in and participates in a practice he believes wrong because others do it is worse than he who does it believing it right. I believe those who acquiesce in the use of it for the sake of peace are greater sinners than those who introduce it thinking it harmless. One sins against God ; the other, both against God and his own conscience. I do not go even so far as Brother Harding to admit it was ordained of God among the Jews. He never ordained it or approved it. In the imperfect development of Juda- ism, he winked at and regulated many things he did not ap- prove. Divorce is given by Christ as an example. Polyg- amy and slavery I believe of the same type. The kingly government of Judea was a sin; yet he chose, regulated, and governed the kings. Of the same kind I clearly believe was the use of instru- mental music. Amos 6 : 5 pronounces a woe on those who "chant to the sound of the viol, and invent to themselves instruments of music, like David. " Ezra 3: 10 says: "They set the priests in their apparel with trumpets, and the Le- vites the sons of Asaph with cymbals, to praise the Lord, after the ordinance of David king of Israel." I do not know of any law of God being referred to as an ordinance of an earthly king. This rested on authority of David as king of Israel, not on the authority of God. It was in- vented and introduced by David ; it was tolerated and regu- lated by God until Christ came to establish the perfect will of God ; then, like polygamy, divorce, the earthly king and rule, they were done away, his floor was purged, the laws that were good were perpetuated, while the human addi- tions were destroyed. Everything not ordained of God was rooted up and only those of God's own planting preserved. Instrumental music was dropped out by the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, just as polygamy and the easy divorce of the Mosaic law; and it is just as much a sin to introduce BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 475 instrumental music thus dropped out by the Lawgiver as it would be to introduce polygamy or divorce for any cause. I have never said I would not preach where instrumental music is used. I would not preach for them without in a Christian way trying to show them the wrong. I have preached where instrumental music was used. Sometimes brethren, out of deference to me, propose to leave it out when I am present. I always tell them my objection to it is not that it is offensive to me, but because I believe it of- fensive to God. I believe all tinkering with God's appoint- ments approximates the presumptuous sin, and it is a fear- fully dangerous ground to tread on. The scriptures in reference to offending weak brethren I do think applicable to this. To offend is to lead into sin. It does not refer to wounding the feelings. It might be applicable to brethren who think, while the organ is wrong, they can go in and worship God, ignoring it, and their worship will be acceptable. An idol is nothing, and a man may eat that which is offered, ignoring the idol ; yet a weak brother, seeing him eating this meat, might think he ate it in worship to the idol and be emboldened to eat in worship to the idol, and so become an idolater and be de- filed. So one might lead others to defile themselves in wor- shiping with the organ. D. L. ORGAN, WILL WORSHIPING WITH THE, CAUSE ONE TO BE LOST? Brother Sewell: Is it a sin to worship God with an organ, and will it cause one to lose his soul? The first thing to consider in this matter is: Does the word of God require the use of the organ in the worship? If it does, then it is sinful not to use it ; if it is not required, then it is sinful to use it, because it is adding to the word of God. In the last part of the last chapter in the Bible it is said: "I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book." Now, can you or any one else find the use of the organ required in the worship of the church in the New Testament? If you cannot, then this clause of scripture fully answers your question ; it fully shows it to be an ad- dition to the word of God, and shows the consequences of doing such a thing. But if it can be shown that the word of God does require an organ to be used in the worship of the church, then all those who refuse to so use it are under the condemnation of the next clause of the same passage, which says: "And if any man shall take away from the 476 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book/' So, then, the question must first be decided: Does the word of God require it? When you set- tle that, your questions are openly settled. With me, it is definitely settled that the word of God does not require the organ in worship, but that it is an innovation of human wisdom — a human addition. Hence, I would not practice it in the face of the above scripture for all the treasures of the world. We are aware that many are claiming the right to use the organ and to build and manipulate missionary so- cieties and such like societies upon the claim of "Christian liberty.'' As to what sort of liberty they claim it on, we have never heard one of them try to explain. But take it as they may, we are sure we have never heard of a more absurd claim. How can any one suppose that God would establish a principle which would enable men to set aside any or all of the positive statements of his holy word? It is positively certain that there is no expressed or implied authority in the word of God, in the New Testament, for the use of either the organ in the worship or the human society in the work of the church. It is certain, therefore, that to use them is to make additions to the word of God, which brings ruin instead of a blessing to all who engage in or encourage the doing of such things. If any such lib- erty as is claimed were allowed, it would make the word of God destroy itself, and leave a loophole for changing any or all of the appointments of the New Testament into mere in- ventions of men. Christianity allows no such liberty. The liberty the gospel gives when obeyed in good faith is free- dom from sin, both as to its guilt and practice, and holds one to a continued faithfulness in keeping the word of God as he gave it, without any addition to it or subtraction from it. Therefore the common practice of introducing things into the work and worship of the church that God has not ordained is simply a plunge back into the meshes of sin and its awful penalties. The only safety is to "touch not, taste not, handle not" these dangerous, ruinous things. ORGAN IN WORSHIP, CAN DIFFERENCES OVER BE ARBITRATED? Brother Lipscomb: I write for information. Suppose I should teach that the use of the organ in worship was unscriptural. An- other brother teaches that it is proper and right. Now, suppose that each one of us advocates his belief until two parties are formed and division occurs; would it be scriptural to invite three or more breth- ren from other congregations to decide who is right, or should we ap- peal to the Bible only? BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 477 No decision of others can possibly release a man from his own conscientious obligations to God. A man's con- science is not a sure guide for him ; but no honest man can go against his conscience, especially against his conscience in respect to God. The only authority to settle questions of right is the Bible. We ought to be forbearing and long- suffering toward others rather than disturb the harmony of a church of God, but we ought in that forbearance be true to our convictions to God and to our consciences. In matters where no principle of duty to God is at stake, where no principle of right is concerned, it is proper to com- promise differences. Where disagreement arises between brethren and friends in reference to matters of pecuniary right, or in any matter involving no principle of right, it is well to leave it to others to say which is right — to "arbi- trate" it, as it is called. But we cannot see how a person can let others decide for him his duty to God. They are not answerable for him. Every man must account to his own master ; every man must bear his own burden. The Scripture is the only rule for deciding questions of this kind. A man may think the organ admissible; no man from the Bible can believe it requisite. A man may have conscientious scruples about using it ; no man can have a conscience demanding it. It is of necessity some other feeling than conscience that demands the organ. ORGANS, GOING TO HELL, ETC. Brother Lipscomb: (1) According to the Scriptures, do our spirits go direct to heaven or hell after death, or to an intermediate state to await the day of judgment? (2) Is it better for a preacher who is opposed to organs in church worship to go along and preach Christ, doing all the good he can and discouraging the use of the organ every- where, or ought he to try to assume authority which properly belongs to elders and scatter firebrands on every hand, creating as much trou- ble as possible by his dictation, obstreperousness, and intolerance? (1) I do not think it a taught question. I have never found a passage of scripture that seemed to me, spoken or written, to reveal anything on that subject. If it were not of sufficient importance for God to give a sentence to reveal the truth on the subject, it is not of sufficient impor- tance to require study at our hands. So I reason. I have never felt the least interest in the question. I have never read a sermon, and seldom an essay, on the subject. If we sleep till judgment, it will be to us as a moment. So far as anything is taught on the subject is concerned, it is done incidentally in teaching truth on other subjects. But it seems to me it comes under the head of untaught ques- tions that are of no profit. 478 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, (2) I do not think any one would advise a preacher "to assume authority which properly belongs to elders and scatter firebrands on every hand, creating as much trouble as possible by his dictation, obstreperousness, and intoler- ance." I think that must be a misrepresentation of what any one would advise. No man ought to be intolerant, ob- streperous, or dictatorial; and it is a great sin to scatter firebrands among the children of God. But it is not dicta- torial to insist on observing God's order, nor is it scattering firebrands to insist on keeping everything not appointed of God out of the church and its service. Everything brought into the church not ordained by God is a firebrand. If it should create no blaze when brought into the church, this only secures that it will work the more ruin in the end. Man cannot determine what will and what will not bring peace. God is the author and giver of peace. He gives it on his own terms. The only terms on which he gives peace is submission to his law and conformity to his will. Often a whole people agree as to a course and think they secure peace. God may tolerate a seeming peace for a time, but present peace in wrong only insures the deeper and more widespread strife and ruin in the future. God, through Jer. 23: 17-22, gives the true rule for peace and for the teacher: "They say still unto them that despise me, The Lord hath said, Ye shall have peace; and they say unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you. For who hath stood in the counsel of the Lord, and hath perceived and heard his word? who hath marked his word, and heard it? Behold, a whirlwind of the Lord is gone forth in fury, even a griev- ous whirlwind: it shall fall grievously upon the head of the wicked. The anger of the Lord shall not return, until he have executed, and till he have performed the thoughts of his heart: in the latter days ye shall consider it per- fectly. I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings." The man that adds to or takes from God's order despises God — rejects him as ruler, sets aside his law, substitutes his wisdom for the wisdom of God because he thinks his better than God's. He who winks at this and talks of peace to them misleads them and cries "peace" when there is no peace. The preacher has but one mission, and God will say to him: "If they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 479 them from their evil way, and from the evil of their do- ings." The points on which the people are wrong are the points the preacher should teach them. The preacher who fails to teach truth because that truth is not popular — would give offense — is not a preacher called or sent of God. While violence and bitterness should be avoided and wisdom and prudence should be exercised in maintaining truth and opposing error, the man who starts out to compromise the truth of God or his own convictions may float along with the current and have a good sort of time here, and will soon come to have no convictions to stand by; but he will never benefit the world or honor God. He will have no re- ward for good done to men or for honor given God. A man should be firm, earnest, and aggressive for the truth. He ought to be patient, but persistent, in maintain- ing that truth. To compromise truth, to look lightly on error in even small things, is to blunt and sear his own con- science and sign the death warrant of his own manhood. Men true to God and to themselves (and he who is true to one is true to the other) are not plentiful in this world ; yet they are greatly needed, and are the only real benefactors of the world. A man in youth has the way of manhood and fidelity to truth opened to him, and God invites him to walk in it ; but we find, especially among the prominent men in the church and the world, only here and there a traveler. D. L. ORGAN, THE, IN THE SUNDAY SCHOOL. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: The church at this place is some- what divided in regard to instrumental music in the church. The church has an organ for the benefit of the Sunday school, and some oppose it. The organ is seldom ever introduced into a congregation in any way that it does not cause strife and division. The Sunday school, if carried on as it should be, is simply one department of the work of the church; and to bring the organ into it is to bring it into the church. Whenever the organ is introduced into that department of the work of the church and played for the children till they grow up and come into the church, they will bring it into their en- tire congregational service, and then division becomes greater than when introduced into the Sunday school. The older and more substantial members of the church ought to be connected with the Sunday school to the extent that would enable them to keep the organ out of that, as well as out of the church worship proper. The leading cause of such innovations is frequently owing to the fact that those 480 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, who oppose the organ do but comparatively little work in the congregation, and, as a consequence, have but little in- fluence against it, just because they do so little work, while more active members put the organ in, in their absence or over their heads. If those members who oppose such inno- vations would be active working members, they could most generally keep them out. If there were no other reason for keeping the organ out of the church than the bare fact that it causes division, that would be reason enough to keep it out ; for all know that there is no command in the Chris- tian Scriptures to put it in. Those members who force an organ into the Sunday or the regular worship contrary to the wishes of others, and thereby cause division and strife among the members, are responsible for all the strife thus produced; and when the organ comes into the Sunday school, it is only a matter of time when it will be in the regular worship of the congregation. This is the stepping- stone to its full introduction. Better never make anything popular with the children in connection with their religious instruction that is not desirable in the church. Children should be trained up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and he never admonishes bringing an organ either into the church or the Sunday school. E. G. S. ORGAN, CAN CHRISTIANS WORSHIP WITH A CHURCH THAT USES THE? Brother Lipscomb: We have two or three members in the church here who have quit going to church because they use the organ and have a Christian Endeavor Society. They say: "Of course it is wrong to worship with the organ," etc. So on this ground these mem- bers do not go to church, do not partake of the Lord's Supper (which they themselves believe ought to be partaken of each Lord's day), and are out of the fellowship of the church, too. Now, they could not take membership with any other church near here, because they all use the organ. These same members are growing cold and indiffer- ent, and pass away a good portion of their time in worldly amuse- ments and secular games. Further, these members did not say that they would leave the congregation if the organ was put in. Now, do you not think, as the organ was put in without their consent, that it is better for them to meet with the church and commune and fellow- ship with the church than it is to go back into the world, never attend church, and grow cold and indifferent? I do not much like to have an organ in the church myself, and I never gave my consent for its use nor paid a cent for it; but I told the church that I would not let a little organ drive me out of the church or keep me from doing my duty toward my God. So I am always found at the Lord's house on Lord's day to do my duty the best I can. Those brethren certainly commit a great sin in letting the organ drive them from the worship of God and the communion of the saints ; but I am not sure a man can do his duty to God in building up a congregation that has in- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 481 troduced the organ and the Endeavor Society. A church is a church of God only so long as it is governed by the law of God. "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." A church that introduces things not ordained by God into the worship or service of God does not "serve God only." In introducing things not ordained by God, the church is not serving God; it is serving some one else than God. It is not loyal to God and is not a church of God. Then refusing to worship with a church that re- jects the authority of God by introducing things not or- dained of God is not to refuse to worship God. Of course our brother draws back from this conclusion that it is not the church of God. But he does not like the organ, he says. Why? If God ordained it or commanded it, he ought to, and certainly would, like it: I would. The only dislike or objection I have to the organ is, God has not ordained or commanded it. But it is "such a little thing," our brother says, he will not let it drive him from the fellowship of the church. Where did he learn that anything added to or taken from the word of God is " a little thing?" The organ is nothing, the apple in Eden was nothing, the dipping in the Jordan by Naaman was nothing, and the water of bap- tism, in itself, is nothing; but obedience to God is a big thing, is everything. To add anything to or take anything from the appointments of God is treason to God in this principle laid down as fundamental by Jesus: "Him only shalt thou serve." Loyalty and fidelity to God can be tested by things little as well as by those great in the sight of men. Indeed, when a man comes to regard any change in the ap- pointments of God a little thing, he is already disloyal to God. "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much." (Luke 16: 10.) "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5: 19.) "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." (James 2 : 10, 11.) That means that he who sets aside the law or order of God in one point under the idea that it is a little thing breaks the whole law of God, makes himself a rebel against God and his law. Our brother clearly thinks the organ is not required by God ; that it is added by man, and that this is a little thing. 482 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, This is to say, to add to or change the order and appoint- ments of God is a little thing. This is presumption — the greatest of all sins. But for these brethren to permit the introduction of an organ or the apostasy of a church in any point to drive them from service to God is a sin that, if not repented of, will carry them down to hell; but if they be- lieve the organ is sinful, it is not their duty to worship with it or with the church that sets aside the authority of God by introducing it. That will not help them. Our brother is right in saying the church will not put it out. I have never seen a church that started in that direction stop. They may halt for a time to reconcile others, but they never stop. The downhill course is so easy to travel. A church that has known the truth and deliberately turns from it will wax worse and worse. The sooner it shows its com- plete disregard for God, the better. It gives opening for and makes evident the necessity of the formation of a church loyal to God and true to his law. These members who see the sinful course of the church are under the high- est obligation to God and men, to their own souls and to their neighbors', to worship God according to his will, show their loyalty and devotion to God, and maintain in the com- munity a church loyal to God. "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matt. 18: 20.) When Jesus is with them, all the power and blessings of God are with them to bless them and to make them a blessing to others. This is true, whether they meet at each other's houses, in a stable, or in the woods. The idea that children of God cannot find a church of God is a ridiculous absurdity. They constitute a church of God themselves. Let them meet and worship. When they make the introduction of an organ or any apos- tasy an excuse to grow cold and do nothing, they show their unworthiness as children of God. ORGANS, MAY CHRISTIANS BUY? Brother Lipscomb: Should we always strive to spend our money to the honor and glory of God? Can money be spent to this end when spent for organs? Suppose all the money spent by the churches for organs and such like should be given to mission work, feeding and clothing the poor, etc., would it not be much more pleasing to the Lord? Will not the Lord love most those who strive the hardest to please him? I take it, the question is intended to apply to all instru- ments of music — for those at home as well as at church. Such questions cannot be so definitely answered as we might BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 483 sometimes wish. A similar question arose in the Savior's day over the anointing of his body. The woman anointed his body. The disciples thought it a waste. Jesus said : "Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. For ye have the poor always with you ; but me ye have not always. For in that she poured this ointment upon my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. Verily I say unto you. Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her." (Matt. 26: 10-13.) The work done here differed from that pro- posed by the brother, but it shows that other work than the strictly religious may be attended to. Again, when the apostle Paul told the Corinthians, "If one of them that be- lieve not biddeth you to a feast, and ye are disposed to go," he told what to do, showing they were permitted to asso- ciate with unbelievers as a recreation. The point is, God recognizes that men have wants and even necessities aside from religious duties that need to be supplied. Children and young people need playthings and means of recreation. Who shall say what these shall be? Once I was with an old man and his wife. The wife loved a red ribbon on her bon- net. The man asked if I did not think she sinned in wear- ing it. I looked at him and replied that it seemed so, but I would not know how to draw a line that would admit a starched shirt bosom and other articles of his wear and cut it off. What they shall wear or shall not wear, save "braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment" (1 Tim. 2: 9), is not prescribed. With no rigid rules laid down, we cannot enforce rigid rules. The rule as to what they shall buy or wear is for their own application. It is our duty to teach these things ; but to apply them, the wearer will have to decide for himself. Then while one cannot say what another shall buy or use, all should insist in general terms on economy and prudence; but every man will have to decide for himself what he or his family shall wear. It would look a little odd or strange to see a preacher who spends freely and dresses with display lecturing others about dressing fine. Some families might do worse with their money than to buy a musical instrument. Yet in all these questions, when we deny ourselves to preach the gos- pel, honor God, and save sinners, we will be blessed. With these explanations, the questions may all be an- swered affirmatively, with the further statement that many will be lost from a refusal to deny self and serve God. What we can cheerfully and gladly deny ourselves to ad- vance the cause of God and convert sinners, God will bless us 484 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, for The more gladly and cheerfully we make the denial and the greater the denial, the greater the blessing. This is true of all blessings and sacrifices that Christians make for the cause of God and man. "OWE NO MAN ANYTHING." Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: You will please give us some light on Rom. 13: 8, and especially this part of it: "Owe no man anything." The most natural application that we know of is that it covers the whole ground of our responsibilities and obli- gations one to another. It embraces money and all sorts of kind offices that in the course of events Christians owe to one another. Kind words, kind actions, proper manifes- tations of gratitude for favors bestowed, and apologies for improprieties committed against another are all as natu- rally embraced as matters involving money. But we are fully satisfied it embraces money, and that when a Christian goes heedlessly in debt and makes no effort to pay and al- lows others to suffer on his account, he forfeits all claim to the Christian life and throws a blight upon the cause, so far as his influence extends. We do not pretend to say that buying things on credit or borrowing money or property for a time mutually agreed upon is necessarily wrong; but if a Christian man enters recklessly into such obligations when he knows he has no means in reach to pay, or care- lessly makes no effort to meet such obligations after delib- erately and in apparent good faith entering into the obliga- tion, he no longer deserves the respect of men or the fel- lowship of the congregation. Churches everywhere should deal more rigidly with members who act thus ; and if when gospel means have been exhausted in efforts to reform them they still persist in their pernicious ways, they should be as carefully withdrawn from as for any other acts of im- morality. Christians should owe nothing but "to love one another." This is a debt that as Christians we are always owing, though always paying. As fast as we discharge this obli- gation for one moment, one hour, or one day, the very same obligation repeats itself the next moment, hour, or day; and hence "to love one another" is an obligation always re- maining with us, and we should be always discharging the same. E. G. S. PARADISE, WHERE? Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please answer the following query: "To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke 22: 43.) By following Jesus we follow the thief that day. Where did Christ go that day? See Matt. 16: 18; Acts 2: 31; Eph. 4: 9, from which BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 485 we learn that Christ first went into Hades. Now see 2 Cor. 12: 2-4, from which we learn that paradise equals the third heaven. From Eph. 4: 8-10 we learn that after Jesus descended first into the lower parts of the earth he ascended up far above all heavens. But he had not thus ascended to the Father up to the time he rose from the dead. (John 20: 17.) Now, from Acts 1: 6 we learn that the disciples, who had been intimate with Jesus for three years and a half and whom Jesus had taught for forty days after his resurrection, were igno- rant of the nature of his kingdom; and hence the thief, with all his disadvantages, must have been at least as ignorant of that. The Jews, all as a nation, expected a temporal kingdom and were wont to regard Christ as a temporal king. Now, in view of this fact and the circumstances brought to bear on the thief in Luke 23: 35-38, is it not legitimate to conclude that his request had reference to Jesus' temporal power to save himself and him, too, from that death? Now for the query: Was the thief saved, or will he finally be saved, in the everlasting kingdom? If so, upon the sovereignty of Jesus, or how? In all honesty, I desire an answer, as I have special use for this case. The question is one we will not undertake to answer with a positive yes or no ; but from all that we can gather from the general teaching of the Bible, we do not see how the point can be made that he was saved. We do not know how the thief could have gained knowledge of the future kingdom of Christ, nor do we think that he did have such knowledge. We do not know positively in what sense the word paradise is used. The word literally means a gar- den, park, or pleasure ground ; and the Greeks got to using the word to signify a place of pleasure or happiness in the unseen world, transferring the idea of a pleasure ground into eternity. By a very common figure of speech, in which a part is made to represent the whole, the Savior may have used the word here in a general sense, simply to signify the land of the dead — the unseen world ; and then the meaning would be: "I shall die to-day and go into the unseen world, and you will die and go with me." This would be very natural upon the understanding that the thief, in common with the apostles and all who believed in Christ, had only the idea that Christ had come to establish an earthly kingdom. In that case his prayer would simply have reference to this life, supposing that Christ would come down from the cross and at once become an earthly king by miraculous power. The answer of Jesus gives him to understand that such would not be the case. PARADISE AND THE "THIRD HEAVEN." Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In 2 Cor. 12: 2 we have this lan- guage from Paul: "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such a one caught up to the third heaven." (1) What is meant by the term body in this scripture? Does it allude to the flesh? (2) What is meant by the phrase third 486 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, heaven in this verse? Also what is meant by the word paradise in verse 4? Are there degrees or promotions in the world of bliss and immortality? We have no doubt that the body referred to is the flesh. Paul was in a trance. Revelations were made to him of the state of the blessed. The third heavens were opened, or he was caught up to them. Whether his body was car- ried there or the spirit went there without the body, he seems not to know. The Jews divided the space above the earth into three departments, called heavens — (1) the atmosphere where the clouds gather; (2) the firmament in which the sun, moon, and stars are fixed; (3) the abode of God and the angels. Paul was given a sight of this abode. The divi- sions have no reference to degrees of bliss, as the spirits are supposed to inhabit only the third heavens. Paul sim- ply uses this style to indicate that he had seen in a vision the home of God and the just. Paradise is a word of indefinite meaning. It was supposed to mean originally a garden of rest, quiet, and peace. It came to refer to the rest of the weary in the grave and the peace of those beyond the second death. It came to typify the upper or third heavens, and is used, no doubt, in this sense in this passage. We do not know much, therefore do not like to write much, concerning these matters. D. L. PARADISE AND THE DYING THIEF. Being very desirous of obtaining some light on Luke 23 : 43, I ap- peal unto you. Christ, in answer to one of the thieves, said: "To- day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Now, I want to know what is meant by the word paradise — whether the grave or third heaven. If the grave, is it anywhere else used in the Bible for the same? You will please give us the Greek on this. Also, how will you recon- cile Matt. 27; 44 and Luke 23: 42? It takes no Greek on this subject of paradise. It is used but three times in the Bible. It is not used in precisely the same sense in any two of these cases. Luke (23: 43) says: "To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise." In 2 Cor. 12: 4, Paul says he "was caught up into paradise." Rev. 2: 7 says: "To him that overcometh, to him will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." Paradise means a great garden. It came to refer to the garden of Eden. It then referred to any pleasant, retired spot where peace and quiet reigned. It came to refer to the state of the dead, especially the blessed, as their spirits were supposed to float through green, shady woods and pleasant, flowery meadows. From this it came to refer BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 487 to the grave itself, as a place of quiet and rest from toil and suffering here. It was used, we are sure, in this sense by the Savior when speaking to the thief. It meant: "You and I from the torment and suffering of the cross will this day rest in the peace and quiet of the grave." The same place called paradise here is called Hades or hell in our version of Acts 2 : 27 : "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell [Hades] ." This shows the Savior went to Hades that day. In it God would not suffer his soul to remain nor his body to see corruption Or decay. This was the grave to which he went. He called it paradise to the thief. The two pas- sages referred to are made to contradict each other by making the thief ask for and the Savior promise salvation in heaven. Matthew says the thieves (both of them) cast the same in his teeth — reviled him in consequence of his claims. Luke, without telling this, tells what each of them said to him. One, in ridicule of his claims to be the Son of God or Christ, said, "Save thyself and us;" the other, in ridi- cule of his claims to be a king, after going through a mock reproof of the other, said : "When you come into your king- dom, remember me." The Savior, in response, to reprove both, said: "To-day you and I will be in the quiet of the grave." This, to my mind, is the only possible explana- tion of the occurrence, and needs no reconciling with other passages. The explanation usually given is that one thief, after reviling him, was converted and repented. This is a mere guess and farce, put to get out of a difficulty. The same conversation is reported by both evangelists, occurring at the same time. It is precisely the same conversation re- ported by both writers. There was nothing in the circum- stances connected with Christ's crucifixion up to this time to excite faith or convert unbelief. Up to this time all was against him. The punishment appalled the stoutest hearts ; made those already his followers forsake him. The won- derful manifestations that made the centurion exclaim, "This surely was the Son of God," had not occurred. This is in exact agreement with the facts, too ; for unto the grave and nowhere else did he that day go. He did not go to heaven. Peter called the paradise to which he went hell or Hades. D. L. PARDON, THE TERMS OF, THE SAME TO ALL. Brethren Lipscomb and Setvell: Are the terms of pardon the same to the involuntarily ignorant, that cannot read and have not heard read in its purity the gospel, as to the highly educated and morally disciplined, both being alien sinners? 488 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, The terms of pardon are certainly the same to all alien sinners, whether they be learned or unlearned. When Je- sus charged the apostles in his last commission to them, he said: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Here the very same conditions are applicable to all. The gospel facts to be believed and the things required to be done are of such a character that the commonest mind can under- stand them as well as the most profound. No one who has mind enough to be responsible can be saved without faith, nor can the profoundest sage the world ever saw. No sin- ner, however ignorant or however wise, can be saved with- out repentance. Every one that has sinned is commanded to repent, and neither ignorance nor learning can escape it. The same is true of all the requirements of the gospel. Some, by their natural talents and acquired ability, are capable of doing much more for the advancement of the cause than others, much more work in the church; but all are required to do the same things in becoming Christians. We remember seeing a colored man once who avoided in- struction in the Bible, supposing that his ignorance of it would shield him from responsibility. He failed to realize that in so doing he classed himself with those in the days of the Savior who closed their eyes and ears against the truth. Those that have an opportunity to learn the truth and will not are about as guilty, we think, as those who know the truth and will not obey it. In this Bible land we think there will be but little excuse for those who do not learn the will of the Lord. All can learn the plain require- ments of the gospel as given in the New Testament if they will. There is more difficulty in inducing people to accept the gospel than there is in getting them to understand it. E. G. S. PASSING THE PLATE. We have had some controversy over the matter of passing the plate for the weekly contribution in our congregation at this place. I take the position that it is scripturally wrong. Am I right or wrong? The Bible does not say a word about a plate or basket or hat or tin bucket handed around. It says to lay by in store, or the treasury, on the first day of the week. It does not say whether it shall be done by putting it in with the hand or taking it in the mouth and dropping it in, nor does it say whether the treasury shall be made of a box or basket or a bag. It does not say whether it shall be hung at the door, BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 489 laid on the table, or whether the treasury shall be carried to the person or he go to it. And where the Scriptures give no direction, the man who insists on one or another simply thinks more of his traditions — the way he has been accustomed to do things — than he does of the commands of God. PASSOVER, WERE THE, AND THE LORD'S SUPPER THE SAME? I wish Brother D. Lipscomb would answer through the Gospel Ad- vocate if the Lord's Supper and the feast of the passover are the same. I wish he would write a discourse on them. We would not know how to write a very long discourse on this subject. The Lord's Supper and the passover are not the same. The passover commemorated the passing by those who had the blood of the lamb upon the door when the avenging angel went forth to destroy the firstborn of the Egyptians. The passover feast was intended to per- petuate the memory of this salvation. The blood of the paschal lamb typified the blood of the Son of God. On the night of the passover, the Lord's Supper, to be commemora- tive of the blood of Christ, was instituted ; but it was ob- served under the guidance of the Spirit on the first day of the week. The passover pointed forward to the blood of Christ shed for the remission of sins. The Lord's Supper points back to it as commemorative of this blood shed. PAUL PLANTING AND APOLLOS WATERING. Please explain 1 Cor. 3 : 6 through the Gospel Advocate. The verse is this : "I have planted, Apollos watered ; but God gave the increase." Paul was simply illustrating a principle, and not attempting to tell what had actually oc- curred at Corinth; and it is a truth that Apollos went to Corinth after Paul had made a long stay there and after "many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were bap- tized" by Paul. It is probable also that as Apollos was a zealous, eloquent man, he furthered the work that was be- gun by Paul. But that was not what Paul intended prin- cipally to teach. The point with Paul was virtually this: That one man may plant the cause of truth by preaching the gospel; another man may come in and may labor fur- ther with the work and assist in their growth, both in grace and in numbers; but when this growth takes place, the power that effected the growth is in the gospel, and not in the men that preached it; and as the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to them that believe, when the gos- pel produces increase both in grace and in numbers, that 490 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, increase is from God, and not from the men who did the preaching. Yet preaching and teaching are necessary, just as it is necessary that seed shall be planted and, when it comes up, be cultivated in order to produce a literal crop. It is, therefore, literally true in nature that one may plant and another water, cultivate, and thus promote the growth of a crop ; but it is the power of God in the seed, the soil, the seasons, etc., that brings the increase. The Corinthians were divided over men, as though they had done all the work as men that had been there. The apostle shows them the folly of this, and lets them know that the power that saves men is the power of God, which is in the gospel, and not in the men that preach it. The Corinthians were following men when they should have been following God, the author of the gospel, the saving power of God. All the honor for salvation belongs to God, while men that faith- fully proclaim the word of God are only to be honored as servants, doing that which is their duty to do, and not to be dignified as leaders. "So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither is he that watereth ; but God that giveth the increase." E. G. S. PHARAOH, THE NAME. Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: Please explain the following: Is Pharaoh, the king, that is spoken of in Acts 7: 10, the same king spoken of in verse 18 which knew not Joseph? If so, in what sense did he not know him? Pharaoh simply meant a king of Egypt. All the kings were called Pharaoh. One Pharaoh, or king, was reigning when Joseph was advanced to a position of honor and trust. He died. Another Pharaoh, or king, arose who did not know him. He was not familiar with his character and excellencies. Not having this knowledge of him, he was not so friendly to his kindred, and so oppressed them. D. L. POPE, THE FIRST CATHOLIC. Brother Sewell: When did the Catholics have their first pope? It is hard to fix any particular time in the history of the church when the first pope was installed. From the latter half of the second century on the struggle began between the bishops of different churches as to which bishop should have the supremacy. The claim began to be made in the third century that the bishop in the largest town, or the oldest, largest, or the most prominent, the most aggressive, the most noted or popular church, should be the universal bishop or pope of all the churches. But this struggle was BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 491 kept up for a long time before any settlement of the matter was made. When these general struggles had gone on for a good while, the conflict narrowed down till only the bish- ops of Rome and of Constantinople were in the conflict. This conflict also continued for some time, involving the Greek Church and the Latin Church, or Church of Rome, which became the Roman Catholic Church. And even as to this contest, it is a little difficult to determine precisely the time when the bishop of Rome was acknowledged as uni- versal bishop, or pope. But the general contention is that early in the seventh century the struggle was ended, when Phocas, a very wicked Roman emperor, was induced by Bishop Boniface III., of Rome, to proclaim him as the uni- versal bishop of the church. This event occurred about the year 606. So he was the first general pope. POPULARITY WITH THE WORLD. Why was woe pronounced against the person when all men spoke well of him in Luke 6? James says we are to keep ourselves "un- spotted from the world." I confess I cannot harmonize the two. Christ and James both really and virtually teach the same thing when we understand the things about which they were speaking, and there is no appearance of contra- diction. When Christ said, "Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you ! for so did their fathers to the false prophets," he was speaking of the practice of those who claim to be the followers of Christ, seeking the favor and friendship of a wicked world, seeking to be popular with those who disregard the religion of Christ. There are plenty of those called Christians to-day who think more of the favor and good will of the world than they do of the good will of God or of his people. This is true with many of those members who are seeking worldly offices and worldly promotion. Such men know that in order to suc- cess they must be popular with the outside world ; and those thatrun for office and do not seek for popularity with the outside world — the world that is in rebellion against God — are almost certain in these days of corruption in worldly governments to be left out. They must do as the world does, partake of the ways of the world, so as to be popular with the world, so that the masses of a wicked world will speak well of them in order to success. There may be some exceptions to this rule, but not many. The time is pretty well past when men are put into office because they are good men. A man who earnestly and devotedly lives the Christian is not popular enough with a wicked world for them to divide their emoluments with him. Some 492 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, worldly or wicked man will step in before. And it was just this character of friendship with the world that the Savior was speaking of in the above language — not alone in office seeking, but in any other matter in which men may seek the friendship and applause of a wicked world for worldly gain. James, when speaking on the same subject, speaks just like the Savior. We have an example in the following: "Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God ? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." (James 4: 4.) This pas- sage in James is on the same subject that Christ was on in Luke, and is just as strong as that of the Savior. No man can be in the sense of this passage a friend of the world and not be at the same time an enemy of God. When a man loves the ways of the world and becomes a friend of the world in order to obtain the pleasures or treasures of the world, he becomes at the same time an enemy of God and puts himself under the woe that the Savior pronounces in the above passage in Luke. When James teaches that a Christian must keep himself "unspotted from the world," he means that he must keep himself from the evil ways of the world in every sense — that he must not indulge in any of the evil practices of the world, must not ally himself to the world in any such way as to participate in the evils of the world so as to in any way encourage them or in any wise to participate in them. Christians should so live and act in the presence of the world as to prove to the world that they are Christians indeed — that they are living upon Christian principles. Christians cannot keep themselves "unspotted from the world" when they are the friends of the world and participate in its evils so as to gain their friendship and applause and be well spoken of by the world because they participate in and encourage them. So Christ and James teach precisely the same things on the same sub- ject. There is no sort of conflict between them. E. G. S. POSTURE IN PRAYER. I, like you, believe it is right to kneel in prayer when in an assem- bly; but there are some things that bother me — viz.: If it is necessary in public prayer, why not in secret prayer, "giving of thanks," and in dismissing an audience, etc.? This, I think, will suggest my trouble to you, and an answer will be greatly appreciated. We did not know any one ever stood up to pray in secret. Certainly the same rules regulating public prayer, so far as attitude is concerned, would regulate private or secret prayer. It is right to pray while we are standing up, when we lie down, when we ride along the road; indeed, every BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 493 breath we draw should bear the odor of prayer to our Fa- ther. But when we place ourselves for prayer, we should kneel — bow down. Dismissal is a human formality that may mean something or nothing. With most people it means nothing except a few moments in which to adjust themselves for leaving. Certainly an appointment of God should not be set aside at the behest of a mere formality, Better do away with the formality of a prayer of dismissal. If it is real prayer, we can kneel as well as at other times. The scriptuial declarations and examples are that we should stand up to give thanks, but kneel to pray. When the leading purpose is thanksgiving, it is proper to stand up ; when the design is prayer, kneeling is proper. Smith's Bible Dictionary and other authorities tell us that standing in prayer was introduced among Christians first on Easter, and then thanksgiving fc the resurrection of Christ was proper. Then it came to be introduced on every Lord's day, because we should give thanks for the resurrection. So it was perverted. We so commingle our prayers and thanksgiving now that the same attitude is assumed for both. When the leading object is thanksgiving, standing is proper ; when prayer is the leading purpose, kneeling is proper. A prayer intermingled with thanksgiving would not be sin. POWERS, THE, THAT BE. Please explain Rom. 13: 1: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God : the powers that be are ordained of God." In our Bible class we differ as to who these powers are. Some say it is the church power of elders; others claim it is the carnal or worldly powers. I think it refers to the civil powers. The civil powers were ordained of God to execute wrath or inflict punish- ment on evildoers. In the last verses of chapter 12 he tells them they (Christians) are not to take vengeance, not to return good for evil. God will take vengeance. Then in chapter 13 he tells them how he does it — through the civil power which God has ordained for this special work. He overrules it to punish the evil, and, in so doing, administers good to the righteous. Brother Lipscomb: Please explain Rom. 13: 1-4. Are the poivers here spoken of the powers in the church, the rulers or bishops of the church, or do they refer to the rulers or the authorities of the govern- ment? Does the Greek justify the following reading, which is from Conybeare and Howson: "Let every man submit himself to the au- thorities of government: for all authority comes from God, and the authorities which now are have been set in their place by God: there- fore he who sets himself against the authority resists the ordinance 494 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, of God; and they who resist will bring judgment upon themselves. For the magistrate is not terrible to good works, but to evil. Wilt thou be fearless of his authority? do what is good, and thou shalt have the praise. For the magistrate is God's minister for thee for good, but if thou art an evildoer, be afraid; for not by chance does he bear the sword (of justice), being a minister of God, appointed to do vengeance upon the guilty." If this is a correct rendering, it cer- tainly settles the question. If it is not, please give it. The rendering mentioned above is rather more liberal than a strict adherence to the Greek would justify. The parties above mentioned have given a paraphrase rather than a critical translation. But, still, we doubt not that they are correct in referring the passage to the governments of this world rather than to the authorities of the church, though some men of eminent talent have regarded the whole passage as referring to the powers in the church, and not worldly governments. But we cannot see the consistency of such an interpretation. While it is true that God never originated a single one of the governments of this world, but that every one that ever did arise was built up in rebel- lion against God, yet it is true at the same time that God has permitted them to exist, and it is also true that God has used these governments as a sword in his hand to punish wicked men. He used Nebuchadnezzar, a wicked and idol- atrous king, to punish the Jews for their wickedness, to punish Tyre and Egypt; and he even calls Nebuchadnezzar his servant in Ezekiel when foretelling the overthrow of Tyre. So God does ordain the rulers of this world, wicked though they may be themselves, for the punishment of oth- ers more wicked than themselves. We have long been sat- isfied that such is the meaning of the passage in Romans — that is, that the only way in which God ordains worldly governments is simply in using them, after men built them, to accomplish his purposes. E. G. S. PRAYER, THE BIBLE ON ALIEN. Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Please give me and others through the Gospel Advocate a thorough disquisition on alien prayer. Give us all the Bible teaching on the subject for and against, as there are some here that want light on the subject. The Bible teaches very plainly that neither alien prayers nor prayers of members will be heard while the one that prays is willingly violating or refusing God's requirements. The first duty of the alien is to hear and obey the gospel of Christ, and thereby become a Christian ; and so long as he refuses to do that, his prayers can avail nothing. All the prayers that he and all the preachers on earth might offer could never bring pardon to such a one, for any one in such BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 495 a situation would be in rebellion against God, while with his lips he might be engaged in prayer. Solomon says: "He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination." A prayer that would be abomination in the sight of God would not bring a blessing very soon. This same principle applies to the church mem- ber as well as to the alien. Solomon was addressing God's people, the Jews, when he used the language above. In precise accord with this, Jesus says: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven ; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." It matters not how much a Christian may pray for the blessings of heaven, he has no promise of being heard except as he does the will of God. "The eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers." The righteous are those who live in obe- dience to the will of God; and whenever a righteous man ceases to do the will of God, he has no further promise that his prayers will be heard. John says: "And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his command- ments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight." This passage plainly expresses the whole principle of God's hearing and answering prayer. No man, in the church or out of it, need expect God to hear and answer his prayer unless he is devoting his heart and life to doing the will of God as revealed in the New Testament. E. G. S. PRAYER, LEADING IN. Please point out the chapter and verse where a man is commanded to pray out or lead in prayer. The above question reminds me of those who sometimes ask : "Where is the chapter and verse that condemns danc- ing or gambling or the use of an organ in the worship?" and such like. Because they cannot find these things con- demned in so many words they conclude there is no harm in such things. Yet the teaching of the whole Bible is of a character that condemns all these things. On the other hand, there are examples in large numbers of public prayer, and that by inspired men, and even by the Savior himself. Solomon, king of Israel, stood upon his knees and prayed a long prayer in the presence of a vast crowd at the dedi- cation of the temple, which God had commanded him to build; and when he prayed, God told him he would grant what he had prayed for. We have it said of Christ : "And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John 496 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, also taught his disciples." (Luke 11: 1.) This passage indicates that this praying was in the presence of his dis- ciples, that they heard him, and as soon as he was done they asked him to teach them to pray; and the form of prayer which he taught indicates that he expected them to use it publicly, giving the form in the plural number : "Our Father, . . . give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins," etc. "Now is my soul troubled ; and what shall I say ? Father, save me from this hour : but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him." (John 12: 27-29.) The people stood around, and evidently heard the prayer and heard the voice that answered him. Also in the long prayer in John 17 the disciples evidently were present and heard him. He had just made a long talk to his disciples about going away from them and sending the Holy Spirit upon them, and chapter 17 opens thus: "These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come ; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee," etc. All the indications are that Jesus made this prayer in the presence of those persons to whom he had been talking, as given in the preceding chap- ters. Also, Paul, in the presence of the company that was with him, as we read in Acts 20 : 36, prayed publicly : "And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them all." Here is, without doubt, an instance of public prayer. When Paul says, "I will therefore that men pray every- where," this word everywhere takes in public prayers as well as private ones. Paul also says: "Every man pray- ing or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head." Here praying and prophesying or teaching are spoken of in a way that indicates that both are done in con- nection, and teaching is generally done in public. Also, in Acts 6, where the seven were appointed to serve tables, when they were selected, we have : "Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them." Here was public prayer. Public prayer was also made at Antioch when Paul and Barnabas were sent out by the direction of the Holy Spirit. Also, in Acts 1, when a hundred and twenty disciples were together, public prayer was made, asking God to show which man should be taken to fill the place of Judas ? who by transgression fell. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 497 In Acts 2, when the church of God in its fullness was set up, it is said : "And they continued steadfastly in the apos- tles' doctrine and 'fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." Here the prayers, as carried on by those Christians, are mentioned right along with things that everybody knows were done in the public assemblies, such as breaking of bread ; and there is every reason to believe that this passage had reference to public prayers. But these examples are enough. Any man that loves to pray to God and loves his word and has any respect for the examples of godly men and inspired men can certainly find plenty of authority in these examples for public prayer. E. G. S. PRAYER MEETING, DISPENSING WITH IN HOT WEATHER. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: We have a congregation of about twenty-five members, about half of whom attend Sunday service and weekly prayer meetings. It has been suggested that we dispense with prayer meeting during the hot months. Do you think it would be consistent? Also, how can we make our meetings interesting? We have no preacher, and all the work devolves upon three or four male members. As to the weekly prayer meetings, we have no positive law in the New Testament; but we have requirements to pray, and to pray always, without ceasing, and to pray everywhere ; and there is no better way of doing part of this work than by weekly prayer meetings. It has a tendency to cultivate piety and devotion in the hearts and lives of Christians. When they meet often together and sing and pray together and read and admonish one another, it keeps their minds more on the subject of Christianity and is in many ways advantageous and edifying to Christians. We can see no reason why such a work should be suspended for warm weather. Satan's devices and temptations never cease, and we need all the help that the prayer meeting af- fords to strengthen us against his assaults. We believe in perseverance in every good work. A disposition to abandon the prayer meetings on account of warm weather is an in- dication that as the heat of summer warms up the physical man, the spiritual man grows colder. We think spiritual life should not fluctuate as the seasons do, but should be al- ways striving to use every possible means and opportunity for becoming strong in the Lord and in the power of his might. The question of making the Lord's-day meetings interest- ing to the members is a question of decided importance and one not very easily answered. When the members cultivate 498 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, a lively personal interest in their own personal duties and privileges, they will always be interested in the worship of the Lord's house ; but when members go* to meeting more to be entertained than to worship the Lord for themselves, it may be very difficult to entertain them. There are some good people, however, who desire to serve the Lord and do right who have not been properly taught on the subject and do not, therefore, properly appreciate the matter. In such cases something may be done to increase their interest in the meetings; and one of the best ways we know is to furnish something for every member to do. Get them all, if possible, to engage in a Bible class and read those parts of the New Testament especially which treat of Christian duty and responsibility, and get them to think and study and talk the matter over together, and it will certainly in- crease their interest in the Lord's services. Also induce the members one by one to read a chapter or even a few verses in your meetings, and this will give them a personal interest in the work. Induce all the members to sing and to learn to sing if not already trained in this delightful part of the worship. The exercises should not be very long at a time, varied, and brief, so as not to be too brief and thus cut off the solemnity. This will always be found best. Long speeches, and especially by those who are not fluent and pleasant talkers, will always have a bad effect. Long readings and tediously prolonged exercises of any kind will prove tiresome to some and cause their nonattendance. The edification of a congregation is a very nice and difficult point, and should be closely studied by those who take the lead. Indeed, we know of no subject that needs more ear- nest and prayerful attention just now than congregational work and edification. But it will be difficult to lay down any rules that would be applicable everywhere and under all circumstances. Let all study their own surroundings for the variation and application of the general suggestions we have but briefly made, and good may result. E. G. S. PRAYING FOR TEMPORAL BLESSINGS. Is it right to pray for temporal blessings? Some think it right to pray for rain, and some think not. Please give us the scripture. What is prayer? Some say it is the sincere desire of the heart. But would it be a prayer unless it was expressed in words? We have no record of any unspoken prayer. Sometimes it was spoken in an undertone. Hannah's lips moved in prayer, but the voice was not heard. Unvoiced or un- spoken prayer is nigh akin to faith alone — unembodied, undeveloped faith. It has not much weight. I think most BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 499 certainly it is right to pray for temporal blessings. In the old dispensations prayer was made for temporal blessings. Their prayers were heard and answered. The fact that these prayers were heard is held up as encouragement for us to pray as an assurance that God will hear our prayers. James (5:17) says: "Elias was a man subject to like pas- sion as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit." I do not know what language means if this is not given to encourage Christians to pray as did Elias. The hindrance to prayers for rain being answered is this : Any prayer, to be heard and answered, must be made in faith — in faith that it will be answered. "Let him ask in faith, nothing wavering [doubting]. For he that wavereth [doubteth] is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord." The prayers of a man who has doubts as to his prayer being answered will not be answered. Again (James 4: 3) : "Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts." When a man asks for a thing that he may consume it upon his lusts, his prayer will not be answered. The prayer for rain in Texas after the long drought would be to obtain that it might be consumed upon our lusts. So little of it would be devoted to the honor of God or the good of man. One brother writes that among the applicants for aid, many were able to buy tobacco, although putting up a piteous plea that their families were in a starving condition. He said the elders demanded a promise that none of the means sent them should be so used ; but it is a shame that a man should spend his own means to gratify a defiling lust and then take means from others to buy bread for his family. Prayers of people spending their means on depraving appetites, for rain, is an offense to God. Put ourselves in a condition for prayer, and I feel sure prayer for rain would be answered. D. L. PRAYING FOR HIS MURDERERS, JESUS. Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: Did Jesus set us an example of intercessory prayer in behalf of those who are living in rebellion against his 1 government when he prayed for his murderers, as re- corded in Luke 23: 34? The Savior doubtless prayed for those in rebellion against him on that occasion; but he evidently did not mean that they should be forgiven without repentance, but that his Father would not blot them out — destroy them — till they 500 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, should have opportunity to repent. When the day of Pen- tecost came, those murderers of the Son of God, the very ones that were present when Jesus prayed and the very ones that caused his condemnation and crucifixion, were commanded to "repent, and be baptized," for pardon and remission of their sins. Not one was pardoned that refused to obey this command. The history of those men for whom he prayed teaches us what he prayed for. Christians now ought to pray for sinners — not that God would save them out of obedience, but that the word of God may have free course among them and be glorified, as Paul directed the Thessalonians to pray. (2 Thess. 3: 1.) We often think that Christians are not sufficiently persistent in their prayers in behalf of the unsaved, the unconverted — not that we have any right to pray for their pardon without obedience to the gospel ; it would be rebellion to do so ; but we may pray for the success of the gospel, that sinners may be spared and be so situated that they may receive the word of God and be saved by it. E. G. S. PREACHERS, CALLED AND SENT. What is meant by the passage of scripture found in the letter to the Romans: "How shall they preach, except they be sent?" (Rom. 10: 15.) Please explain what is meant by the sent and called preach- ers? The preacher and the preaching here referred to was that which was done in the beginning before the New Testa- ment was written. Preach refers to the original proclama- tion of the gospel. None were able to do this unless they were sent of God and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Those who proclaimed the gospel in the beginning and first made it known alone in the Bible are called preachers. They who repeat it are called teachers. We have no preachers in this sense now. All those old original preachers must be both sent and inspired by God. D. L. PREACHING CHRIST WITHOUT BAPTISM. Brother Lipscomb: Can any one preach Jesus without preaching- baptism? A brother here claims he can, and quotes the language of Paul: "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." (1 Cor. 1: 17.) An inspired man could not preach Christ without preach- ing baptism. None ever did. Paul was not sent to bap- tize. He usually had some one with him to do the bap- tizing; but when no one was present, he did it himself. Read the preceding verses to that quoted. Of those claim- ing to be followers of Paul he said: "I thank God that I BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 501 baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius ; lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other." Paul preached, and "many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized." This shows while Paul did not baptize, he preached the ne- cessity of baptism, and it was so important there were oth- ers with him whose special mission it was to baptize those to whom he preached. This certainly indicates it was nec- essary, in that they had special persons to do the baptizing. When they were not present to do it, he did it himself. To preach Christ is to preach him as the ruler and representa- tive of God, and no one can preach Christ as he is presented in the Scriptures without preaching all the teaching of Christ. Paul could only claim to be free from the blood of all men by declaring "the whole counsel of God." (Acts 20:26,27.) PREACHING— DID IT CEASE WHEN THE NEW TESTA- MENT WAS WRITTEN? Brother Lipscomb: Did Christ or any of the apostles teach that preaching should cease when the New Testament was written? The Savior, in his commission to the apostles, said : "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Under this commission the apos- tles were commanded to teach and baptize all nations, and to teach those baptized to observe or do all he commanded the apostles. This certainly requires those baptized to do all he commanded the apostles to do. This seems to make it as obligatory on the Christians of every succeeding gen- eration to teach all nations of their generation as it was on the apostles to teach all of that generation. Can any one tell why this does not require the Christians of each succeeding generation to preach the gospel as much as it required the apostles to do it? If that part of the commis- sion that requires those taught by the apostles to teach oth- ers has been abrogated, when and by whom was it done? When was the teaching to cease? In Acts 8 we have an account of the persecution that arose with the death of Ste- phen. "And they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles." (Verse 1.) "Therefore they that were scattered abroad went ev- erywhere preaching the word." (Verse 4.) We have the example that those taught by the apostles understood it was their duty to preach the word wherever they went. 502 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, Those scattered abroad first preached the gospel in Antioch. (Acts 11: 20.) They clearly understood it was the duty of all Christians to preach the gospel wherever they went, and it was an essential part of their religion to do this. When did it cease to be a part of any Christian's duty to teach the word to every one possible? Where is the scrip- ture that annulled this duty ? Was the duty confined to the apostles ? We find a host of teachers named in the Bible be- sides the apostles — Prochorus, Nicanor, Erastus, Aquila, Priscilla, Mark, Luke, Silas, Timothy, Titus, Tychicus, etc. The duty of teaching rested on Timothy, Titus, and Silas, and all that class. Paul nor Peter did not record his teach- ing as final and sufficient. So they did not require to be taught again and again. So Paul and Barnabas, after hav- ing taught and planted churches, returned "to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, confirming the souls of the disci- ples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed." (Acts 14: 21-23.) These elders appointed were apt to teach and were able to continue the teaching. Timothy was left in Ephesus to teach and instruct others in the true teaching and correct the false teaching. (1 Tim. 1 : 2-4.) When he was telling them to correct the false teaching was a good time to tell them all teaching must cease, if this were so. In 2 Tim. 2: 1, 2, Paul admonishes Timothy: "Be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." This was Paul's last and farewell letter. He had urged Timothy to "do the work of an evangelist," "preach the word," and "be instant in season, out of season;" and now he urges him to commit the same "to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." This teaching was to be perpetuated through faithful men after his departure. He left Titus in Crete to appoint elders in every city. These elders were the teachers of both those within and those without the church. Peter, in his last letter, tells: "Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in re- membrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath showed me. Moreover I will endeavor that ye may be able BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 503 after my decease to have these things always in remem- brance." (2 Pet. 1: 12-15.) He recognized the necessity of stirring up the memory of those already established in the truth. How much more the world, who had not obeyed the truth, should be taught and admonished of their duty ! I could quote other passages, but close with one more: "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." (Rev. 22: 17.) The bride is the church. The Spirit and the church say, "Come," through the disciples. All unto the end are to call on sinners, "Come." It is not only laid down as a duty, but teaching the word of God is made an essential part, indeed, of the essence of the Christian reli- gion. So that he who is not imbued with the spirit of teaching all in darkness has not the spirit of Christ, is not Christ's. A man who is not filled with the desire of teach- ing the gospel is not a Christian. All teaching the word of God publicly or privately is preaching. Parents bringing up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord are preaching or teaching under the commission. That commission is to every baptized believer; and every man, woman, and child that is a Christian is a preacher or teacher of the word of God, each in his own sphere and ac- cording to his own ability; and one who does not realize this and try to act according to it has not the spirit of Christ and is none of his. A true Christian cannot refrain from teaching the word of God to the lost as opportunity offers. The Christians of every age are under the same obligation to preach the gospel to every creature that the apostles were. How are we doing it? PREDESTINATION, ETC. Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: Please explain Rom. 8: 29, 30 through the Gospel Advocate. It reads thus: "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. More- over whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Has any young preacher a right to take the confession of a sinner and baptize him who has never been ordained by the lay- ing on of hands? The predestination spoken of in this passage has refer- ence to God's plan of conforming men to the image of his Son, and not to individual persons and their action as a matter of necessity under that predestination. God fore- ordained a plan of salvation for men, and decreed that all that would embrace it should be saved by it, while those 504 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, that rejected it were to be destroyed by it. The gospel is God's foreordained plan to save men. Hence, when Jesus sent it out, he said : "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Never was there a more positive decree than this. There- fore, whether men are saved by God's foreordination and predestination or not depends upon whether they believe and obey the requirements of the gospel or not. When they do this, we had as well expect the heavens to fall as that such will not be saved. But, on the other hand, if we will not obey, we had just as well expect the heavens to fall as that such will be saved. Hence, while God has decreed a plan of salvation sufficient to save all men that will accept it, he has not decreed that any particular man shall accept or reject. Every man's salvation, therefore, depends upon his own voluntary action in accepting God's plan of favor to save him. As to preaching, taking the confession, and baptizing men, no man needs any ordination by laying on of hands to do that. No man in the days of the apostles was ever or- dained to give him the right to preach, baptize, attend to the Lord's Supper, or anything of the kind. A man can preach as authoritatively without hands being laid on him as with it, and has all the right to baptize without having hands laid on him that he would have with it. E. G. S. PRESBYTERIANS, TAKING MEMBERSHIP WITH. Brother Lipscomb: Is it right for me to put my membership in with the Presbyterians when there is no other church, if I do not be- lieve in their doctrine? I would like to know the scripture that teaches on that point, if there is any. I belong to the church of Christ, and the Presbyterian Church is the only church in six or eight miles of me. If I could worship with the Presbyterians in one place, I could in all places. If one member of the church of Christ can worship with them without sin, all members can. So if you can meet and worship with them without sin in Ore- gon, all can and should do it, wherever they are. The will of God ought to guide a man in all these things. If the Presbyterians teach and practice the will of God, it is every man's duty to worship with them and build them up ; if they do not teach the will of God, it is wrong to give your influence to build them up and spread their teaching. If there is only one man in the community that knows the truth, there is so much the greater obligation resting upon him to teach and practice that truth in the community. It is every man's duty to practice the Christian religion as BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 505 the Bible teaches it. It is as much his duty to do it where no one else does it as it is where there is a large church to meet with, and there is the greater call for him to do it. To give up the truth and build up error because there are no friends of truth in a community is to betray the truth because it is unpopular. The duty is to practice and teach the truth. Worshiping God is not a matter of convenience, but of solemn duty that each owes to God. PRESBYTERIANS, COMMUNING WITH. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Is it right for Christians to take the Lord's Supper with Presbyterians? I was at meeting to-day, and they took it, and some of the brethren and sisters took it with them. They offered it to me, and I did not partake of it, for I did not think it was right. The preacher was wrong, and I did not think that we ought to eat together. He stated in his preaching that Christ raised himself from the dead by his own power. I looked into the Bible and found it to be a mistake. My proof for this being a mistake is found in Acts 2: 24; 3: 15; 5: 30; 10: 40; 13: 30; Rom. 8: 11; 4: 24; 2 Cor. 4: 14. When I found this much, I did not hunt for any more; but I suppose there are plenty more just like this to be found. "My people have committed two evils ; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cis- terns, broken cisterns, that hold no water." The steps of and to evil are always similar — first, to forsake God, and then to do things of their own devising that are displeasing to him. This order is uniform. No man ever thinks of making additions to the appointments of God until he has measurably forsaken God's appointments. No man does wrong till he ceases to do right. Attending faithfully to God's appointments is heaven's preventive for giving serv- ice to man's. Doing right is the only security against doing wrong. If those brethren had been meeting to attend to the Lord's worship, there would have been no occasion for the difficulty they propose. We think it entirely useless to solve difficulties that grow out of a neglect of duty; for if people persist in this neglect, if they avoid one evil, they will fall into another. Do your duty as servants of God, meet and worship him every first day of the week as his people set us the example, and the question settles itself. If our brother makes such differences as he mentions be- tween him and the preacher a reason for not communing with him, we fear he will find few with whom he can com- mune. We are not saying by this that it is right to com- mune with them. We say the Christians ought to meet themselves and attend the Lord's Supper. Then the dif- ficulties of the question vanish. D. L. 506 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, PRESUMPTUOUS SIN. Brother Lipscomb: Permit me to call attention to and ask you to reconcile statements made by you concerning presumptuous sin that seem contradictory. Comparing David's sins of adultery and murder of Uriah with Saul's sin in the Amalekite matter, you say that Da- vid's sin could be repented of and forgiven, while Saul's could not, concluding: "It was a deliberate substitution of human wisdom for divine authority." From this I conceived that your idea of presump- tuous sin, which David desired to be kept from, was a deliberate sub- stitution of human wisdom for divine authority. However, it after- wards appears that this does not fully embody your idea. You say: "Setting aside God's law of morality deliberately and purposely is as much presumptuous sin as to purposely set aside any other law of God." Now, brother, if this is true, why was not David's purposed and deliberately planned murder of Uriah a presumptuous sin and without the pale of repentance and pardon? Will you say, with Brother A. J. Moore, that violating a law does not set it aside? Then it would seem that Saul's substitution of human wisdom for di- vine authority was not a setting aside of divine law, but a presump- tuous violation. The law, or command, remained unchanged, though violated. I apprehend that only divine power can set aside divine law. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus gives the true state- ment of the case. ''Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5: 19.) This does not mean the violation of the law from fleshly weakness while maintaining the authority of the law. The expression, "and shall teach men so," to break the law, shows he meant the breaking it in such sense as to annul it by teaching men it may be broken — is not binding. David did not break the law in that sense. He violated it through fleshly weakness, but desired to maintain and en- force it as the law of God. Jesus never said a man who through fleshly weakness fails to comply with the least of God's laws is least in the kingdom of heaven. It was the presumptuous spirit that would set aside any command of God as not binding — not of authority that he can deny. There is a difference between annulling a law, setting it aside, presuming to know a better way, and violating it through fleshly weakness while maintaining its authority in the heart. Saul did that ; David, this. I fail to see the contradiction or the shadow of it. Cer- tainly David was laboring under strong fleshly excitement when he was trying to escape the odium of his adultery that led him to murder Uriah. None of this involved the repeal or annulling of the law of God. It was violating it under strong fleshly temptation. That David did not de- sire to annul it is shown in that when Nathan, in a parable of the little ewe lamb, presented his own crime against Uriah, he promptly decided : "The man that hath done this BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 507 thing shall surely die: and he shall restore the lamb four- fold, because he hath done this thing, and because he had no pity. And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man." Nathan presented the enormity of his crime by detailing what God had done, and his wickedness in sinning against Uriah and God. David said: "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan said : "The Lord also hath put away thy sin ; thou shalt not die." Under his own unbiased deci- sion he must die. Because of his confession God reprieved him from under the sentence. D. L. PRIEST, WHEN DID CHRIST BECOME A? Brother Sewell: When did Christ first officiate as high priest? Christ was never a priest till he had been crucified, his own blood shed, which was to be for the remission of sins for all who will be pardoned under the new covenant. He was not a priest in any sense before his death, as the law of Moses was in force till the death of Christ, who took the law out of the way, nailing it to his cross. Some theolo- gians have told us that he became high priest at his bap- tism; that he was baptized into the priestly office at the age of thirty, which they say was the priestly age under the law. But they forgot that he was not of the priestly tribe and could not be a priest till the law of Moses was taken out of the way. Paul says : 'Tor the law appointeth men high priests, having infirmity: but the word of the oath, which was after the law, appointeth a Son, perfected for evermore." (Heb. 7: 28.) After the law had ended and Christ had shed his own blood, it is said: 'Tor Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands, like in pat- tern to the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear be- fore the face of God for us." (Heb. 9: 24.) This shows that Christ was not a high priest on earth, but in heaven. His w T ork as high priest began with the first proclamation of the gospel and will last till time shall end and close the privileges of the gospel to a sinful world. PRIESTHOOD OF MELCHISEDEC. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I met with the McWhirtersville congregation on last Lord's day. They had under consideration in the Bible class Heb. 7. In verse 3 of that chapter we have the lan- guage: "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life ; _but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." I stated before the class that this verse had reference to the order of priesthood, while all the brethren present insisted that it could not have reference to the order of priesthood, but to his family genealogy. We agreed to submit the subject to your consideration. 508 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, Bible students are almost agreed on one explanation of the passage. It is that given by Brother Fuqua. The apos- tle Paul was showing the superiority of Christ to the priest of the Levitical order. He shows that Abraham, the father of the Levitical priesthood, himself paid tithes to Melchise- dec; that the Levitical priests in the person of Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedec. Melchisedec did not come to the priestly office by fleshly descent, but was made such by direct appointment of the living God. He had neither fa- ther nor mother nor child in the priestly office. Christ was of this order; he was not after the fleshly order. He did not come to the priestly office by fleshly descent ; he came to it by virtue of his spiritual relations to God — a priest of the most high order. The Levitical priest came to the priestly office at the age of thirty years and went out at the age of fifty. (Num. 4: 26.) Melchisedec did not get a legal time to begin and another to go out of the priestly office. He was a priest during life, so typified Christ. Macknight says : "Was without father and without mother as a priest, so that he was not of priestly descent, and without geneal- ogy in the Scripture, consequently there is no evidence that he was related to Abraham in any respect. Moreover, hav- ing neither beginning of days nor end of life as a priest, but being made a type of the Son of God, he remained a priest all his life." This is the almost universal conclusion in reference to the Scriptures. A few claim that Melchis- edec was Christ himself. This we suppose to be the idea of those brethren. D. L. PRIESTS AND LEVITES, AGE OF. Brother Lipscomb: I wish to call your attention to a statement in the Gospel Advocate in answer to Brother Fuqua. You state that "the Levitical priest came into the priestly office at the age of thirty years and went. out at the age of fifty." Is not this a mistake? Was there ever any specified age at which a priest went into office or out? Were any except the family of Aaron priests under the Jewish dis- pensation? Were the Levites chosen from thirty to fifty years as priests, or were they the servants of the priests? If your statement be correct, then I have been entertaining a wrong opinion for many years, and, if wrong, wish to know. I am sure if you are wrong you wish to be right. Our brother is right as to the priests proper, and I am wrong. There is no specified age at which the priests be- gan or closed their services in the temple. They were, doubtless, raised to the service from childhood. The Le- vites are usually called helpers to the priests, but at times are called priests. They were a lower order of priesthood, we think, and did the offices of the priests when the higher order was not present, as at the restoration of the worship BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 509 in the days of Hezekiah. (2 Chron. 25: 34.) Sometimes individuals were advanced from the Levitical order up to the priesthood, as in the case of Samuel. He was a Levite, but not of the family of Aaron. There are no specifications as to the age of beginning or closing the labors of the priest. In the New Testament time the high priest served for a year in the office ; but this, we think, was a corruption of the divine and primitive or- der. We suppose we fell into the error by accepting the popular idea without examination. It to some extent inter- feres with the popular idea concerning Melchisedec; but that is a difficult question to settle, and is, fortunately, of no practical benefit. D. L. PRINCE OF THE POWER OF THE AIR, THE. Brother Sewell: (1) Please explain Eph. 2: 2. Who is the "prince of the power of the air?" (2) Explain also Rom. 1: 18. In what way does God reveal his wrath from heaven? (1) The ''prince of the power of the air" is supposed to be Satan. But what is meant by the "power of the air," and in what sense Satan is prince of it, we may not be able to tell. There are more powers in the air than one, no doubt. But likely no one knows what particular power this message has reference to, and it is not worth while for any man to try to tell what he does not know. But when we abstain from all appearance of evil, we will be likely to abstain from every power that Satan can use or control that could injure us. Satan is evidently the one that is called "the prince of this world," and the one that every child of God should steadfastly resist. Satan can injure no one while he faithfully serves and trusts God. (2) The word of God reveals the fact that the wrath of God is against all unrighteousness and wickedness of wicked men, and tells plainly that all who persist in such a course through this life will be certain to be lost in eternity. The awful destruction God has already brought upon the wicked in past ages as recorded in the Bible furnishes full assur- ance of what will be the final doom of the wicked in eternity. PRINCE OF THIS WORLD, THE. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Who is "the prince of this world" spoken of in John 16: 11, and how is he judged? Is Christ ever called "the prince of this world?" "The prince of this world," we doubt not, is Satan. Christ is never called "the prince of this world." He is called "The Prince of Peace" in Isa. 9 : 6, and is called "the Prince of life" in Acts 3 : 15, and "a Prince and a Savior" 510 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, in Acts 5: 31, and in Rev. 1: 5 he is called "the prince of the kings of the earth." But never is he called "the prince of this world." When that expression is used, Satan may be understood. "PRINCIPLES" OF CHRIST, WHAT ARE THE "FIRST?" Brother Sewell: Please explain Heb. 6: 1, 2 through the Gospel Advocate. What is it to believe the principles? What are the prin- ciples? What is the perfection meant here by the writer? What is the "laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works?" What are the dead tvorks that the writer has reference to? Does he mean that the items enumerated — viz., repentance, faith, doctrine of baptisms, laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and of the eternal judgment — are dead ivorks to the Christian? The Revised Version of this passage puts it thus: "Wherefore let us cease to speak of the first principles of Christ, and press on unto perfection; not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." In the preceding chapter the apostle criticizes these brethren for not learning and advancing more in their knowledge and work of Christianity, but were still babes and needed to be taught again "the first principles of the oracles of God." In the chapter named he bids them to cease to speak on the first principles of Christianity, but to press on unto perfection, into a higher Christian life. They had laid a foundation for a Christian life by obeying the gospel and becoming Christians, and they should go on and grow and strengthen into Christian manhood. If people never get beyond faith, repentance, and baptism, they sim- ply remain babes, and never can have any strength, any manhood in the cause of Christ. The apostle does not mean that these first principles are, or will ever be, dead issues, but should be taught in their proper place ; but that if they do not grow into something beyond these, they would die spiritually, and that even the first principles would become dead to them if they did not advance in the Chris- tian life. He tells them, a little further on, that it is im- possible to renew again to repentance those who have been enlightened and then fall away, cease to learn and grow in their knowledge and practice of the truth. "PRISON," THE "SPIRITS IN," AND THE STATE BE- TWEEN DEATH AND THE RESURRECTION. Brother Sewell: (1) Please give an explanation of 1 Pet. 3: 18-20. (2) Also, where do the righteous go and remain from death till the judgment? BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 511 (1) This is the passage: "Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God ; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit ; in which he also went and preached unto the spirits in prison, that aforetime were disobedient, when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water." This has been used by many as a foundation for the establishment of wild and vis- ionary theories of human wisdom. This passage teaches a plain, practical lesson ; and when we get that, we should be satisfied, and not torture it to fill human theories and opin- ions. Some conjure up the theory that while the body of Christ lay in the grave, his spirit went and preached to spirits of the dead in the unseen world, to give them a chance to be saved ; but, study the word of God as you may, there is not one passage in all the Bible that teaches that such a thing ever has been or ever will be done. This pas- sage teaches that Christ was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in or by the spirit, and that by or through the spirit he went and preached unto the spirits in prison. Our spirits are all imprisoned in our bodies so long as we live. It is only when death comes that our spirits are freed from this prison house of clay. The gospel has been preached to spirits in prison from the day of Pentecost, and is being done the same way till now. But some will ask: "Was the preaching of this passage done to spirits in the body, to living people on earth?" Cer- tainly so. But when, and by whom, and to what people? From 1 Pet. 1 : 11 we learn that the Spirit of Christ was in the old prophets that foretold the sufferings of Christ and his glories. From 2 Pet. 2: 5 we learn that Noah was a preacher of righteousness. Hence, evidently, the Spirit of Christ was in Noah; for the preaching of the passage under consideration was done in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, as the passage plainly shows, and done to the disobedient. The passage does not say the preaching was done while the body of Christ was in the grave, but in the days of Noah. Hence the plain meaning of the passage is that Christ did the preaching by the Spirit through Noah; and that relieves the passage from the as- sumed theory that his spirit preached to the spirits in Hades while his body was in the grave, and this forever spoils the idea that this passage gives any favor to the idea of a sec- ond chance to the lost. (2) As to where the souls of the righteous rest from death to the judgment, there is no passage that seems to be 512 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, intended to answer that question specially. Some, how- ever, contend that the righteous go direct to heaven when they die ; but those who so contend are stumped to explain the matter of a general judgment day, and why the right- eous are to be called back from heaven to be judged. There are passages that give perfect satisfaction on that subject. The incident of the rich man and Lazarus shows plainly that the righteous are safely cared for from the moment of their death. When Lazarus died, the Savior said he "was carried away by the angels into Abraham's bosom." (Luke 16 : 22.) Abraham was a righteous man, and he was safely cared for, and Lazarus was safely housed with him. We will not enter into any speculations as to where Abraham was ; but it is perfectly clear that he was all right and safe from all care and harm, and that is enough. He was where there was comfort and happiness. Paul had a desire "to depart and be with Christ ; for it is very far better." (Phil. 1: 23.) Paul was inspired, and he knew that it was far better for the righteous to die and be with Christ than to remain in the trials and persecutions that he had to pass through ; and if it was far better for Paul to pass out of life and to be with Christ, it is certainly better for all the faith- ful. Paul said again to the righteous dead that they are fallen asleep in Jesus, and that signifies peaceful rest. In Revelation it is said: "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from henceforth : yea, saith the Spirit, that they may fest from their labors ; for their works follow with them." These passages show that everything has been provided that is needful for the righteous from the very moment they pass out of life till they pass through the pearly gates into the eternal city ; but the very reverse of all this will be true with the wicked from death on. "PRISON," PREACHING TO THE "SPIRITS IN." Brother Lipscomb: Please explain 1 Pet. 3: 18-22; 4:6. A ques- tion has arisen here on this scripture. Some hold that Christ did this preaching through Noah while he was preparing the ark; others be- lieve Christ did it himself during the three days he lay in the tomb. Please give us your view on this scripture. Were those people dead in sin, or had they died a temporal death, and where was this preach- ing done? This is a question that we answer on an average four or five times in a year, and yet the answer makes no impres- sion. We answered it on pages 41, 136, 185, and 809 of last year, two of these rather lengthy discussions ; in 1905, five times. It discourages us that the answers are so little read or so soon forgotten. But we have never seen how a per- son can misunderstand it that would look at all the facts. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 513 As introduction we quote : "Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them." (1 Pet. 1: 10, 11.) We quote this to show that Christ's Spirit in the ancient prophets did testify and teach his will to the people. Now consider this passage: "Be- cause Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God ; [he] being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit; in which [spirit] also he went and preached unto the spirits [now] in prison, which aforetime [when he preached to them] were disobedient, when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through wa- ter." (1 Pet. 3: 18-20.) The preaching was done to the spirits now in prison, by the Spirit, through Noah, when they were disobedient while the ark was preparing, and the result of that preaching was eight souls were saved by wa- ter in the ark. The result of the preaching was, eight souls — Noah and his family — were saved by water. This fixes beyond all doubt when and how the preaching was done. Now as to 1 Pet. 4:6: "For unto this end was the gospel preached [while they lived] even to the [now] dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live [in heaven] according to God in the spirit." This means the gospel through the prophets was preached to them who lived before Christ, that they might be judged as those who knew Jesus in the flesh, that they might live with God in the spirit. "PROMISE TO THE FATHERS," THE. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Will you please give us your views on Acts 26: 6, which reads thus: "And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers." Does it refer to the first or second advent of Christ? The promise referred to here, we are sure, had reference to the coming of Christ into this world to prepare a plan of salvation for sinful man. This promise of a coming Savior was made to the Jewish fathers, and they were looking for a Savior to come, and were many of them serv- ing God constantly, looking and hoping that the promise would soon be fulfilled. But they were looking for an earthly king to come in worldly splendor, pomp, and power 514 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, and reestablish the Jews in their earthly power as in the days of David and Solomon. When Christ came in his spir- itual mission of love and mercy, they rejected him. Paul himself rejected and persecuted him for a long time, think- ing, as he says in the same chapter, that he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. But at this time he had become an apostle of Jesus, and was building up what he had once tried to destroy. His Jew- ish brethren were still rejecting Christ and the gospel, and were then persecuting Paul because he was preaching Christ and the resurrection from the dead. It was in his defense before King Agrippa that he said: "And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: unto which promise our twelve tribes, in- stantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews." The Jews to whom Paul was speaking were still hoping and looking for Christ, although he had already come ; but they had rejected him because he did not come as they were look- ing for him to come. The promise of Christ, when ful- filled, culminated in the resurrection from the dead. When Paul began to preach the gospel and the resurrection, the other Jews began to persecute him as he had persecuted others. He was, therefore, judged, persecuted, because he preached that the promise given to the fathers was fulfilled in Jesus and the resurrection. E. G. S. PROPHECIES OF MATT. 24. Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Please explain the following: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken." (Matt. 24: 29.) Also verse 34, where he (Christ) says: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be fulfilled." Now, what I want to know is: Has this prophecy ever been fulfilled? If so, when? If not, what generation did he mean when he spoke the above language? It is perhaps not possible to tell with absolute certainty what the Savior meant by all of this prophecy. The ques- tion asked by the apostles involved more things than one. They had just asked: "When shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" All these points of inquiry, we think, were em- braced in the prophetic answer. He had just told them how completely the Jewish temple should be destroyed. The city of Jerusalem and the Jewish nation, as such, were destroyed and dispersed at the same time the temple was destroyed. Most of the prophecy, we think, pertained to BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 515 the destruction of the Jewish nation, city, and temple; while some, we think, pertains to the final end of time. According to Josephus and other historians, many wonder- ful things occurred at the destruction of the city of Jeru- salem, which occurred about the year seventy-one of the Christian era. Many signs were presented, both in the heavens and upon earth. Earthquakes, famines, and pes- tilences abounded for some time immediately preceding the destruction of that doomed city and temple. The expres- sion, "the coming of the Son of man," does not necessarily imply the coming in person of Christ, but his coming in fulfillment of his prophecies, which he did. So when he says, "This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be fulfilled," we think he meant the generation of men then living, because the destruction of Jerusalem oc- curred within thirty-seven years after the prophecy was uttered, and was literally fulfilled within the lifetime of that generation. And we doubt not that many similar things will occur at the final end of time, while some of the items foretold in this chapter will occur only at the end of time. The prophecy is a very wonderful one, and its ful- fillment not less so. We cannot undertake to tell with defi- nite certainty which of these prophecies pertained exclu- sively to the destruction of Jerusalem, nor which pertain alone to the final end of time, nor which to both ; but the fact that so many of them were literally fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem, within the lifetime of the people living when Jesus uttered them, is a very powerful evi- dence in behalf of the truth of the Bible. It is a matter of historical certainty that such a personage as Jesus lived at the time he is represented in the New Tes- tament as having lived, and that the books of the New Tes- tament were written at the time they are represented as having been written, and that, therefore, these prophecies were uttered by the Savior at the time represented; and then it is also a matter of historical fact that these proph- ecies concerning the destruction of the temple and of Je- rusalem were fulfilled as foretold. It does occur to us that no man can familiarize himself with these facts and then doubt the truth of the claims of the divine origin of Jesus of Nazareth and the divine origin of the Christian religion and the final accomplishment of all foretold in this or any other prophecy of the New Testament. E. G. S. 516 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, PROPHECY AND OUR DUTIES. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain Luke 21: 24-28, but more particularly verse 27. Verse 27 is: "And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory." This pas- sage is usually applied to, and is supposed to have been ful- filled at, the destruction of Jerusalem. Most of the proph- ecy in the connection refers to the destruction of Jerusa- lem, and by many it is thought all does, and that this verse is only a figurative representation of the power and coming of the Son of God in fulfilling the prophecy concerning the utter ruin of Jerusalem and the Jewish state. Others think that the final end of time is, in these prophecies, linked in with the destruction of Jerusalem, and that this verse refers to the final wind up of all things. We will not assume the responsibility to say who is correct in the mat- ter. All our personal responsibility to God can be dis- charged, whether we are able to decide the time and cir- cumstances of the fulfillment of all the prophecies or not. Prophecies are generally figurative and hard to understand beforehand ; but, thanks to the Lord, our duties and respon- sibilities are made very clear to us ; and if we do these, all will be right with us. E. G. S. PROPHECY, THE MILLENNIUM, ETC. Brother Lipscomb : I would like to have your opinion on Rev. 20. I would like for you to tell me what is the millennium and when it is to be. What is the meaning of the first and second resurrection? I do not know much about Revelation, especially about what the future types may mean or point to. I can only point out what these things are thought to mean. The millennium means a thousand years. From this passage and some others it is generally thought that at the end of the present state of affairs there will be a thousand years in which the devil will be deprived of his power, or chained, and that men will not be tempted to sin and will cease to sin during that time. After the thousand years have passed, the devil will be turned loose and will for a time deceive the nations and people of the earth and they will again sin for a season. The war between Gog and Magog prevails. The first resurrection is supposed to occur before the mil- lennium; the second, after it. That is about the common theory in its main points. I do not say I believe it or dis- believe it. I do not find enough concerning the matter to fix my faith one way or the other. I am no interpreter of unexplained prophecy. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 517 PROPHESYING IN PART, KNOWING IN PART, ETC. Brother Lipscomb : Please explain 1 Cor. 13: 9-12. What is meant by we know in part? What is that which is perfect, and what is to be done away? To what does Paul compare his childhood and man- hood? When did we (or when do we) see through a glass, darkly, and when face to face? What did Paul mean by the expression: "Now I know in part: but then shall I know even as also I am known?" Paul, in 1 Cor. 12 : 14, is showing the office, work, and relative importance of spiritual gifts. Chapter 12 defines these gifts and concludes with the statement : "Yet show I unto you a more excellent way [than these gifts] ." Chap- ter 13 tells what this "more excellent way" is. It is more excellent than spiritual gifts, because these, without this, will not save. Then these gifts are temporal, partial, and must soon pass away ; while this "more excellent way" fits a man for heaven and is eternal. The gifts he mentions are: Speaking with tongues, prophesying, miraculously bestowed faith that would enable one to remove mountains, and knowledge and wisdom. These must all cease and pass away when the "more excellent way," the perfect will of God, is come. When the perfect will of God is come, then these gifts that were temporary and partial in their reve- lations would be "done away." They were "in part" be- cause a gift revealed only a part of the will of God to the possessor. All the gifts and all the revelations combined brought ''that which is perfect." When one possessed only these partial gifts, he spoke as a child and understood as a child; when the perfect will was come, he would put away this partial and childish knowledge and act as a man with the full revelation of God. With these partial gifts they saw "through a glass, darkly" — dimly; but with the per- fect will of God they could see clearly, as "face to face." With these gifts he knew only "in part ;" when the full will was come, he would know as had been fully revealed to him. This is the meaning of the expression : "Then shall I know even as also I am known." To be known of God was to know what God had made known to him. "But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God," etc. (Gal. 4: 9.) To know God and to be known of God are the same. To know God is to know his will. Hence this pas- sage means : "I will know as has been made known to me — fully; I will know the full will of God that has been made known." Beza translates it: "I shall know fully when I am made to know fully; I shall know fully when the full will of God is made known." The scope and connection will allow no other meaning. 518 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, PROVIDENCE, SPECIAL AND GENERAL. Brother Lipscomb : I would like to see a very pointed article from some one of the scribes capable of doing it well on "Special Provi- dence." Of course there is a general providence God exercises over all his works, and he will at the last day judge the world by Christ Jesus in righteousness; but do men, as a special act direct from God, receive any punishment? Let me hear from somebody on this subject. The Bible draws no distinction between special and gen- eral providences, as these terms are usually understood. There is no such idea as that God changes or interferes with the operation of the laws he has put in force to punish or bless man in any special case. The general provision is that all the laws of God work to the end of blessing all that are in harmony with them and destroying those who violate them. The idea of a special providence outside of the general laws of God arises from a failure to see that God's laws are perfect in their operations and meet all pos- sible contingencies that arise to punish and to bless with- out the intervention of special laws or interferences. If there are special interferences and manifestations of power to bless or to punish, it must be because the general law fails to reach such cases. If cases arise which the general law fails to reach, it is because the law is imperfect and does not meet all the contingencies of life; it is because God failed to make his law perfect (as the Psalmist says he did) : "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." If so, it meets all the contingencies possible to arise in life. It meets every special case that arises, and in its working reaches every case as fully as God can reach it by special law or interference. God is always present in his laws. What is done through these laws, God does. Paul said: "God is the Savior of all men, especially of them that be- lieve." That means that those who believe come more fully into harmony with his laws than those that believe not, and so they receive the blessing of God more fully than others do. The answer of prayer requires no departure from the principle. The blessings of God flow through his laws to those that are in the proper state and condition. Tap the channel through which they flow, and receive just such blessings as you are fitted to receive. God is person- ally present in all his laws, to bless those who comply with them in spirit and in truth and to curse those who refuse to comply with them. God is all-wise and all-powerful. He sees the end from the beginning. Eternity, past and future, is an everlasting present to him, and he provides for all contingencies that arise in the onward march of his forces. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without a Fa- ther's care, and the hairs of our head are numbered. Be- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 519 cause we fail to see and understand how the laws of the spiritual and material world interlace and harmonize with others, all composing parts of one harmonious whole, we are not to conclude that they are not such. God is in all his works. PUBLIC PRAYER. Brother Lipscomb: Please give us a lesson on prayer. A brother refused to lead in prayer, saying that we had no authority for public prayer; that the Savior taught his disciples to pray in secret. I do not know any law, human or divine, to prevent one displaying his ignorance and folly when he desires to ; and most generally when one thinks he is wiser and smarter than the rest of the world, he desires to do this. While it is true Jesus teaches his disciples both by precept and ex- ample to pray in secret, one is very ignorant of the Bible that does not know they are also taught to pray in the pub- lic assembly. The examples and admonitions are too nu- merous to mention, but a few may be given. Solomon stood upon his knees and prayed before the assembled nation of Israel at the dedication of the temple. (1 Kings 8 : 22-54.) Elijah prayed in the presence of the king, people, and four hundred prophets of Baal; and God heard and answered his prayer. This was praying before pretty bad sinners, too. (1 Kings 18: 27-46.) From the beginning of the tabernacle service there were hours when all the people assembled for prayer at the temple. It was continued un- til the days of the apostles. When Zacharias, the father of John, was offering incense within the temple, "the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense." (Luke 1: 10.) Jesus prayed frequently in the presence of his disciples and in the presence of the unbe- lieving Jews on several occasions, once at the raising of Lazarus (John 11: 41), then on the cross. The apostles and disciples engaged in public prayer when Matthew was chosen. (Acts 1: 24.) All the baptized on Pentecost con- tinued steadfastly in prayers. (Acts 2: 42.) Peter and John went up to the temple at the hour of prayer. This was the hour in which the unbelieving Jews met to pray. They went to participate in this service. They prayed in the assembly, and the place was shaken. (Acts 4: 31.) When the seven were appointed, prayer was made in the whole assembly. Stephen stood on his knees and prayed in the presence of and for the wicked Jews that stoned him to death. (Acts 7: 60.) In these and other specific cases of prayer other Chris- tians and persons not Christians are mentioned as present. 520 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, The frequent mention of the worship, of which prayer is an item, without specifying it, renders it certain that none were excluded from the worship who desired to be present, nor did any refuse to worship God because of the presence of any one. D. L. We have queries from two or three different persons asking as to the propriety of praying in mixed assemblies — saints and sinners. This question is based on the supposi- tion that the apostles and early teachers did not preface or close their addresses with prayer when preaching to the multitude. On occasions I feel sure they did not offer audi- ble prayer when preaching. I do not think on the day of Pentecost there was any formal prayer or opening service. The coming together of the people and their wonder at the phenomena demanded an explanation. It was proceeded with at once and resulted in the sermon preached. Because it was not done there is no evidence it was not done else- where. I think the apostles never purposed to establish a ritualistic order of service, and we fall into a fixed order for all occasions that often degenerates into mere form of worship. This destroys freshness and zest and causes us to lose the power of interesting the people. It dulls our earnestness and keeps us in a ritualistic rut. It would be better to have no set or fixed form of preaching to the world. But the question is really this : Is it right for Christians to pray when they meet together to worship, and is it wrong to admit those not Christians to be present at this service? It assumes this form because almost all of our preaching is connected with the worship of Christians. I need not ar- gue it is right for Christians to assemble together, confess their faults one to another, and pray one for another. I am free to say, too, that the absence of the world and those not in full sympathy with such service greatly pro- motes the freedom in confession of wrong and the confidence and simplicity in approaching God in prayer, and seems to me to promote the heartiness, freedom, and warmth of the service. On the other hand, the sinner is frequently bene- fited by the attendance at the service. He is touched with a sense of his guilt before God, and through the worship of saints he is brought to Christ. But we are not left to conjecture, reason, or inference in the matter. Christ on the cross prayed in the presence of his crucifiers. Stephen also kneeled down in the presence of those who were stoning him to death, and with a loud voice prayed: "Lay not this sin to their charge." (Acts 7: 60.) The apostles prayed in the presence of the multi- tude, and the house was shaken. But it is certain that the BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 521 church in its meetings for worship engaged in prayer. (Acts 2 : 42.) They were in prayer and breaking of bread. Peter and John went to the temple at the hour of prayer. The brethren were assembled together, praying for Peter and John in prison, when Rhoda went to listen and found Peter. The accounts are frequent of prayer when the dis- ciples met together for worship. Now, the question is: Were the unbelievers admitted to these services? In 1 Cor. 12-14 Paul is instructing chiefly how to behave in worship, and chapter 14 is especially devoted to the worship of the church. While prayer is not mentioned, it is certain that prayer constituted a part of that worship. "If there- fore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad ? But if all prophesy, and there come in one that be- lieveth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: and thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth." (Verse 23.) Now, the point is this : Here the church is assembled for worship ; prayer is a part of the worship ; unbelievers are present, and by that worship are convinced and constrained to worship God. If one unbeliever may be present, ten may, one hundred may; and this makes a mixed or public assembly in which the Christians engaged in worship. While we regard it a misfortune to have fixed formalities in religion, it is right for Christians assembled for worship to pray. It is right to do this when unbelievers are present. There is no danger of making too strong an impression in favor of prayer. None of us are enough the children of prayer. Christ, the sinless one, prayed ; and God strength- ened him in prayer. If he strengthened him, how much more do we need the nearness to God — the strength, the helpfulness that comes only through prayer? The burden of prayer must be rendered in secret when alone with God, yet it is our duty to come together with our brethren to pray and worship God ; and we must do this even if the world assembles with us, only being careful that we pray not to be heard of men. This caution is needful only on the ground that we pray in the presence of the world. D. L. PUNISHMENT, CAPITAL. Brother Lipscomb : Is capital punishment in harmony with divine law? God laid down the law for man in the beginning: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." 522 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, (Gen. 9: 6.) This was the general law God gave for the government of the world, and it is in harmony with the will of God that the man should be executed who is guilty of murder; but God has not made it the duty of Christians to execute judgment upon them. " Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord." Return good for evil. While this is true of the Christian, he has ordained the powers that be as his ministers to execute wrath on those who do evil. The children of God can take no part or lot in the work. Yet human governments will do it. PUNISHMENT AFTER DEATH— WILL IT END? Please explain the terminus, if there be anything of the kind indi- cated, in the punishment spoken of by the Savior in Matt. 25: 31-46. We ask this for the benefit of our Universalist friends, who tell us that it has "an end, and is used as a means to purify the wicked and finally fit them for heaven." The punishment terminates exactly when the rewards spoken of end. "These shall go away into everlasting pun- ishment: but the righteous into life eternal/' The same word in Greek is connected with the punishment and the life. In the revised Testament both are translated by the word eternal. This is right. The space that measures the life is the same that measures the punishment. The word translated everlasting exhausts the time of the institution or period to which it refers. As examples: When it was said a man should be king forever, or always, it meant he should be a king through the entire period of his life; when it was said certain things should exist for- ever among the Jews, it meant they should exist to the end of the Jewish state ; when it is said an earthly kingdom shall exist forever, it means that it shall exist so long as the earthly state of man continues. It exhausts the period to which reference is made. When anything of the future state is affirmed to be eternal, or everlasting, the duration of that thing must exhaust the future spiritual state. As that state has no end, that which is said to be eternal in that state — whether of joy or sorrow, life or punishment — must have no end, must continue so long as the state con- tinues. The eternal years of God alone measure that state. Whatever is eternal in that state must exist as long as the years of God, which measure the state, endure. When punishment in the future state is said to be eternal, it must continue through the years of God. The idea that punishment purines anything is not in the Bible. Punishment checks wickedness in its course, makes man stop and think, makes him see the folly of his course ; BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 523 and when he stops to think, then God offers him the love of Christ, his own mercy, and the blessings that pertain to the service of God to induce him to turn and live a pure life. Then God forgives the sin and washes him, makes him clean and pure, accepts him as his child, and clothes him with his own robes of righteousness that he may dwell in the house of God forever. This world is the scene of probation. Here God presents and inflicts punishment on sin. He offers the rewards that pertain to obedience to God. He brings to bear his own threatenings and promises; he presents the life and truth of the Son of God, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the work of the church, the influence of the good of earth, the warn- ings from the spirit land that abound in his word. Then the providences of this life work to bring men to repent- ance. ' If man rejects these, he passes into the future state, where probation ceases, where divine love no longer in- vites him to repentance, where the Holy Spirit does not dwell, where no church exists, where no good associations are found, where Christ the Savior never goes, where only evil influences surround, where the spirits of evil men and demons, waxing worse and worse, are the only companion- ship. In a word, he passes into a state where all the good influences and associations are withdrawn and where all the evil influences and spirits of the universe are concen- trated to work out their own eternal ruin. If a man will not repent here, how can he repent there ? PUNISHMENT, DEGREES IN. Brother Lipscomb: Will there be different degrees of reward and different degrees of punishment in eternity? If not, what does Paul's language mean in 1 Cor. 3: 8, 11-15, also the language in Dan. 12: 3? Does Daniel mean that one will receive a greater glory than the other? If so, is not that a difference of reward? Concerning pun- ishment, do the following scriptures refer to eternity: Matt. 10: 11- 15; 11: 21-24; Luke 12: 47, 48; 20: 46, 47? I do not know that it is important that we should have definite and fixed ideas on the question propounded or not. It is a question that never gave me any trouble, although I have not held any fixed ideas on the subject. God is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. As he deals with beings in one state or condition, he deals with them in all states or conditions, modified only by the capacities and spirit of the beings. Here beings are in a state of proba- tion and trial. They are being tested, tried, and their fit- ness or unfitness for good is being proved. Here each one is tried and proved ; each is rewarded according to his abil- ity and fidelity. Those with more ability and fidelity re- 524 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, ceive the greater reward. I take it they will enter the fu- ture state much as they leave this. But in the future state of the good no temptations to go wrong will be felt. So all in that state will attain to the highest good their capacities will permit. Different capacities will probably attain to different degrees of good ; but all doing good unmixed with evil, each will attain the highest good possible to it. Then it is not true that a specific reward apart from the service is given for service. God so ordains that the service per- formed works its own good or evil. Heaven is the out- growth of service in the laws of God ; hell is the product of violating the laws of God. If it were possible, obedience to the laws of God would change hell into heaven. Disobe- dience to the laws of God would transform heaven into hell. Each one in this way makes his own heaven or his own hell. I take it, each one makes his own measure of heaven or hell. I think the passages referred to illustrate principles that obtain both in this world and in that to come. Brother Seivell: Please give me an exegesis of Luke 12: 47, 48. Does it teach degrees of punishment? The verses you name are as follows: "And that servant, who knew his lord's will, and made not ready, nor did ac- cording to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes; but he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And to whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required: and to whom they commit much, of him will they ask the more." These verses show that people will be responsible for their ability and for their knowledge of the will of God, and that those who know the will of God, and do it not, will be punished more severely than those who do not know it; also that men are responsible for the use of the blessings and the privileges given them. Jesus taught the same idea when talking to the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, and yet they did not repent. He said : "Woe unto thee, Chorazin ! woe unto thee, Bethsaida ! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have repented long ago in sack- cloth and ashes. But I say unto you, it shall be more tol- erable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment, than for you." (Matt. 11: 21, 22.) These passages only show the fact that there will be a difference, but do not tell us how, nor to what extent the differences will be graded. So that is his business. All will be lost that disregard the gospel, and that will be bad enough. We ought, therefore, to learn from these passages to be more diligent in doing God's BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 525 will and to make our election sure, and lose no time in spec- ulation about things not specifically revealed. As to the character of these differences in punishment, there is room for much speculation, but it would be worth nothing to ws. Our safety is to believe what these passages say and keep close to the line of duty. QUESTIONS, MISCELLANEOUS. Brother %ipscomb : (1) Where a brother or a sister marries a sin- ner, does he or she commit sin? If they do, do not we, as Christians, commit sin in retaining them in the fellowship? Are they living in spiritual adultery? And if they do commit sin, what is the remedy to correct them? (2) Is it wrong to eat a common meal with a way- ward brother? If so, what about his wife's eating with him, and she a Christian? Would you be eating with him if he came to your house, or if you and he were at a neighbor's house and should eat at the same table, or would you have to go to his house to be eating with him? (3) Can a congregation of brethren and sisters withdraw from a wayward brother without a plurality of elders and deacons? (4) What harm is there in using bywords, and what scriptures are against it? (1) I think it is contrary to the spirit of the teachings of Christ and the apostles. I do not think a person is to be withdrawn from for every violation of the spirit of Chris- tianity. If we did this, we all would soon be withdrawn from, and no one would be left to withdraw from the oth- ers. This anxiety to cut off every one who falls into sin is itself against the spirit of Christianity. Christ illustrates the feeling the Christian should cherish toward his erring brother by the woman who lost one piece of silver, the shep- herd who had one straying sheep, the father with a prodigal son. They wished to find and save the erring ones, not to cut them off. Once married, they come under the laws of 1 Cor. 7, and should not separate, save for the cause of adul- tery. The Christian in the case ought to try to convert the one not a Christian, and all the brethren and sisters should try to help in this work, and so solve the difficulty by saving both. (2) The duties growing out of the different relations sometimes seem to conflict. When this is the case, those growing out of the prior relation should prevail. The woman is under obligation to respect and honor her hus- band ; and while she ought to let him know when she thinks he does wrong and encourage him to do right, it is not her province to administer the discipline upon her husband in refusing to eat with him. (3) I think they can do it without any regularly -ap- pointed elders and deacons. In all work of a church with- out regularly appointed elders, somebody has to take the 526 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, lead in all acts of worship and in all that is done by the brethren. I do not see why they could not act in trying to save a wayward brother or sister from sin as well as in helping the poor brother or sister when in need. Let some one take the lead and all act according to the law of God. (4) There is a world of mischief in that question: "What harm is there in this or that?" The question should be: "What good is there in this or that?" If there is no good, there is harm, and it should be avoided. We should seek always to do positive good, and not merely that in which there is no harm. The habit is condemned in many expressions. "Let your communication be, Yea, yea ; Nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." "Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give ac- count thereof in the day of judgment." This use of by- words and meaningless expressions is offensive to the pu- rity and simplicity of speech commanded in the Bible. QUESTIONS UNANSWERED IN THE BIBLE. Will you please answer through the Gospel Advocate what vow it was that Paul had in Acts 18: 18? In the latter part of the verse it says: "Took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cen- chrea: for he had a vow." Also, in Mark 14: 51, 52, who was the young man that fled from them naked? You asked us this question a little too quick. We have not found out yet. Where the Bible speaks, we try to speak ; but where it does not speak, we try to hold our peace. RAH AB— WAS SHE A HARLOT? Brother Seivell: In James 2: 25 and Heb. 11: 31, James and Paul refer to Rahab the harlot. Is there any authority, anywhere or in any way, for rendering the Greek word pornee, which is here rendered harlot, by the word innkeeper? Was she an innkeeper or a prosti- tute, or both? The question you propound is a rather mixed one, and it is a rather difficult matter to reach a definite conclusion about it. The theories of prominent commentators are confusing rather than satisfying. The Hebrew word zona, which is the word applied to her, is rendered into Greek by the word pornee, and then into English by the word harlot. The Greek word pornee means literally a harlot, and is so denned by the Greek lexicons that I have at hand, by such words as harlot, fornicator. I find no direct authority for that word to be rendered innkeeper. The fact, however, that the two spies put up at her house and were entertained and concealed by her indicates that she was keeping some sort of tavern or house for public entertainment. But there is no legal way that I can see of getting entirely rid BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 527 of the literal meaning of the word harlot as applied to her in the Bible. Some commentators try very hard to make it appear that the Hebrew word means an innkeeper. But still there stands the fact that it was translated into the Greek language by Hebrew scholars in the Septuagint ver- sion of the New Testament some three hundred years be- fore Christ and then written in the New Testament by Greek scholars. So I see no authority for changing the meaning of that word. But I do not see why that should be any serious difficulty in the case; for she became a be- liever in the true God when she heard about the Jewish peo- ple and the wonders connected with them, as is plainly shown by what she said to the spies, as recorded in the book of Joshua. (See chapter 2.) This shows that she was expecting the Jewish people to overpower her people, and exacted a pledge from the spies to show her kindness when Jericho should be destroyed, which was literally carried out in the execution of that event. Hence, at some time preced- ing the exercise of faith in the true God, she must have been to some extent a harlot, as is plainly indicated by the term given her in the Bible. But people that truly believe in God can repent and turn away from sin; and her faith is highly spoken of in the New Testament, even indicating that it was genuine and had produced a change in her life. The apostle Paul was for a good while a vile persecutor of Christians, regarding Christ a deceiver and impostor, and even admitting that he gave his voice against people that were put to death, thus admitting the guilt of murder ; but when he became a believer in Christ, he became one of the most godly men on record. Why, then, could not Rahab repent and change her whole life? As a matter of fact, after the fall of Jericho, she remained with the Jews and married a Jew, seeming to be a firm believer in the God of the Jews, and there is not a word of criticism on her life after the spies went to Jericho. Because she was at one time a harlot, that word was kept up, not meaning at all that she kept up her former corrupt life. There is nothing, therefore, to indicate that she continued that corrupt life a single day after she became a believer in the God of the Bi- ble ; but, on the other hand, all that is said of her after she became a believer in God indicates that she was as virtuous as were the Jewish women, living with the Jews, and as a faithful wife of a Jew, the rest of her life. REBAPTISM. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: There are persons who have been treading the dark road of sectarianism and have always opposed the teaching of God's word. Like Paul, they think that they ought to do 528 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, many things contrary to the way of righteousness. They have been zealous toward God, but "not according to knowledge." Now, when such persons are converted and make the good confession of their faith in Christ (though they have been baptized), some of the breth- ren ask: "Why are they not baptized again, as those men who were improperly taught and baptized by Apollos?" The above question has been troubling many of the breth- ren for many years past, and doubtless will for many years to come ; for our surroundings are such that it will be con- tinually coming up with its round of perplexity. We know of but one scriptural way to decide the question, and that is for those who have been immersed to decide in their own minds whether they were immersed to obey the command of God or not. If they were baptized with the one pure design to obey God, no one can do more or better; but if they were immersed with an idea that it was merely an out- side matter, merely to get into a party or denomination, and no recognition of the authority of God in what they did, we think then their baptism amounts to no service to God at all; and when more perfectly instructed in the way of the Lord, such, like the twelve at Ephesus, ought to be bap- tized understandingly. We know of no other way to set- tle this question. It is not what we do in and of itself that saves us, but God promises that when we obey him he will save us; and our whole effort should be to obey him, and he will do the saving. E. G. S. REBAPTISM AND OTHER QUESTIONS. 1. Is it necessary for a person to be reimmersed, provided he or she has been baptized by a Methodist or Baptist? 2. Is it necessary for a person to understand that baptism is for remission of sins in order that baptism be valid? 3. Is wind or spirit the correct translation of pnenma in John 3:8? 4. Is the heart purified before or after baptism? The first design of baptism is to put a man into Christ. If it is necessary that the design, objects, results of bap- tism shall be known in order to the validity of baptism, the administrator, in asking the question, "Do you believe Je- sus is the Christ, the Son of God?" ought to add, "and that baptism puts you into Christ/' "and that baptism is for the remission of sins," and, as we are baptized for the dead, he ought also to add, "and that you are baptized for the dead?" The whole catalogue of results and fruits must be asked, because baptism is either acceptable to God or it is a sin in his sight. If it is a sin to be baptized without understanding when one of the blessings promised is received, it is a sin to be baptized without knowing when any other of them is. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 529 The father frequently has an end in view in requiring a child to perform a certain act that is not even told the child. The command tests the willingness to obey. God blesses because we are willing to obey, not because we see virtue in the act. Baptism was clearly required as a test of our will- ingness to obey God ; but as our willingness to obey arises from our faith in God, baptism is a test of our faith in God. Christ said: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth [the gospel] and is baptized shall be saved." The only thing required in order to baptism is honest faith in the gospel, leading to a willingness to obey Christ in baptism. This willing- ness manifested is repentance. To stop and inquire if he believes in this, that, or the other result of baptism is to presumptuously add to the appointments or requirements of God. But if it is necessary that a man should believe that bap- tism is in order to the remission of sins in order to its valid- ity, it is the duty of him who administers baptism to be sure that he understands it before his baptism; and this question ought to be asked the candidate: "Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that baptism is for the remission of sins?" God had the design of bring- ing men into Christ by baptism, and in Christ are found all the blessings that God bestows on his obedient children. The chief, leading cause on man's part should be to obey God. When he submits to it in obedience to God, he has done all God requires. To repeat the act when it has been done in obedience to God is to mock God's appointments; to mock his appointments is to trifle with God. As nothing is said of the administrator, when a man is baptized to obey God, he is acceptably baptized, no matter who admin- isters the ordinance. If he is baptized from any other mo- tive than the desire to obey God, his baptism is worth noth- ing, even though the apostle Peter or Paul should adminis- ter it. It is likely there will never be agreement as to whether wind or spirit is the proper translation of pneurna. The word pneuma is used nearly four hundred times in the Scriptures. This is the only time it is translated wind. In every other instance it is translated spirit. This at first sight would seem conclusive. But it in Greek does mean wind, and the connection must determine whether it means wind or spirit in any passage. In this passage it is connected with the word pneo — to blow. Pneo is used seven times in the New Testament, and always refers to the blowing of the wind. We are told by scholars it is always 530 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, so used in Greek literature. It is never known to be con- nected with the speaking, revealing, or influence of the spirit. To translate it here the breathing of the spirit would be to give a singular — and, as many believe, unwar- ranted — meaning to pneo and to pneuma in connection with pneo. On this turns the whole question as to whether it should be translated wind or spirit. The weight of schol- arship is that pneuma, connected with pneo, ought to be translated wind. But, happily, no Scripture truth depends on the translation. The purification of the heart, like most works of God, is progressive. The heart embraces much more than we are accustomed to attach to the term. It embraces courage, fidelity, singleness of purpose. Peter (Acts 15: 9) says that God purified the hearts of the Gentiles by faith as he had those of the Jews. But this does not declare the heart is made pure by the simple act of believing. Faith saves us in heaven, but only by leading us into the life that fits us for heaven, and so secures our salvation. Peter, writing to Christians, said: "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth." (1 Pet. 1: 22.) This would indicate that the obedience to the truth, which is the obedience to which faith leads, purifies the soul. "And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." (1 John 3:3.) This was addressed to Christians. James (4: 8), addressing Christians, says: "Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double-minded." We draw this conclusion : The purpose of the heart is made pure by believing. This must be before baptism. That purpose leads on to a purification of the heart in its thoughts, affections, service to God and duty to men, com- pleting the purification in the life work of the Christian. In this sense the heart is not purified before baptism, but it is the life work of the Christian. Paul (2 Cor. 10: 5) says: "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." This brings out the truth that the life work of the Christian is to cast down all imaginations and every- thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of Christ, and, casting these out of the heart, bring every thought of that heart to the obedience of Christ. No heart is actually clean and pure in the sight of God until the very thoughts and feelings and impulses of the heart are brought into subjection to the will of Christ. It takes a life work to accomplish this. Then I would answer the question thus: The heart is purified as to its purpose by faith before bap- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 531 tism. The workings of the heart, like the life of man, is purified only by the constant daily effort to bring our lives and every thought of the heart in obedience to Christ. And this completed purification is accomplished by the Christian life after baptism; and too often the Christian life is so neglected that our hearts never become purified for a habitation of God through the Spirit. D. L. REBAPTIZED DISCIPLES, WHO BAPTIZED THE? Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: I want an explanation of Acts 19: 1-6. Did John baptize the disciples spoken of in this chapter, or did Apollos baptize them? John never was at Ephesus ; but Apollos was, and preached there. It is certainly more reasonable to sup- pose that Apollos baptized the twelve at Ephesus than that John did, who never was there at all. Besides, it was about twenty-five years after John was beheaded when Paul found those disciples at Ephesus; and as Apollos had just been there, there can surely be no doubt but that he bap- tized them. If they had been baptized by John, they evi- dently would not have been baptized again. But after John's day had passed, his baptism was worth nothing, as this passage plainly shows. It was good in its day, but worth nothing after Jesus ascended and sent down the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. REBAPTIZED, WHY? Please explain why those disciples spoken of in the first part of Acts 19 were rebaptized, as we have no account of any others being rebaptized that were baptized unto John's baptism. The history of the twelve at Ephesus indicates very plainly that they were baptized by Apollos, and not by John. Moreover, when Apollos went to Ephesus, as recorded in the latter part of Acts 18, and preached the baptism of John, it was twenty years or more after John's baptism was ended and could be of no value to any one. As to those that were baptized by John or by the disciples before the crucifixion of Christ, there is no evidence that one of them was ever baptized any more. John's baptism was all right in its time and for the purpose for which it was ordained ; but after it had accomplished its design, and Christ, hav- ing risen from the dead, had commanded the apostles to go and "teach all nations, baptizing them in [into] the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," John's baptism was no longer in force and had no more part in the gospel dispensation than Jewish sacrifices. Jewish sacrifices were valid in their time, and so was John's 532 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, baptism valid in its day; but after its day had passed, it was worth nothing. Hence, those at Ephesus, who doubt- less were immersed by Apollos long after John's baptism was dead, had to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. TT P Q REBAPTISM OF THE TWELVE. Please notice the word they in Acts 19: 5. I heard a prominent Baptist preacher say that it referred to the persons that John was talking to. The pronoun they in the verse referred to had reference to the twelve that Paul baptized at Ephesus. The history of the case is briefly this: Apollos had been at Ephesus before Paul got there; and although John's baptism had passed away, Apollos was not aware of it up to that time; and, being an earnest man, he made some disciples to John's preaching and had baptized them. Paul came soon after and found them, and asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit since they believed ; and they said they had not even heard of any. Paul then explained to them the nature of John's baptism ; and when he was through, having at the same time taught them the baptism commanded by the Sav- ior, they, the twelve, were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. The pronoun they cannot, according to any just construction of language, refer to the people that John taught, ^but to the twelve who had been taught John's baptism by Apollos long after it had ceased, who were then retaught and baptized by Paul — the same ones that re- ceived the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit immediately after they were baptized through the laying on of Paul's hands. E. G. S. "RECEIVE HIM NOT INTO YOUR HOUSE," WHO? What is the meaning of 2 John 10? And who are the class of persons the elect lady was forbidden to receive into her house? That you may know my difficulty, I will state a case: A conference of the Lutheran Church was in session. Quite a number of preachers from a distance were present. A member of the church of Christ declined to lodge any of them at his house, giving this scripture as a reason. Does it apply to such a case? We once knew a Cumberland preacher — a good, earnest man, honest and faithful, but a strongly prejudiced man — who turned a preacher of the gospel off from his house. He was a hospitable and kind-hearted man. The preacher came to his house a stranger, on a cold, rainy evening, and asked for lodging for the night. It was cheerfully granted. After supper they began to talk, and toward bed- time he found the preacher was a "Campbellite." He had his horse caught, and told him he could not entertain the BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 533 teacher of such a heresy under his roof. It would be bid- ding him Godspeed. So he had at that late hour of night, in cold and rain, to seek other shelter. This occurred about the time we were born. Our Cumberland preacher and the brother in the above query understood this passage alike, and so acted. We are satisfied they were both wrong, and acted wrong under this false impression. The scrip- ture is: "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine [that Jesus has come in the flesh] , receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed : for he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds." The specific sin here spoken of was a denial that Christ had come in the flesh, or a denial that Jesus was the Christ. But it strikes us that the person here described was one who, while claiming to be a Christian, was dis- puting apostolic authority and denying the foundation truth of the religion of Christ. Our friends among the sects we do not think are of this class. We think they are honestly mistaken. They have a zeal of God not according to knowl- edge. Our Lutheran friends are much mistaken in some points of truth, and are bitter in their opposition to it, so far as we have met them; but as simply confused in their minds and ignorant of the truth, and especially as they do not come to us as brethren, it is our duty to kindly receive them and strive to show them the way of the Lord more perfectly. This seems to us to have been the treatment the primitive Christians gave to those doing contrary to the teachings of Christ through "ignorant unbelief." When one with a full knowledge of the truth turns from that truth, rejects the fundamental truth of our holy reli- gion, and still would come among us as a brother, claiming to be of us, yet subverting the weak and overturning the faith of the unstable, then this language of John to the elect lady would be appropriate. When a Christian entertains a Lutheran, no one understands that he is bidding him God- speed in building up Lutheranism. D. L. RECOGNITION, FUTURE. Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: Page 687 of the Christian Hymn Book, No. 1151, is headed: "Shall we know each other there?" Is that song scriptural? I mean, is the sentiment therein expressed 534 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, taught in the Bible? If so, be kind enough to refer to the chapter and verse teaching it. If not found in the Bible expressly taught, or if we cannot learn from the Bible that "We shall see the same eyes shining On us as in days of yore," and that our "mortal friends" will be recognized in heaven, is it proper for Christians to sing it? By giving your views on this sub- ject through the columns of your valuable paper in the thorough manner in which you are in the habit of doing on other questions, you will relieve the minds of many Christians who desire to sing with the spirit and understanding . There is no positive teaching in the Bible on the subject of heavenly recognition— whether we will or will not know each other; but there are some passages upon which we have formed and expressed the opinion that Christians that know each other in this life will know each other in heaven. There are mentions made in the New Testament of per- sonal identities in the eternal kingdom, as when Jesus says : "Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven." This passage is understood by many to indi- cate that these ancient worthies will be known and desig- nated by name in heaven; and if these be thus known in heaven, why not others? In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus they are represented as knowing each other after death, though one of them in hell and the other in Abraham's bosom; and while the parable was not in- tended to teach future recognition, it is argued that Christ would use nothing in a parable that could not be true in fact. I know it is argued from this parable that if we know our friends in heaven, we shall also know those who were our friends on earth who are lost, and that this would more than counteract all their joys over their saved friends. This, however, does not follow. We are to be made like Christ if we reach heaven, and he will not in eternity grieve over those who reject him and are lost, though he once loved all well enough to die for them. But when they willingly reject him and are lost, his love for them is ended ; and just so we, when made like him, will cease to love those who would not love our Savior. We will then be able to see clearly, without reference to relationship, the differ- ence between those who have loved the Lord and those who loved him not, and will through eternity approve the judgments of God; and there will be no sorrow, no tears, in heaven. So that if even the lost are recognized by the saved, there can be no grief over them, for grief will be unknown to the saved. Heaven is represented as a dwell- ing place, and the saved are to have bodies, spiritual bodies, BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 535 fashioned like the glorious body of the Son of God, when they reach heaven. All these things indicate society, and it would be hard to imagine how society could exist and be perfectly happy without personal recognition. We can, by our senses here and what the Bible reveals of heaven, form no idea of what heaven will be ; but, then, we cannot say that this is a positive certainty ; it is only an opinion ; but we think it a harmless opinion — one that will never lead any one to disobey the word of God, but simply an opinion that gives consolation to those who exercise it in this life. Those, of course, who entertain such an opinion can, as the expression of their opinion, sing the song you mention. Opinions are private property, and should never be urged upon any one as of any practical value. If others have a different opinion, let them exercise it. E. G. S. RECONCILE 2 KINGS 2: 11 AND JOHN 3: 13. Brother Lipscomb: Will you kindly give an exposition of the fol- lowing passages, so as to reconcile the seeming contradiction? In 2 Kings 2: 11 the statement is made that Elijah went up into heaven, and in John 3: 13 Jesus said: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." And how could he speak of himself, then, as being in heaven? I do not doubt but that the passages are in har- mony and that my poor understanding is at fault. The explanation likely is found in the fact that the word heaven is used in the Bible to indicate different places or degrees of approach to God. There were the first to the seventh heavens. It is not probable Elijah or any mortal had ascended to the presence of God, whence Jesus had come and which was his home. Which is in heaven is ex- plained to mean he is like God — everywhere at once. Some think this last a statement of John made as true when he wrote after his ascension. But the former idea is the usu- ally received one. RECORDS, CHURCH, ETC. Brother Sewell: Please give us some plain lessons on some prac- tical matters — (1) the importance and necessity of keeping a church record, (2) weekly meetings, (3) church discipline — in fact, on all practical matters. (1) There is nothing said in the New Testament about church records ; but early additions were numbered and the number specified, and the possibilities are that there were records kept. It is often very satisfactory to keep a record of the names of the members and a record of the leading events of the church. Trouble may sometimes arise about the membership of certain persons that could be at once 536 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, settled by reference to the record; and there is certainly nothing in keeping such a record that is out of harmony with the word of God. (2) We suppose the meeting of the disciples on the first day of the week is the meeting referred to. This is just as important and binding as any other requirement of the New Testament. The disciples at Troas met on "the first day of the week" to break bread, and Paul remained there through the week preceding and met with them, recognized that they were doing the will of God by thus meeting, and preached for them, breaking bread with them, and went on his way. The manner in which this assembling was men- tioned indicates clearly that it was their regular custom to meet thus on every "first day of the week." This custom was not of their own devising, but from God, as is plainly indicated by the recognition of the inspired apostle Paul. Had it not been from God, he would evidently have cor- rected them on it, as he did others on things they were do- ing that were not of God. So this may be taken as a matter of divine authority on the subject. Then in Heb. 10 : 25 there is a positive command not to forsake the assembling of themselves together. This evidently means the assem- bling on the first day of the week to break bread, as that is the only assembling that is required in the church. To neg- lect this, therefore, is to neglect a positive requirement of Heaven, which can only be done at the expense of the sal- vation of the soul. Mention is also made in 1 Cor. 16 : 1 of this regular meeting on the first day of the week, and is another instance of a recognition of it by divine inspiration as an appointment of God. And the elders of churches, who are the overseers of the church, should see to it that all the members attend these meetings. To neglect these meetings is to reject an important item of spiritual food that God has appointed for the growth and well-being of his people. (3) As to the matter of discipline in the church, that is emphatically required again and again, and the elders are the men to lead in this matter and see that it is done when needed, and done according to the word of God. Jesus gave directions on discipline in Matt. 18. In 1 Cor. 5 Paul gives positive command to the church at that place to discipline the man that had taken his father's wife, telling them plainly what to do with him. The Romans and Thessalo- nians and others were strictly commanded to look after vio- lators of the word of the Lord. Hence, discipline must be attended to, and the elders must be wide-awake on such matters. Finally, it is the duty of churches to read and BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 537 study the word of God closely and keep all its requirements rigidly, and the elders are God's appointed leaders in all these matters. Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: Is it right for a church to keep a church book and enroll the members' names? And if there is any scripture to condemn it, please let us have it. Is there any wrong in appointing elders to take the oversight of the congregation and to keep things in order? I ask for information for myself and for sev- eral churches in my knowledge. I think there is being some harm done in this part of the country by thinking it is adding something to God's will, which I do not understand to be the meaning of that passage in Revelation. As to the first question, we know of nothing directly on the subject. We are told in Acts how many obeyed the gospel on the day of Pentecost and at Solomon's portico, but we do not know whether their names were enrolled or not. We suppose that matter, like the house or place in which we are to meet, is left to the good sense of the churches, as to whether they will enroll names or not. If the church is agreed about it, we can see no more harm in enrolling names than in building a meetinghouse. But if either one causes strife and contention, better let them alone. No one's salvation depends upon his name being enrolled on a church book, and no one is made better by it ; and the mere fact that any one's name is on a church book is no evidence that he is a child of God. It is our obedience to the commands of God that makes us his children, and nothing else will. Our having our names enrolled on a dozen church books will not benefit or save us if we do not live the Christian ; and if we do that, we are safe, whether we have our names on a church book or not. As a matter of convenience, perhaps it is better to have a church book and enroll the names of the members, just as it is better as a matter of convenience to have a meetinghouse to meet in. As to your second question, there is certainly no wrong in appointing elders to take the oversight of a congrega- tion, as Timothy and Titus were directed to do the same thing. If any congregation has elders among them that are competent to take the oversight and are not doing so already, they ought to be appointed to the work; but if those elders are already taking the oversight and doing the work satisfactorily, we can see no meaning in appointments in that case. The meaning of the appointment is only to do certain work, not to install into office ; and the appointment is only needed to put those who are qualified for it into the work. Peter said to the elders that they must feed the flock of God, taking the oversight thereof. Here is a re- 538 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, quirement of the elders to take — that is, exercise — the over- sight of the congregation ; and this was to be done willingly, not as lords over them, but to be examples to the congre- gation. And even the elders have no right to teach or do anything in the church only as the word of God directs. "REGENERATION," THE WORD. Will you please tell me what the word regeneration means in Matt. 19: 28: "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Also explain Tit. 3: 5, which reads thus: "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of re- generation, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Do they mean the same? The word regeneration literally means a new creation, or new order of things. As used in the passages named, we think it means the new institution — the church, or king- dom, of God on earth. The apostles were to sit on thrones in the regeneration — that is, in the church. The apostles received their power, or authority, on the day of Pentecost, when they received the Holy Spirit and began to preach the word of the Lord as the Spirit gave them utterance. They then began to give the words that are to judge all Israel and all the world. Christ was then seated upon the throne of his glory in heaven, and his promise to the apostles was that when he should sit upon the throne of glory they should sit upon twelve thrones. These apostles took their seats on their thrones that day, and they are on them yet, and will be till the close of time. We are, therefore, to look to them for all authority in religion. The words of the apostles must be an end to all controversy in matters of faith and practice. In the third chapter of Paul to Titus we think the word regeneration also means the church, the new institution. The church has a washing, and that wash- ing is baptism. REPENT, HOW DID GOD? Brother Sewell: In Gen. 6: 6 it is said: "It repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." How is this to be understood? I do not know a thing in the world about it beyond what the passage plainly says. If the Lord did not mean just what it says, I have no means of knowing what it does mean. It says it repented him that he had made man, and said this when the whole world except one family had BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 539 gone so deeply into sin that a flood was predicted to destroy them; and so the flood did come and destroyed all, except Noah and his family. I have never learned how to theorize on the meaning of the word of God beyond what it says. REPENTANCE. Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Please give through the Gospel Advocate the meaning of the word repentance as used in the Bible, for the benefit of myself and others. Repentance is used in two senses in the Bible. It means simply sorrow, or regret. The sorrow of the world, or a worldly sorrow, works death ; but a godly sorrow works a repentance not to be repented of. The repentance commanded by the Savior means a turn- ing from sin. The heart first sorrows and turns from sin. The purpose is changed, or we determine with God's help to sin no more. Repentance is perfected in actual turning from sin, in transferring our bodies and the different mem- bers of the body from the service or practice of sin to the service or obedience to God. To turn in heart, soul, and body — or to turn in the affections, the purpose, and the life — from sin or disobedience to humble and earnest obe- dience to God is repentance. A man may repent or change his heart, and stop ; he may go on and change his purpose, yet fail to carry it out in practice. Man only thoroughly and scripturally repents when he changes his affections, his purpose, his life, from the service of the evil one to the serv- ice of the living God. There is a time when man turns himself about — turns his face toward God. Then he only fairly starts in the work of repentance. He is then said to have repented. But repentance is completed only when the last sin has been overcome and turned from and when man is brought into a state of perfect obedience and complete reconciliation with God. Repentance is then recognized as a continued process into which we enter. Hence it is said that John baptized unto (into) repentance — that is, he baptized into the state, or work, or life of repentance to- ward God, into the work of turning to God. This is prac- tical repentance. D. L. REPENTANCE AND RESTITUTION. Brother Lipscomb: If a man who is not on speaking terms with one of his acquaintance should hear the gospel, and, believing it to be his duty, should obey it without first becoming reconciled to his neigh- bor, would his repentance before baptism be valid? If he went and sought reconciliation afterwards, it indi- cated he had repented. A man cannot await to correct all 540 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, of his former wrongs before he obeys God. That would be making God last and frequently postpone obedience because he could not correct the wrongs he had done his fellow man. Then he might not be wholly to blame for getting into a childish fit of not speaking to some one else. That is a childish fit, no matter who indulges it. Repentance toward God means sorrow for all his sins against God, and a sin against a fellow man is a sin against God. But it does not mean that he should wait to learn of all his wrongs and correct them before he is baptized. It does mean he will change his whole life and correct all the wrongs he is able to correct. When John told the sinners to bring forth "fruits meet for repentance," he did not tell them to await and do this before they were baptized ; but after they had been baptized they were to live a course that proved they had repented. Then the brother may not have been to blame wholly or in part for the bad feeling existing. He could only remove the cause so far as he had done wrong, and so encourage the other to do right. But a man's faith and repentance are not genuine unless they lead him to confess all of his wrongs to his fellow man and seek to cor- rect them. More stress should be laid on the practical re- sults of repentance than is done in our teaching. REPENTANCE, FRUITS WORTHY OF. Brother Lipscomb : As many sectarians quote Matt. 3 : 8 in sup- port of their mourners'-bench theory, please explain why John told the Pharisees and Sadducees to bring forth "fruits meet for repent- ance." He told the Pharisees and Sadducees what he tells every one that comes to God. Every man is told when he is bap- tized into repentance to bring forth fruits worthy of that repentance. The Jews relied upon their being fleshly chil- dren of Abraham for salvation. John the Baptist preached the baptism of repentance toward God ; and when they were baptized, he warned them : "Now bring forth fruit in your lives that will show your repentance genuine, and no longer think to say, Abraham is our father; for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." This meant we must by faith become chil- dren of Abraham, and not rely on the fleshly relations. I suppose the difficulty arises from the idea that John re- fused to baptize these persons until they had brought forth fruit that proved their repentance to be genuine. But there is no ground for this idea. John baptized them and sent them forth to show their repentance by their godly walk. "There went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 541 of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins." (Mark 1: 5.) This em- braced Pharisees and Sadducees in common with other Jews. Luke (3: 7, 8) tells: 'Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father : for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." Then he pro- ceeds to tell what each class shall do to prove his repent- ance genuine. Luke tells he said to the whole multitude that came to be baptized what Matthew says he told the Pharisees and Sadducees. He treated all alike. He bap- tized all who came, and told them : "As you have been bap- tized into repentance, bring forth in your lives fruit that will show your repentance." So God says to every one now who comes to the baptism of repentance. RESURRECTION, THE, WHEN? Brother Seivell: I have taken interest in your answers to corre- spondents through the Gospel Advocate, and would like to have your opinion on the resurrection of the dead. The Scriptures say but very little about it. I would like to have your views on this subject, as I think you capable of illustrating these points, and you will greatly oblige me in so doing. Will the resurrection be immediately after death, or when will it be? Will this change be in a moment, "in the twinkling of an eye," according to 1 Cor. 15: 52, or similar to the gradual growth of grain as I understand it, in verses 42-44 of the same chapter? As the resurrection is illustrated by the growth of grain, if the whole grain dies, there can be no resurrection to it; but there seems to be a germ in the grain that never dies. When the grain appears to die, there is a germ gradually growing from it and grows up in a new grain. Is not the apostle's view of the resurrec- tion this : That when man appears to die, the germ of his future body begins to spring forth, according to 1 Cor. 15: 42-44? If the whole man dies in the first Adam, does not man lose all identity, and will not his future existence be an entire new creation? If so, how is he to realize any resurrection, as the resurrection state winds up all things with us in this world? 1. We do not believe the resurrection will be immediately after death. The Scriptures teach that there will be a gen- eral resurrection of all the righteous dead at one time. Paul to the Thessalonians, when speaking of a general res- urrection, says : "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first." (1 Thess. 4: 16.) The expression, "the dead in Christ," means all the dead in Christ ; and this is all to take place at the second coming of the Lord. This passage shows that at the second coming of the Lord there will be 542 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, a general resurrection of all the dead — first the righteous and then the wicked. 2. The change spoken of that will be in a moment has reference to those that will still be living when the Lord comes again. Paul says: "We shall not all sleep [that is, not all die], but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump." The saints, therefore, who shall be living when Christ comes again will be changed in a moment, without sleeping in their graves as those who die before the Lord's second coming. 3. The resurrection will evidently not be a gradual thing, but will take place suddenly when the last trumpet sounds. Paul was not illustrating the manner of the resurrection, whether at once or gradually, but rather this : That though the body dies and returns to the dust, the man will rise again and receive a new body, just as when a grain of corn is planted it goes to the earth and a new grain is formed. The Christian will receive a new body that will be fashioned like to the glorious body of the Son of God. And as there is a living principle in the grain that does not perish, so there is a living principle in man that does not perish, but will be a personal identity in the resurrection, as the Sav- ior taught when he said that many should come from the east and from the west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of God. As Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are to be personal identities in heaven, so will others, as is also shown in the case of the rich man and Lazarus, who still existed after death as the same persons. We will, therefore, not lose our personal identity, though the body goes to the dust; and the resurrection will not be a new creation, but a resurrection, as the word implies. The very same persons will be raised again, but the right- eous will have spiritual instead of natural bodies. E. G. S. RESURRECTION BODY. Brother Seivell: In your reply to the query of Charles A. Scott in regard to the resurrection of the dead, you say: "The very same persons will be raised again, but the righteous will have spiritual instead of natural bodies." Now, are we to understand from this language that the righteous only will have spiritual instead of nat- ural bodies, and that the wicked dead will be raised in mortality? We do not undertake to say anything about the bodies of the wicked in the resurrection. The apostle Paul was speaking of the righteous when he said: "It is raised a spiritual body." He did not say with what kind of a body the wicked would come from the grave; but it is very cer- tain that they will not have spiritual bodies in the same sense that the righteous will. Jesus said in regard to the BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 543 punishment of the wicked, "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched ;" and that does not look much like mortality. This indicates about as much as any pas- sage we know of regarding the future condition of the wicked, and beyond what the word of God plainly says we are not disposed to speak. Our opinion in the matter would be worth nothing. But as to the righteous, the word of God is plain. E. G. S. REVELATION—PART AT A TIME. Brethren Lipscomb and Seiveli: Will you give your explanation through the Gospel Advocate of the following scripture? "But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child : but when I became a man, I put away childish things." (1 Cor. 13: 10, 11.) The passage, as we think, has reference to the develop- ment of God's revelations to men. The Bible was given to man in parts— a little at a time. The giving of the Old Testament spread over a period of more than a thousand years, from Moses to Malachi, giving a little at a time, as the people were ready for it and needed it. No one man was ever so inspired as to know the whole will of God at once. Just so much was given to one man at a time as was needful for him to develop. Neither Paul nor Peter ever at any one time had the whole new dispensation made known to him at any one time. Just what they needed at any particular period or for any particular work was given them, and no more. Paul at one time only understood part of the Old Testament. He rejected all that part of it that pertained to the Son of God and persecuted his followers. He was then but a child in his knowledge of God's revela- tions. As he learned more and more of the new insti- tution, he grew until he became a man in knowledge of God's will to men. Ever since the new institution was fully revealed, the manhood state of God's divine revela- tions has been developed, and all who will may understand practically the whole. When the Christian has understood and practiced the will of God in this life and shall pass into heaven, into the divine presence of God, he will still know more of God and his ways and will; and we think possibly the apostle had this also in view in the passage mentioned. REVELATION, THE BOOK OF, AND SPECULATIONS ON. I want to know what you know about the two witnesses, or proph- ets, that are spoken of in Rev. 11, whose dead bodies lay in the streets three and a half days and were not allowed to be buried. Who was it that killed them? 544 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, We do not know much about the witnesses nor their dy- ing or who murdered them ; but we do know we never get inquiries on these speculative questions or about the state of the dead from death to the resurrection from earnest men and women or from churches that are actively doing their duty to save sinners and extend the Redeemer's king- dom on earth. Earnest, faithful hearts, striving to extend the kingdom of Christ, are not the soil out of which these speculations grow. If these men will try to lead and prac- tice and teach their fellow men the plain, practical duties of the Christian religion, they will find something that will give life and fervor to themselves and will kindle an inter- est for Christ in their neighborhood. RICHES AND SALVATION. Brother Sew ell: For the benefit of many readers, please answer the following questions through the Gospel Advocate: 1. Can a person be saved in heaven who has an abundance. of this world's goods? If so, why did Christ command the young man in Matt. 19 to sell what he had, give to the poor, and follow him? Did Jesus demand more of him than he does of us? 2. If a rich man can be saved, what does this language mean? "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14: 33.) The Revised Ver- sion says, "all his possessions. " 3. We find in Acts 2: 44, 45; 4: 32-35 that this was done then. If this was not necessary, why did they do it, and why did the Lord have it recorded? Would the Lord have recorded a nonessential act of theirs? 4. In 2 Tim. 3 : 16 Paul says : "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine," etc. For what, then, is it profitable, if it does not mean what it says? 5. We are commanded to speak as the "oracles of God." Can we do this and not teach the above lesson? 6. In Matt. 28: 19, 20, Jesus commanded the apostles to go, teach, and baptize the nations; then he says: "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Now, the question is: Is not every approved observance by the apostles a commandment of Christ? If not, why not? 1. It is a very easy matter to take extreme views on this or any other subject. Very many expressions like that concerning riches are modified by others. The command to the wife to obey the husband is modified by the higher obligation to obey God. It is better to obey God than men whenever there is a conflict. If a husband were to com- mand his wife not to follow Christ, then she had better obey Christ than her husband. So there are some modi- fications regarding this question. If a man allows his possessions to in any way hinder him from doing the will of God, he cannot reach the promise of a home in heaven ; but if a rich man will use his. money and his own life to the BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 545 honor of God, he can certainly be saved. Abraham was a rich man, and yet the Savior represents him as in a saved state. If, on the other hand, a man in any sense loves his riches more than he loves the Savior, he cannot be saved. As Mark records it, if a man trusts in riches, he cannot be saved. So a rich man can easily so use his money as to lose his soul, while a very poor man may strive so hard to get money that he may easily lose his soul. The matter, therefore, of a rich man being saved depends upon how he loves and uses his money and devotes his heart and life. There were rich men in the church in the days of Paul, and he gave warnings to them of the dangers that surrounded them in the love and use of their riches, as in his letter to Timothy. There are certainly very great dangers attend- ing the possession of wealth, but it is surely an extreme to say that a man cannot possess and so manage riches and so love the Lord above money as to be saved at last in heaven. The love and use of riches is the trouble, and it is so great that there are likely very few possessing them that so honor the Lord in their own hearts and with their riches as to secure for them an entrance into heaven; yet there is no need of taking extreme grounds on the subject. Paul says to Timothy: "Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy." The passage certainly indicates that there were rich men in the church, and that if they would do as directed they might be saved. We are not told just why Christ com- manded the young man to sell all that he had and give it to the poor, but it is very evident that the apostles did not make that a condition of salvation when they went out to preach the gospel. Men with property came into the church at Jerusalem, and then sold their possessions and gave the money obtained therefor for the use of those in need ; but they were not required to give everything at once, as was shown in the case of Ananias and Sapphira. The land was theirs before they sold it, and the money was theirs after they sold it, as Peter told them. It was their complicity in deception and falsehood, and not in the fact that they did not give up all. 2. The language in Luke does not mean that it was an absolute condition of salvation that a man should give up everything he had to become a Christian, but that if his possessions should in any wise intervene to hinder him from being a Christian, then he should give up all for Christ's sake. The church at Jerusalem made voluntary surrender of their possessions on account of the surroundings, but no 546 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, law to that effect was enacted through the apostles. This practice afterwards ceased, and never was extended to other churches that we know of. 3. These questions are in the form of an argument more than of a query, and are sufficiently answered in response to No. 2. It never settles any matter to ask questions where the Bible is silent. We are plainly told certain things, and they are matters of record ; but we are not told why the record was made or just why those things were done, only that it is evident that no common stock law was issued at Jerusalem. 4. The scripture quoted is certainly true in every re- spect ; but many things are recorded by inspiration as hav- ing been done that were not matters of positive enactment then, nor are they now ; and such is the record of the breth- ren at Jerusalem giving up all to aid those in need. That and other passages show plainly enough that all Christians should hold all they have in readiness to be used for the Lord's cause if necessity demands it; but this was not a universal law that it should be done at once or under all circumstances. 5. We can speak as the oracles of God speak and yet never teach that all disciples are to give up all and hold or possess nothing. Men could buy and sell and get gain, have homes to dwell in, and at the same time teach all to give liberally and not to lay up riches for moth to eat and rust to corrupt. 6. This question is so broad and so indefinite it would be unwise to even attempt an answer. If he had specified some particular case or cases, then we might be able to re- ply; but it is quite certain that there are not many things that churches and Christians should practice as service to God that are left alone to apostolic example. Examples may explain things not very definitely commanded, but are not often left to take the place of precept. Brother Sewell: Is it taught in the Scriptures that a rich man cannot enter the kingdom of heaven if he obeys the woid of God? I do not know of any passage in the word of God that teaches that. On the other hand, the Bible teaches that all will be saved that faithfully obey the requirements of the will of God. But the word of God shows that riches are greatly in the way of obeying the word. If rich men will use their riches as the word of God directs, they can be saved, as well as the poor. The trouble is in the use of riches, and not in the fact that men have riches. No man will be condemned just because he has riches, nor will any BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 547 man be saved just because he is poor. It is, therefore, the use that men generally make of worldly wealth that makes it so very hard for those that possess it to be saved. Rich people are so likely to use their money and property to the gratification of their fleshly propensities that they have neither time nor inclination to so far deny themselves of these fleshly indulgences as to lead the self-denial life that the word of the Lord demands at their hands. If rich people will deny themselves of all ungodliness and worldly lusts and use their riches as the word of God directs, they certainly have a chance to be saved as well as others. But no man can practice the self-denial and all the good works that a consecrated Christian life demands and at the same time give his heart and life to the hoarding and to the sor- did and fleshly indulgences of worldly riches. Hence, Je- sus, knowing these things, said: "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!" (Mark 10: 23.) Again, he said: "How hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God !" (Verse 24.) So the trouble lies largely in the unscriptural use that people make of riches. No man can revel in the in- dulgences of a fleshly mind and at the same time "live so- berly, righteously, and godly, in this present world." (Tit. 2: 12.) It surely is possible for a rich man to live thus, but he will have to lay aside the love of money and not set his heart on having money to hoard up or by means of which to indulge his fleshly propensities. He must learn to use his money as the word of the Lord directs, or it will cause the loss of the soul. There were some rich people in New Testament churches, but Paul said to Timothy: "Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the liv- ing God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy." (1 Tim. 6:7.) This not only shows that there were some rich peo- ple in the church in the days of the apostles, but that they could obey and be saved, and were admonished to that end. But it is surely hard for them to deny the love and indul- gences of riches far enough to be saved. RIGHTING WRONGS, ETC. Brother Sewell: A sister walks disorderly, does not repent, and is withdrawn from. Afterwards she joins the Methodists, has a diffi- culty (or falling out) with a member of the original church; and after that she repents, comes back to the church of Christ, makes her acknowledgments to the church, asks their forgiveness, and is re- stored again. The brother she offended while she was with the Meth- odists says he cannot fellowship her because she had not made special acknowledgments to him. Did not her acknowledgments to the church under the circumstances cover all the grounds? 548 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, If the sister under consideration did the brother alluded to any personal wrong in any way, she certainly ought to have made amends to him personally for it, if it was in her power to do so, and ought still to do so if she can. Genuine repentance certainly involves this much. But if her of- fenses were all of a public character and only involved the cause in general and no one individually more than another, then a general acknowledgment ought to have been satis- factory to all and a final end to the matter. Justice in full should always be done. E. G. S. ROD, COMING WITH A. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain the following: "What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?" (1 Cor. 4: 21.) Does Paul mean a literal rod, or is the word rod synonymous with love and meekness in the same verse, and, therefore, a metaphor? Also, please explain the following: "And when he had made a scourge [whip] of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables." (John 2: 15.) "Made a scourge of small cords" — did the Savior use the whip? If so, upon whom — the changers or the sheep and oxen, or upon all to get them out of the temple? Paul used the word rod as a figure to signify rebuke, re- proof, or correction. Some of the church at that place were fanatical, and were not living as the Christian reli- gion requires ; and from some things in the letter, they had been making light of Paul's ability and authority; and when he asks whether they will that he come with a rod or in love and meekness, the meaning is : "Do you want me to come with rebuke and rigid discipline to correct your faults, or to come and correct them through love and meek- ness?" As to the scourge that the Savior used, we are not told whether he used it upon the men or upon their stock, or whether upon either. Most commentators that we have examined think he used the scourge on the sheep and oxen ; but their opinion is worth no more than the opinions of oth- ers. The Savior evidently manifested a degree of author- ity and firmness that caused those men to cower and give way to him, knowing that they were violating the proper use of the temple. When Jesus set out to do a thing, he had the power to do it, and men could not hinder. E. G. S. ROMANS, THE, AND THE JEWS. Brother Sewell: How long had the Romans been in authority at the coming of Christ? Did the Romans take them from their own country, as the Scripture speaks of the Jews' exile? Did the Ro- mans allow the Jews to still worship under Moses' law or not? Paul speaks sometimes as though he was a Roman, too. It or the freedom of it is spoken of as being bought with a price. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 549 The land of Canaan had been for sometime under the control of the Romans when Christ came, but the Jews were allowed to worship God under the law of Moses ; and when the Jews rebelled against the Romans and Jerusalem was destroyed, the Jews were carried captives out of their own land and sold and scattered as slaves and otherwise and nevermore returned to their own land. This was about the year 70 or 71 of the Christian era. Paul was born in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia; and this city by Julius Caesar was made equal with Rome in freedom, and all born in Tarsus were born with all the privileges of Roman citi- zens, and it was with reference to this that Paul said he was free-born. In most places that were tributary to the Roman yoke the people were regarded as a kind of subjects or servants rather than citizens ; and the chief captain that bound Paul was thus born, and bought his freedom and cit- izenship with a great sum, as he expresses it. E. G. S. ROMANS, SEVENTH CHAPTER. Brother Sew ell: Please give a lesson on Rom. 7. I have been asked to visit a man of modern sanctification belief and talk to him on this chapter. He says Paul was only justified when he wrote Rom. 7, and was trying to serve two masters, and could not do that which was good, but that in the eighth chapter he has been sanctified and this carnal mind has been taken away. Now, I do not under- stand the chapter as well as I would like. He says: "I am carnal, sold under sin." Again, he says: "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I myself with the mind serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." I shall feel greatly obliged if you will write through the Gospel Advocate on this chapter. In the first place, your man states, not what the word of God says, but simply a human opinion ; simply a theory, a doctrine of man's wisdom. Neither the seventh nor the eighth chapter of Romans, nor any other chapter in the New Testament, contains either the language or the senti- ment he uttered. Paul teaches grand lessons both in the seventh and eighth chapters of Romans ; and the beauty of it is, it was not simply Paul as a man that did that teach- ing, but the Holy Spirit did it through him; and what the Holy Spirit says should be an end to the matter. In the seventh chapter of Romans, Paul was defending the law of Moses as a righteous law, and that it was not the fault of the law that people sinned under it, but the fault was in the people indulging their fleshly propensities that made them sinners. He also shows that Christians are "dead to the law by the body of Christ ;" for it is true that Christ took the law "out of the way, nailing it to his cross." (Col. 2: 14, 15.) Christians, therefore, are entirely free from 550 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, the law of Moses, and this is what Paul thanks God for in the close of the chapter. It is certainly a great blessing that Christian Jews are freed from the incumbrances of the law and are free to serve God in newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter, the law of Moses. Hence, Paul triumphantly says in verse 1 of chapter 8: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." To walk after the flesh is to yield to our fleshly impulses and lead a mere fleshly life. To walk after the Spirit is to live as the Spirit of God directs us to live in the New Testament; and for Christians to do this is scriptural sanctification, which is to lead a holy life. There is no sanctification taught in the New Testament that takes a man's fleshly propensities out of him so that he will never be tempted to do wrong. The passions of anger, lust, envy, jealousy, and all such like passions, stay in Christians ; and God makes it the duty of Christians to conquer these passions, to keep them under control of the teaching of the Spirit of God, through the word -of truth. Jesus prayed his Father to sanctify all his followers through the truth — that is, through the word of truth. (John 17: 17.) The only way in which the word of God can sactify men, which is to make them holy, is to induce them to obey the truth, to live as the word of truth directs people to live. Hence, Paul was just as holy, just as much sanctified, when he wrote the seventh chapter of Romans as he was when he wrote the eighth chapter. But your man says Paul was only justified when he wrote the seventh chapter and sanctified when he wrote the eighth. The word justified means one that has obeyed the gospel and is still living as the gospel directs. If a man fails to go on and live as the word of God directs, he ceases to be a justified man. Paul was living the Christian life as faith- fully in the seventh chapter as he was in the eighth, and he teaches this principle as plainly and strongly throughout the eighth chapter as language can express anything. In it he says: "Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." (Verses 12- 14.) To be led by the Spirit- of God is to be led by the teaching of the Spirit, through the apostles, as written in the New Testament. The Lord intends for Christians to so study the teaching of the Spirit and get their hearts so filled with it as to enable them to keep down fleshly passions BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 551 and impulses — that is, to "mortify . . . your members which are upon the earth : fornication, uncleanness, inordi- nate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry : for which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience." (Col. 3: 5, 6.) To live this sort of a life is the sanctification of the New Testament, and nothing else is. Even Paul himself had to fight the im- pulses of the flesh during his whole life. He says : "I there- fore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: but I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." (1 Cor. 9: 26, 27.) So Paul never got rid of his fleshly pas- sions, only as he kept them under through the teaching of the word. This is the sort of sanctification all Christians have to practice if they would be saved. The New Testa- ment says nothing about a sanctification that people get in a moment of time, that kills out all tendency and tempta- tion to sin. All Christians have to fight against temptation and sin, like Paul, to the end of life, or be lost at last. Your friend, therefore, needs to read the chapters he names — not through the opinions of men, but simply study the meaning of the words as they stand and apply them accordingly. If he will do this, he may understand the truths taught therein. But he will not find what he says in these chapters. The eighth chapter shows what sancti- fication really is by showing Christians how to live the Christian life. To actively and devotedly do the will of God on earth is sanctification — that is, it makes people holy; hence to sanctify people is to keep them doing the will of God till they die. ROMANS, NINTH CHAPTER. Brother Lipscomb : The ninth chapter of Romans I cannot under- stand. The first part of the chapter through verse 5 I do under- stand, but the rest of this chapter I do not, and am very anxious to have it explained. Kindly explain it for me. To explain the ninth chapter of Romans is a lengthy question for one answer. Perhaps we can make a few sug- gestions that will be helpful in explaining it. It is not so difficult as some other chapters. Paul explains the rejec- tion of the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles in connec- tion with the promises made to Abraham that his children should be the people of God. He begins this chapter with the declaration of his own personal love for the children of Israel. He claimed his love for them was so intense that he felt he could wish himself accursed from Jesus if thereby 552 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, he could save them from condemnation. Verses 3-5 tell that Jews had been called to positions of honor and trust. But this failure of the Jews to receive Jesus as the Lord was not an indication of God's plan of saving men. He declared to Moses his purpose of saving of the family of Abraham whom he would and condemning whom he would. So it was no part of the original purpose of God to save all the children of Abraham, but only those who complied with the law of God. He refers to God's choosing Jacob and reject- ing Esau. God selected Jacob and rejected Esau despite the will of Isaac or the running of Esau to gain the bless- ing. God blessed according to his own will the one he es- teemed worthy of his blessing. So, too, God had chosen Pharaoh to raise him up before the people to show to the world how he could curse those who sinned against him. If God does as he will, who shall complain? As the potter has power from the same lump to make one vessel to honor, and of the same lump of clay spoiled to make another unto dishonor, so God from the Jews might raise some unto honor and others of the marred clay unto dishonor. So he blessed some of the Jews and proscribed the others to a destruction of wrath. The faithful Jews were kept as an example of blessing; the unfaithful ones, for a curse. It had been the part of the prophecy of Hosea that the Gen- tiles, who had not been called the people of God, would be so called. Isaiah told that the Jews, as a body, would reject Jesus ; and had it not been for the remnant left, they would have been as Sodom and Gomorrah. If these things worked thus, the Gentiles, who had not followed after right- eousness, had attained to it ; but Isaac, that had followed after it, had failed to attain to the righteousness of the law. The Jews failed to attain to it because they sought it not by faith, but by the works of the law of Moses. The Gentiles gained the righteousness because they sought it through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. He quotes in conclusion the proph- ecy of Isaiah that he would put a stone of stumbling in the way — Jesus Christ, the Lord. At him all who failed to be- lieve would stumble, but those who believed would not be put to shame. The next chapter begins with Paul's prayer for his peo- ple, who had a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge ; and they, in their ignorance of God's way of justifying men, went about to establish a way of their own that brought destruction and wrath upon themselves. It seems to me with these suggestions we may understand the chapter. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 553 Brother Lipscomb : Please explain Rom. 9, especially verses 16, 21. It is difficult to comment on the whole chapter. He be- gins by telling that all the children of Abraham were not accepted children of God. Only a portion of them were of the family of Israel, were children of God. Only Jacob's children of Isaac were his. In verse 14 he tells there is no unrighteousness with God because some of his chosen peo- ple fall away and sin. He refers to the call of Jacob, to Esau's running, to Isaac's choosing Esau; yet, despite Esau's running and Isaac's desire, God chose Jacob. The calling was not as man willed nor as Esau desired. He illustrates God's calling and controlling men by the way he did Pharaoh. He did not make Pharaoh wicked, but he raised him up a wicked man to show his power to destroy the wicked to the world. So God hardens those he will who are wicked to destroy them. On those that are good he shows mercy. He has mercy on the good, he hardens those that are wicked unto their own destruction. Why should any find fault? He visits on each class what he chooses and deserves. Shall any ask of God : "Why did you make me thus?" The potter has the right to make of the clay such vessels as it is suited to make. He may of the same family choose a part to ruin, another part to salvation. God has long borne with the Jews, and now with the Gen- tiles — borne with their sins ; and what if he wishes to pun- ish them for it? So he treats the world now. ROMANS, ELEVENTH CHAPTER. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: If you please, at your leisure, explain some of the eleventh chapter of Romans. I confess the whole chapter seems dark to me. It was the wish of Paul that we might understand it. He says: "I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant," etc. (Verse 25.) I will mention a few passages: 1. Did God blind Israel and prevent them from obtaining the very thing the elect received? (Verse 7.) 2. How was their table made a snare and a stiimblingblock? (Verse 9.) 3. Is the first fruit here the first members of the Christian church, or is the allusion to the Savior? (Verse 16.) 4. What are the two olive trees used to represent? Are they used to represent the Jewish and Gentile nations? Or was the Jewish church called the good olive tree and the Gentiles the wild olive tree? Some say the Jewish church is the good olive tree and the Christian church is the same, with a little modification, and say the Jews fell on account of unbelief. They were born in that kingdom and fell for the want of faith. How are they grafted in again? The great trouble regarding this eleventh chapter of Romans, together with many other passages of similar im- port, is on account of the notions extant regarding eternal election and reprobation. When we first get the idea in 554 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, our minds that God from all eternity has elected a certain part of the human race to be saved and the other part to be lost, and then read such chapters as the above, we can find many things that will confirm the idea ; but when we read of election in the Bible, we are not to understand that it refers to something done or decreed in the mind of God before the world was, but something done from time to time among men through the means and instrumentalities that God has established. God has established the gospel of Christ to save men, and every one that obeys the gospel, whether Jew or Gentile, is elected by it, and every one that rejects it is reprobated by it. When the gospel was established, all dis- tinction between Jew and Gentile was done away, and all stood upon precisely the same footing before God. The Jew in the gospel of Christ has no advantage over the Gen- tile. All can be saved alike by obeying the gospel, and all will be condemned alike for disobeying it. All, both Jews and Gentiles, who obey the gospel of Christ are elected by it, and thereby become a part of God's elect people; and none can ever be the elect of God who disobey the gospel, and those who imagine that they are among the elect of God and are at the same time living in disobedience to the gos- pel are wholly mistaken. Verse 7 reads thus: "What then? Israel hath not ob- tained that which he seeketh for ; but the election hath ob- tained it, and the rest were blinded." The election spoken of here were those who embraced the gospel and became Christians, such as the three thousand on the day of Pen- tecost and others who obeyed the gospel as preached by the apostles. The commission of Christ to his apostles as re- corded by Mark is a full explanation of this matter. Christ said, "Preach the gospel to every creature," both to Jews and Gentiles, adding: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." This is sufficient to explain every passage in the New Tes- tament regarding election. The election spoken of in this verse 7 included those among the Jews that believed and were baptized, and the blinded ones spoken of were those who believed not after hearing the gospel. The word ren- dered blinded literally means to harden. Then the ques- tion is : How were they hardened ? On this there is a world of error arising, from the idea of eternal reprobation. God from eternity never hardened anybody. Men are not hard- ened by the direct power of God upon them, any more than they are made Christians by direct power. Men are hard- ened by hearing the truth and resisting it until it has no effect upon them. When men hear the gospel and yield BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 555 their hearts and lives to it, they are softened by it ; but, on the other hand, when men hear the gospel and refuse to yield their hearts and lives to it, they are hardened by it. When men become thus hardened by the gospel, they are condemned of God. That is just what occurred among the Jews in the time of the apostles. Some of them al- lowed their hearts to be softened and won by the gospel, while the masses of them allowed their hearts to be hard- ened ; and on this account the masses of the Jews were re- jected, destroyed, and dispersed among the nations; and, unfortunately, they still remain in this hardened condition. This leads to the explanation of verse 9, where their table was to become a snare and a trap unto them. The table they set by rejecting Christ and clinging to Moses, and upon which they expected the blessings of God to be placed, sim- ply became the trap in which they were caught and en- gulfed in ruin; and just so long as they remain in unbelief, nothing but ruin awaits them. The same principle is true regarding the Gentiles, who for other considerations reject the gospel. These are strong figures, and yet very plain if we interpret them by plain passages elsewhere on the same subject. The first fruit spoken of in verse 16 are those among the Jews who obeyed the gospel when it was first preached to them. Paul had just spoken of the casting away of the Jews as a nation because of their disobedience to God in breaking the covenant or law of Moses, on account of which they were put down upon a level with the Gentiles. But as many of them as became Christians, which are here called the first fruits, became holy again, became God's chosen people in Christ ; and the whole lump of them might have become holy, as the original root (Abraham) was, who was the father or original root of the Jewish nation ; and the whole lump might yet become holy if they would obey the gospel and become the followers of the Lamb. As to the two olive trees, I do not know of anything we are to understand by them, only that they are used here to represent the dealings of God with the Jewish and Gentile nations. When the Jews disobeyed God through the law, he rejected them, broke them off from his favor, and re- garded them with no more favor than the Gentiles ; but when any of them would embrace the gospel, they were en- grafted back into God's favor again; while the Gentiles, who had not during the law enjoyed the favor of God, could also, by the same process, be engrafted into the favor of God through the gospel of Christ. When the Jews, who during the law were God's favored people, rejected Christ, 556 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, they were broken off from their own olive tree, but may now, by obedience to the gospel, be grafted into the favor of God in common with the Jews, and thus Jews and Gen- tiles become one — become one olive tree in the vineyard of the Lord, in the church of God. We become bewildered by these figures when we under- stand them as something independent, without reference to the connection in which they are placed and the things in- tended to be illustrated by them; but by taking them in their proper connection and allowing them to illustrate the matters under consideration where they are used, they be- come very plain. Most of the letter to the Romans is taken up in showing that the Jewish nation, as such, was rejected for its disobedience, that the law was brought to an end, and that now all, both Jews and Gentiles, can be adopted, grafted into the family of God by obedience to the gospel of the Son of God. With this one leading idea before our minds, all the figures that are used as illustrative of this leading idea are perfectly, plain. E. G. S. SABBATH, THE QUESTION OF. This article has been sent us from Texas for review. As the Adventists in various sections of the country are exciting some interest, we publish and review it. Nearly all professing Christians observe some day as a Sabbath unto the Lord. Some keep the day which God appointed; but most all, doubtless conscientiously, rest on Sunday. Well, it is presumed that all who read this tract are interested to know which day is the right one to keep; for certainly there cannot be two Sundays, and so we will present a few facts about Sabbath and Sunday. Will you look at them carefully? Take your Bibles and examine the texts of scripture quoted. Here are the facts referred to: 1. Facts About the Sabbath. God made the Sabbath at creation. (Gen. 2: 2, 3; Ex. 20: 11.) It was observed before the law was given on Sinai. (Ex. 16: 23-30.) The command to observe it is associated with nine moral precepts, which are binding upon all men during all time. It is placed in the bosom of the unchangeable law. (Ex. 20: 8-11.) It is a sign between God and his people. (Ex. 31: 17; Ezek. 20: 20.) Wrath came upon ancient Israel for breaking the Sabbath. (Neh. 13: 15-18.) If the Sabbath had been kept, Jerusalem would not have been de- stroyed. (Jer. 17: 24, 25.) Prophecy foretells a reform on the Sabbath. (Isa. 58: 12-14.) The Sabbath will exist in the new earth. (Isa. 66.) Christ observed the Sabbath. (Mark 1: 21.) He called himself its Lord. (Mark 2: 28.) It was his custom to preach on that day. (Luke 4.) The disciples rested on the Sabbath while Christ was lying in the grave. (Luke 23: 56.) BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 557 Matthew, Mark, and Luke, who wrote after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, spoke familiarly of the Sabbath as an existing institution. (Matt. 24: 20; 28: 1; Mark 16: 1; Luke 23: 56.) It was Paul's manner to make the Sabbath a preaching day. (Acts 17: 2.) The Gentile believers also observed the Sabbath. (Acts 13: 42, 44.) Paul preached by a riverside, where there was no synagogue, on the Sabbath. (Acts 16: 13.) He reasoned in the synagogue at Corinth every Sabbath. (Acts 18: 4.) He continued there a year and six months (seventy-eight Sab- baths), teaching the word of God. (Acts 18: 11.) Finally, in the last mention of it in the Bible, it is called the Lord's day. (Rev. 1: 10.) (Compare this text with Ex. 20: 10; Isa. 58: 13; Mark 2: 28.) 2. Facts About the First Day op the Week, or Sunday. Christ rose from the dead on that day. (Mark 16: 9; Matt. 28: 1; Mark 16: 2; John 20: 1.) (But he did not say that it was, there- fore, the Sabbath.) The women brought spices to the grave of the Savior on that day. (Luke 24: 1.) (Which they would not do on the Sabbath — see Luke 23: 56.) Christ appeared to his disciples on that day, the doors being shut for fear of the Jews. (John 20: 19.) (They were not assembled to keep the Sabbath, but had closed the doors for personal safety.) Paul once preached on the evening of the first day (Acts 20: 7), corresponding with our Saturday night. (But the next morning, an- swering to our Sunday morning, he continued his journey toward Jerusalem, nine hundred miles distant!) The Corinthians were commanded to lay by a collection for the saints on the first day. (1 Cor. 16: 2.) (This might be money or goods. It was not a public donation, but a private setting apart.) The foregoing, dear reader, are all the texts which speak of the first day of the week. There are just eight of them. But what do they prove? Nothing at all in favor of Sunday. Carefully exam- ined, they prove the reverse. The Bible tells us that "sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4.) But what law do we transgress when we work on Sun- day? If the reader will find a text which says, "Thou shalt do no work on the first day of the week;" or, "Remember Sunday, to keep it holy;" or its equivalent, then will his Sunday observance, in place of God's Sabbath, stand the test of the judgment; otherwise it will not. Will you consider this point? The Savior says: "Blessed are they that do his [i. e., God the Father's ten] commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." (Rev. 20: 14.) But where is that commandment that speaks about Sunday? It is not in the Bible, but it is in the Roman Catholic catechisms. Read your Bibles through a hundred times with reference to this subject, and you will each time become more and more convinced of the truthfulness of the following notable facts: 1. There is no divine command for Sunday observance. 2. There is not the least hint of a Sunday institution. 3. Christ never changed God's Sabbath to Sunday. 4. He never observed Sunday as the Sabbath. 5. The apostles never kept Sunday for the Sabbath. 6. There is no prophecy that Sunday would ever take the place of the Sabbath. 7. The word Sunday never occurs in the Bible. 558 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 8. Neither God, Christ, angels, nor inspired men have ever said one word in favor of Sunday as a holy day. These are the facts in the case in regard to the Sabbath and Sun- day, and it is hoped the reader will search the Bible to see whether these things are so. (See Acts 17: 11.) Again let me inquire: Which day do you keep, and why? Bible Reasons for the Seventh Day and the Claims of First Day Contrasted. God claimed the seventh day as his own in many scriptures and at many different times. He never so claimed the first day, but gave it to man for labor. He blessed and sanctified the seventh day. He neither blessed nor sanctified the first day. He commanded that the seventh day be kept holy. He never com- manded to keep the first day. There is but one commandment in the Bible for a weekly Sabbath, and that says the seventh day. God uttered fearful threatenings against those who profane the seventh day. He has spoken nothing against laboring on the first day. He has given great arid precious promises to those who keep holy the seventh day. He has not spoken one word of promise or blessing for keeping the first day. Everything that is necessary to give importance to the day — that is calculated to induce a proper observance of the day — is produced in favor of the seventh day. But nothing of this kind can be produced in favor of the first day — no sanctity, no commandment, no penalty, no blessing. The foregoing article is published as a tract by the Sev- enth-Day Baptists, or Adventists. We frequently think it best to pass these things without notice. They are tempo- rary and evanescent excitements that carry away those who are unstable in character and unacquainted with the Bible. Those who think it smart to adopt something new, for a little while adopt these theories ; but, owing to the ma- terial that go into them, they are short-lived. We recently came in contact with some of these ; and although they had produced a temporary excitement, we found one discourse, with a ten-minutes' reply to a review of it, sufficient to sat- isfy all hearers of the falsity of the position. We are not surprised that our pedobaptist friends are carried away with the position, but that an intelligent dis- ciple should be seems to us strange. Pedobaptists go to the Jewish covenant for their church membership. They give others license to go there for their day of worship. Indeed, they lay themselves under obligation to observe not only the Sabbath, but every point of the Jewish law. In the first place, then, the question comes up: What are you keeping? The Sabbath? If so, our Seventh-Day friends are right. God never authorized any day but the seventh to be observed as a Sabbath day. He never changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week. No day is recognized in the Bible, or has ever BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 559 been recognized by God, as the Sabbath, except the seventh day. If a man intends to observe the Sabbath day, then, he must observe the seventh day. He must do it, too, ac- cording to the law concerning the Sabbath day as given from Sinai. Those who observe the first day should not do it as an observance of the Sabbath. What position, then, did the Sabbath occupy in the will of God? It is said: "On the seventh day God ended his work which he had made ; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his works which God created and made." (Gen. 2: 2, 3.) But there is not the least intimation that it was ever commanded or appointed as a day of observance until given to the Jews through Moses. The first occasion of its mention in the Bible as a Sabbath for man is Ex. 16 : 22. On the occasion of the giving of the manna to the Israelites in the wilderness, Moses commanded to gather for every man a homer. On the sixth day they gathered twice as much as upon any other day. The rulers reported it to Moses. "And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the Holy Sab- bath unto the Lord: bake that which ye will bake to-day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning. And they laid it up till the morning, as Moses bade: and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein. And Moses said, Eat that to-day; for to-day is a Sabbath unto the Lord: to-day ye shall not find it in the field. Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the Sab- bath, in it there shall be none." The style of command, the manner in which the double portion is spoken of as a surprise, all show that the Sabbath idea was altogether new. There is no intimation of its being commanded or in any way made known to or observed by the Jewish peo- ple. They had not been habituated to cooking their food upon the sixth day for the seventh, so Moses explained it as something wholly new to them ; yet the human family at this time had been on earth over twenty-five hundred years. This was given about thirty days before reaching Sinai. The laws embodied in the covenant were gradually through Moses revealed to the Jews, that they might consider of them, practice them for a while, that they might be pre- pared to enter intelligently into the covenant when the time for its ratification should come. Here was the first reve- lation of the Sabbath to be embodied in the covenant whose ratification would soon take place at Sinai. This was pre- 560 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, liminary to its ratification. The commands were all given to the Jewish people; then God in the darkness and thun- ders of Sinai ratifies the covenant. The Ten Command- ments were given to the Jewish people, written upon the tables of stone and delivered to Moses. Among these is the command: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." (Ex. 20: 8.) The command is frequently repeated by Moses in the repetitions of the Jewish law, with various specifications as to the manner of observing it, together with the other commandments. These Ten Commandments constitute the great leading constitutional principles of God's government of the Jews. The other commands are the precepts and statutes directing how these constitutional provisions shall be carried out. It is sometimes said by our Seventh-Day friends that these Ten Commandments are everlasting. They say they were in force previous to Moses and are binding through all time. Neh. 9: 13, 14 says: "Thou earnest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good stat- utes and commandments : and madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant." Although revealed a few days previous to Sinai as preliminary to it and ratified and confirmed to the Jews then, it is said by Nehemiah to have been given then, to have been then made known to the Jews. It could not have been known to them previous to that time. Moses, speaking of covenants, says : "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day." (Deut. 5: 2, 3.) Then the Ten Commandments are repeated as embodying the covenant made with them that was not made with their fathers. The command to keep the Sabbath holy was one of the obligations made with them, but not with their fathers. The Sabbath had its beginning incontestably with the law of Moses ; was never given otherwise than through these Ten Commandments written on stone and given through Moses as the mediator. The object for which the Sabbath was given to the Jewish people is told in Ex. 31: 12-14. Ezekiel (20: 12) says: "Moreover also I gave them my Sab- baths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them." In verse 21 he says: "Notwithstanding the children rebelled against me: . . . they polluted my Sabbaths: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish my an- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 561 ger against them in the wilderness. " God sanctified the Jewish people as his peculiar people, and the Sabbath was instituted to be a sign between the Jews and God. If a sign between them and God, it could not be binding upon others than the Jews and those who might be adopted into the Jewish family. It could be binding no longer than they remained the sanctified people of God. None during the Jewish age could acceptably come to God, save by identifying themselves with God's sanctified people. The Sabbath was not in force previous to the giv- ing of the law of Moses. It was never given to others than the Jewish people. It could not continue in force longer than the law of which it is a part is in force. "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law." (Rom. 3 : 19.) The things contained in the law cannot be binding upon those not un- der the law. Now, there can be but two questions connected with the Sabbath. First, is the covenant of which it constituted a portion now in force? If so, the Sabbath is in force. Sec- ond, has it been adopted into the new covenant which su- perseded the old? If both these questions by the Scrip- tures are answered in the negative, beyond a doubt the Sab- bath is not now in force. There was a promise made to Abraham of an inheritance and a seed through whom that inheritance could be enjoyed. This promise was embodied in a prospective covenant with Abraham. That covenant was confirmed of God in Christ. The fulfillment of that covenant with Abraham was post- poned on account of the transgression of the children of Abraham. On account of this transgression the covenant embodying the law given from Sinai intervened. But the intervention of that law could not annul the promise. It postponed its fulfillment — or, rather, the transgression of the people postponed the fulfillment of the promise, and the law was introduced to train and qualify and prepare the people for the fulfillment of the promise. Paul (Gal. 3: 17-24) says: "This I say, that the covenant, that was con- firmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inherit- ance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it [the law] was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. . . . Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring 562 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, us unto Christ." This shows that the law given at Sinai, four hundred and thirty years after the promise to Abra- ham, was never intended to be permanent. It was added, or introduced, as a schoolmaster to train the transgressors for Christ's coming. This change from the covenant of Sinai was frequently foretold by prophets during the ex- istence of the Sinaitic covenant. Jeremiah (31: 31-33) says: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah : not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt ; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith the Lord : but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel ; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts ; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." Paul quotes this as being fulfilled in the new testament, or Christian dispensation. It is clear that the then existing, or Sinaitic, covenant must be superseded by a more per- fect covenant. Paul says that covenant was then intro- duced by Christ, the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham. Jeremiah (32: 40) says: "I will make an ever- lasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me." (See also Jer. 33: 14.) Isaiah (55: 3) says: "I will make an ever- lasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." Ezekiel (37: 26) says: "I will make a covenant of peace with them ; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them : and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore." These promises of a new covenant which should be everlasting were made from eight to ten hundred years after the Mo- saic covenant had been in force. They plainly imply that the then existing covenant given at Sinai was not everlast- ing. It must be superseded by a better one, in which the promise to Abraham would be fulfilled. But a covenant made with God must be fulfilled before humanity can be re- leased from the penalties attached to it. No human being under the law had fulfilled its requirements until Christ came. He lived in perfect accord with the law, fulfilled all of its requirements to the last iota. In him was com- pleted all the promises ; so he alone could take it out of the way. He came to fulfill the law, comply with its require- ments, and not to destroy it — break or annul it before it had been fulfilled. When he had fulfilled it, he might set it BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 563 aside — supersede it with a purer, higher, more perfect law. When he had fulfilled the requirements of the law, he gave the great constitutional principles of the covenant that must supersede the old one. These fundamental princi- ples of the new covenant are contained in the Sermon on the Mount, as those of the old were contained in the Ten Commandments. After Christ's recognition as the Son of God, he, of course, came in contact with the Sabbath and its observ- ance. He taught on the Sabbath; so he did on the mar- ket days and at the market places. He taught whenever and wherever the people were assembled. Connected with those teachings, he did many works which violated the sanc- tity of the Sabbath. The first mention we have of the Sab- bath in connection with Christ is Matt. 12: 1. He went through the corn (wheat) fields on the Sabbath. His dis- ciples began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat. The Pharisees complained that they broke the law. He asked them: "Have ye not read what David did, when he was ahungered, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. . . . For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day." Some affirm the Savior did not break the Sabbath law as given by Moses, but only corrected an idolatrous reverence for it; but none who will read the sabbatic law of Moses, in which none were permitted to even kindle a fire on the Sabbath (Ex. 34 : 3) , and the stoning of the man to death for gathering sticks upon the Sabbath day (Num. 15 : 32) , can doubt that the gathering of the corn was a vio- lation of that law. The Savior justifies his disciples, not on the ground that it was not a violation of the law, but gives two instances in which the law was violated and the vio- lators held blameless. The sanctity of the temple service justified the profaning of the Sabbath day. He then adds : "Here is one greater than the temple." If the demands of the temple service could set aside the observance of the Sabbath, much more could he, with more authority, do it. Then he asserts that he is Lord, or Master, of the Sabbath. He has the right to control it, to set it aside, to abrogate its sanctity. Mark (2: 27, 28), in giving the same record, adds: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the 564 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, Sabbath." That is, the Sabbath was ordained for man's good, not man as a slave of the Sabbath- The Son of man, having come for the good of man, has the right and power to set aside the sanctity of the Sabbath when the good of man demands it. He healed a man on the Sabbath, and announced it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath day. (Mark 1.) He again healed on the Sabbath day. (Mark 6.) He loosed the woman from her bond on the Sabbath, and the ruler of the synagogue complained. (Luke 13.) He healed the dropsy on the Sabbath, and was watched and accused as a breaker of the law. (Luke 14.) He healed the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda, and told him to take up his bed and walk, contrary to the sabbatic law. Jesus said in response to their childings : "My Father work- eth hitherto [on the Sabbath], and I work." (John 5.) He healed the man born blind on the Sabbath day, and ex- cited the fury of the Jews thereby. (John 9.) Indeed, every record of his contact with the Sabbath snowed him violating the Sabbath law, trampling upon the feelings of the Jews in regard to the day, asserting his superiority to it and his authority over it, and by every act of his weaning those who regarded him as a teacher sent from God from their reverence for the sacredness of the day, thus prepar- ing them for its abrogation when the law should be finally and fully abolished. That law for whose complete aboli- tion he was thus preparing his disciples was taken out of the way, nailed to the cross, in the person of Him who had perfectly fulfilled it and of which he was the full embodi- ment. He embodied the law in his own person. It died with and in him — was buried. He gave life to the new covenant in his resurrection from the dead. Was this covenant of Sinai abolished by Christ? The Jewish prejudices were strong; Jewish pride, long cher- ished, was hard to overcome; and from the infancy of the new church the question was one of hot controversy : "Shall the law of Moses be kept?" Some of Judaizing tendency insisted that all Christians should be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. The observance of the Sabbath was part of this law. Paul and Barnabas were sent up to the apos- tles for a decision of the question. After much discussion, Peter told of the first conversion of the Gentiles through his preaching, and asked : "Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" (Acts 15: 10.) That yoke was the Jewish law given through Moses at Sinai. They could not bear it. Even David violated the sabbatic law. "The priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blame- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 565 less." It was too heavy for them to bear. The apostles and elders, under the direction of the Spirit, wrote to the Gentiles: "As we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment." (Acts 15: 24.) To require the converts to keep the law of Moses was to subvert their souls. The law of Moses was the law from Sinai. The question still troubled the churches. Paul wrote to the Romans : "By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight." (Rom. 3 : 20.) "Where- fore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead. . . . But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held." (Rom. 7: 4-6.) To the Corinthians, Paul said : "Ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God ; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart." (2 Cor. 3: 3.) The new covenant was to be written on the heart, not on tables of stone, as were the Ten Commandments. The contrast is still kept up in verses 6-11 : "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament [or covenant] ; not of the letter, but of the spirit. . . . But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance ; which glory was to be done away: how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of con- demnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. . . . For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remain- eth is glorious." Thus the Holy Spirit calls the law or cov- enant written and engraven on stones a "ministration of death" — a ministration of condemnation — and says it is done away; in contrast with the new covenant, which he calls the "ministration of the spirit," of righteousness, which is more glorious and remains in its glory. Now, if the ministration written in stones is done away, the Sab- bath is done away with it. The Jewish prejudice was so strong that Peter, who had opened the church to the Gentiles, and Barnabas, one of the apostles to the Gentiles, were carried away with it and refused to eat with the Gentile converts at Antioch. Paul said to Peter : "If thou, being a Jew, livest after the man- ner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest 566 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" Peter, although a Jew, did not keep the Jewish law. He adds: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law [of Si- nai], but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we [Jews] have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." (Gal. 2: 14-16.) Again: "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are writ- ten in the book of the law to do them." But no human be- ing could live in faultless obedience to the law ; hence, every one was cursed by the law. He adds: "But that no man is justified by the law [of Moses] in the sight of God, it is evident : for, The just shall live by faith." "Christ hath re- deemed us from the curse of the law : . . . for it is written [in the law of Moses], Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree : that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ," not through the law of Moses. "And this I say, that the covenant, that was con- firmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the in- heritance be of the law, it is no more of promise : but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made." It was not to continue, then, longer than the seed (Christ) should come. "Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid : for if there had been a law given, which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." Because the law of Moses brought the knowl- edge of sin, but could not give life, it is called "the ministra- tion of death, written in stones." "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster" — the law. (See Gal. 3: 10- 25.) Gal. 4 represents the Jews as being minors in bond- age, or slaves under the law; in Christ they become sons and heirs. In reference to their desire to turn back to the law of Sinai, he asks: "How turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?" "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free- woman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 567 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two cove- nants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." Agar and her child represent the law, or covenant, at Sinai in Ten Command- ments. The other covenant is that of Jerusalem through Christ. "Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son : for the son of the bond- woman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free." Then the law from Sinai — the ministra- tion of death written on stones — is cast out. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, coming forth from Jeru- salem, is in force. The one cannot be heir with the other. We (Christians) are not children of the law from Sinai, but of the faith through Christ. Paul admonishes them to "stand fast therefore in the lib- erty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not en- tangled again with the yoke of bondage" — the law of Moses. "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised [be under the law of Moses], Christ shall profit you nothing. . . . Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law ; ye are fallen from grace." (Gal. 5: 1-4.) To seek justification by the law is to turn back from Christ. Christ profits them nothing. To seek justification by the law of Moses is to fall from grace. Hence the apostle wrote the Gentile converts that those who taught them to observe the law of Moses subverted their souls. This desire to go back to Judaism was the troublesome question in the days of the apostles. In almost every let- ter it is the main question. To the Ephesians, Paul says: "For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us ; hav- ing abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of com- mandments contained in ordinances ; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace." (Eph. 2 : 14, 15.) The "law of commandments" were the Ten Commandments embodied and exemplified in the ordinances of the Old Tes- tament. This was abolished, and the Sabbath day with it. To the Colossians, Paul said: "Blotting out the hand- writing of ordinances that was against us, which was con- trary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 568 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sab- bath days : which are a shadow of things to come ; but the body is of Christ." (Col. 2: 14-17.) Here he says that law was contrary to us, was against us ; that he took it out of the way, abolished it; and especially enumerates as the things which we are not to observe "the Sabbath days." The letter to the Hebrews is largely taken up with a discussion of the two covenants, Paul maintaining the in- sufficiency of the covenant from Sinai, in its priests, its laws, its sacrifices, its promises, its stability, its inability to make its servants perfect as pertained to the conscience, or to bring remission of sins, and in its mediator. He says Moses' law was but a shadow of heavenly things — but pat- terns of things to come. He says of Christ: "He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant [at Sinai] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. ... In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decay eth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." (Heb. 8: 6-13.) "It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heav- ens should be purified with these [bulls and goats] ; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these." (Heb. 9: 23.) "Having therefore, brethren, bold- ness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, through his flesh ; and hav- ing a high priest over the house of God ; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering." (Heb. 10: 19-23.) This is an exhortation not to go back to the Jewish law. He concludes this discussion to the Hebrews with the state- ment: "Ye are not come unto the mount [Sinai] that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest [the giving of the law of Ten Commandments in tables of stone] .... But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 569 the mediator of the new covenant. . . . See that ye re- fuse not him [Jesus] that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him [Moses] that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven." (Heb. 12: 18-25.) The whole drift and purpose of the letter to the Hebrews was to call the Jews away from Moses and Sinai as but inefficient earthly types and direct them to Zion, Jerusa- lem, and Jesus, the mediator, and the new and everlasting covenant of which he is the mediator. There is no truth more plainly taught in the Scriptures, none to which more space is devoted in the New Testament, than the affirma- tion of the insufficiency of the law of Sinai, its abrogation, and the fact that we are under the law of Christ, not of Moses. The tendency in the age of the apostles was to go back to Judaism. The apostles warned that to do so was to subvert their souls. Paul called it a "ministration of death engraved in stones." It was contrary to us; it was against us. In going back to it, we went to the weak and beggarly elements of bondage; we "fell from grace;" and hence Jesus took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross. It was thus not because the law was sinful, but because man could not live up to it ; it gave him insufficient help ; and whosoever offended in one point was guilty of all. The tendency of the religious world, despite all this warning, is back to Judaism. Many go there for church membership ; some, for the day of worship. Both are equally inconsist- ent ; both go away from Christ. The Mosaic-Sinaitic law has been repealed, of which the Sabbath constituted a part. It is not in force by virtue of the law given on Mount Sinai. Sometimes in human government, forms and laws that are adapted to one condition of society are not adapted to another. They change their constitutions. But in their changes many provisions of the old constitution are still good for the new. Those that are good are readopted into the new. We were once under the government of Great Britain. Our fathers concluded that that government was oppressive against them, contrary to them. They changed the government, but there were many excellent commands or laws of the old government that still were good for them. These were enacted into the constitution and laws which superseded the British constitution. So when God saw that his temporary law of Judaism was contrary to his peo- ple and children, he changed the law — superseded it with a perfect and everlasting covenant. But in that old cove- nant were many excellent statutes that God saw were still 570 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, good for his people. These he reenacted in his new consti- tution, or covenant. We are under obligations to obey many of the commands of the Old Testament, not because they are in the Old Testament, but because they are reen- acted in the New. We are under the new covenant. Has the observance of the Sabbath been reenacted into the new covenant ? We have found the Savior from the beginning of his min- istry asserted his authority over the day, refused to be gov- erned by the laws of the Sabbath, and continually endeav- ored to wean the people from their attachment to its ob- servance. Not once did he or an inspired apostle ever, by precept or example, encourage the observance of the Sab- bath. He taught the people on the Sabbath because they met together on the Sabbath. So did he on the market and feast days. He went to the people wherever they were met. There is not a word in the New Testament encour- aging the observance of the Sabbath day. The old covenant, which contained the law of the Sabbath, was made with the Jewish people. The Sabbath was never commanded to any people, save the Jewish people and those who became identi- fied with them. All the rest of the Ten Commandments were readopted into the new covenant, but the command concerning the Sabbath never was, by precept or example, in any manner enforced. When Jesus and the Holy Spirit left it out, who dare place it in? Jesus Christ buried the Sabbath, with the old law, in the grave with him. He came forth on the first day. His res- urrection became the central point of interest in the new covenant. He was "declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrec- tion from the dead." A new spiritual creation is begun. Disciples who had given up all for lost are begotten "again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." The old law is taken out of the way; a new or- der begins. On the first day on which he is raised he se- cures the meeting of his disciples and meets with them. He lets a whole week intervene in which he fails to meet with them ; and after eight days, which means the eighth, he meets them on the next first day. There is surely some- thing signified in these meetings on the first day of the week and on none other. Other meetings of the Savior took place before his ascension ; the times are not given. His was not a continual sojourn with his disciples. It is not improbable that his meetings with them were only on the first day of the week. He ascended on high, and on the BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 571 Pentecost following the Holy Spirit descended to consti- tute the first mother and model of churches of Christ here on earth. This day of the descent of the Holy Spirit by computation is easily determined to be the first day of the week. The Savior then consecrated this day by his meeting with them and sending the Holy Spirit to his followers. It was the universal custom thenceforward for the disci- ples of Christ to meet on the first day of the week. The apostles and others still preached to the Jews when they met on the Sabbath day, as they did on every occasion of public assemblage; but they never appointed, nor is there the least evidence that the disciples of Christ ever met to engage in the regular worship on any other than the first day. An indication of this as a fixed custom is found in Acts 20 : 7 : "Upon the first day of the week, when the dis- ciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow." The circumstances are: Paul came to Troas; he reached there on Monday or Tuesday; he wished to see the brethren and give them a word of instruction ; he waited until the first day of the week, sure he would meet them, as it was a universal cus- tom to meet on that day. The style, "When the disciples came together to break bread," shows not only it was a fixed custom, but the chief end of the meeting was to break bread. Paul says to the Corinthians: "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." (1 Cor. 16: 2.) He said he had given the same directions to all the churches throughout the country of Ga- latia. A proper translation would be put in the treasury. The word translated lay by in store literally means place in the treasury. The reason assigned, "that there be no gath- erings when I come," shows that it was not to be left at their respective houses, but to be gathered together by the time Paul reached them. It was to be gathered through contributing on the first day. It was the fellowship con- nected with the breaking of bread, as recorded in Acts 2 : 52. This was a part of the worship in which the disciples steadfastly engaged in their meetings. It was to be at- tended to on the first day of the week. The apostle Paul commanded the disciples: "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is." (Heb. 10: 25.) There is no assembling given by divine require- ment, in either precept or example, to the disciples, except that on the first day of the week. It must, then, be a com- mand not to forsake assembling upon the first day of the week. 572 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, Jesus Christ consecrated the day by his triumph over death, hell, and the grave, and his resurrection from the dead. The day also is a monument of his resurrection. He met with his disciples on the two first days succeeding his resurrection. He did not meet with them on the sev- enth day. The disciples followed his example. Paul fol- lowed Christ in this and met with the disciples to break bread. He says to Christians: "Follow me, as I follow Christ." Then continuous history shows the churches from the beginning continued the practice, a few Judaiz- ers only objecting. They taught circumcision and the whole Mosaic law. The plea now for a return to the sev- enth day is a part of the same Judaizing tendency. It is an ignoring of Christ and a return to Judaism. It strikes down the monument of his resurrection. In the teachings of our Seventh-Day friends will be found a depreciation of Christ and his mission running through all their parts. His word, his authority, with them is not equal with the teaching of the Father. They talk of God's law as superior to his teaching, as if the fullness of the Godhead did not dwell in him bodily. Its tendency and results are to ignore his majesty and destroy his authority. It is to strike Christ from the plan of redemption. This may be unconsciously done, but it is only so much the more surely effected. Those who regard Christ as the great central figure of the plan of redemption will not ignore the day that de- clares his victory over death and hell — his resurrection that gave hope to man. It was the beginning and guarantee of the spiritual reign on earth. It was meet that in the earthly institution, with earthly promises, the completion of the work of creation should be celebrated. It is meet that in the spiritual creation the spiritual triumph over the evil spirit should be celebrated. The day in which a new spiritual kingdom on earth is guaranteed will be gratefully remembered by all who honor and love the Savior. D. L. SABBATH, MUST WE KEEP THE? Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I want you to explain through the columns of the Gospel Advocate whether, according to the last will and testament, we are expected to keep the Sabbath day holy, mak- ing it a day of rest, as was practiced by the Jews — or, in other words, if it should be kept as the seventh day, as Adventists teach. There is not one syllable of authority in the New Testa- ment for the observance of the Sabbath day. The observ- ance of the Sabbath day was one of the commandments of the law of Moses. In that law the Jewish people were re- quired to keep every seventh day as a holy Sabbath, and the man that should violate the requirements of that day BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 573 was to bear his iniquity. The law of Moses was positive and unyielding in regard to it. The man that was found gathering sticks on the Sabbath day was stoned to death for disregarding the divine law on this subject. Not only was the seventh day required of the Jews as a Sabbath, or day of rest, but every seventh year was a sabbatical year. The Jews were not allowed to cultivate their lands on the seventh year nor to gather that which grew of itself ; that was to be left for the poor of the land and for the stranger. Also every fiftieth year was to be observed as a year of ju- bilee. Servants were to go out free on that year, and other such like things to be done in the jubilee year. But when Christ died, all these commandments and ordinances were taken away. Paul says : "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." (Col. 2: 14.) This handwriting of ordinances that was blotted out and taken out of the way was certainly the law of Moses, which contained the ordinances both of the Sabbath day and of the Sabbath year. These ordinances, therefore, are disannulled. They have waxed old and have been laid aside, taken out of the way. Adventists may just as sensibly and as scripturally claim the observance of the seventh year and of the fiftieth year as of the seventh day. If one is in force, so are the others. But, then, the Adventists claim that the Ten Command- ments were not taken away. The Ten Commandments were engraven on stones by the Lord himself and given to Moses. No matter how many other things pertaining to the covenant through Moses were written on those tables, the Ten Commandments certainly were. The observance of the Sabbath day was one of those commandments, and, therefore, was engraven on the stones. Paul says of all these ordinances which were engraven in stones: "But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stead- fastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his counte- nance ; which glory was to be done away : how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious ? . . . For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious." (2 Cor. 3: 7-11.) In this passage Paul was contrasting the law of Moses with the gospel of Christ, showing that the law engraven on tables of stone, which embraced the Sabbath day, was done away ; while the gospel, the new covenant, remains, and is more glorious than that which was done away. This is proof positive that the Sabbath day was done away, together 574 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, with the ordinances of the law of Moses. Again, Paul says of Christ: 'Tor he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition be- tween us; having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby." Christ abol- ished in his flesh the enmity, the law of commandments con- tained in ordinances. To abolish is to put down, to bring to an end, to take away. The law of commandments is the law of Moses. The Sabbath day was one of those com- mandments, and, therefore, done away. He did this through his flesh, which was at his death. There can be no doubt, therefore, but that the Sabbath day was done away when Christ died. He is the end of the law. The law was added because of transgressions till the promised seed — that is, Christ — should come ; but through him it was to be, and was, done away — done away through his flesh, nailing it to his cross. Just as well clamor for the seventh year or for animal sacrifice as to clamor for the seventh day. All of them are dead. The first day of the week is not the Sabbath day in any sense. It is unscriptural and untrue to call it such. The whole denominational world is in error on this subject. They say that God has required man to rest one day in seven, and that under Christianity the day has been changed from the seventh to the first day of the week, but that it is the Sabbath still. This is all assumption on their part. The Bible nowhere says that God has required man to rest one day in seven. In the Old Testament, God re- quired man to rest on the seventh day, not one day in seven ; but, as we have shown, this day, with all the ordinances of the law, was done away in Christ ; and now a new day, the first day of the week, is the day upon which the people of God are to meet to worship him. The habit of calling this the Sabbath day has a tendency to make the impression upon the people that if they rest from labor on the first day of the week they fill the requirements of the first day of the week. Under this impression, doubtless, many of those claiming to be the disciples of Christ stay at home instead of meeting with their brethren to break bread, sup- posing that as they rested from labor that day they did about all that was needful ; whereas the Lord's day, as ap- pointed in the New Testament, is the day upon which Chris- tians are required to meet to worship him. Hence, those that merely stay at home and rest from labor do not honor BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 575 the Lord at all, for they do not do what the Lord requires to be done on that day. Hence, the Seventh-Day Advent- ists are perverting the word of the Lord in two respects. They are reestablishing what God has taken away, and they are ignoring the first day of the week — the day that God has appointed on which his people are to meet to break bread. One of their preachers in this State used to go to our meetinghouses occasionally and preach on the first day of the week, and, when he was done preaching, would leave the house while the brethren were breaking bread. Thus they utterly pervert and ignore the ways and appointments of the Lord. We must let that alone which God has abol- ished. He has abolished the Sabbath day, and, therefore, it should be let alone. But that which God now requires under Christianity, under the new and everlasting covenant, must be done. Christians are required to observe the first day of the week by meeting on that day to break bread. The Seventh-Day Adventists are causing divisions, here- sies, in some sections of the country by disregarding the Lord's day and its worship and by substituting instead thereof the Sabbath day, which has been done away for more than eighteen hundred years. Such heresies and her- etics should be avoided. E. G. S. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I want you to send me some in- formation in regard to the Sabbath day advocated by the Seventh- Day Adventists. The Sabbath day that is advocated by the Seventh-Day Adventists is the Sabbath day of the Jewish law. They claim that the Ten Commandments are still in force, in- cluding the old Sabbath, which is our Saturday. They do not regard the obligations of the Lord's day as of any im- portance^ while the Scriptures plainly teach that the law, which includes the Ten Commandments, was taken out of the way when Christ died upon the cross, and that the dis- ciples are to meet on the first day of the week to break bread in remembrance of Jesus. Thus they throw out one of the most important items of the New Testament and try to resuscitate an ordinance of the Old that God has thrown out. Brother Sewell: I have a friend and brother, who lately came over from the Baptists, who has called on me for scriptural proof that the Sabbath is done away. Please give us an article in the Gospel Ad- vocate on that subject. In the first place, the Sabbath day was purely and em- phatically a Jewish ordinance. So far as the Bible records, men were never called upon to keep the Sabbath till the 576 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, Jews were called out of Egypt by Moses. When the manna was given, the Jews were forbidden to gather it on the Sabbath day. (Ex. 16: 22, 23.) When the Ten Com- mandments were given, the keeping of the Sabbath by those people was made one of the ten, and thus it became part of the law of Moses. The Ten Commandments embodied the moral principles of the law, while other requirements written by Moses at the command of God applied these principles to the daily lives of the Jewish people. The law of Moses, therefore, contained the Ten Commandments, and the other requirements written by Moses as God di- rected made up what is called "the law of God by Moses." It is called "the law of the Lord ;" God spoke of it as "my law ;" and in many ways was it spoken of as the word, the law of God. This was God's written law to the Jews till the fullness of time came for God to take this old law, this old covenant, out of the way and establish the new one. When Christ died, the old covenant, the law of Moses, was abolished. Paul says of this matter: "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." (Col. 2: 14.) This passage covers the whole of what was called "the law of Moses," the law of God, the old covenant, including the Sabbath day, blotting out the whole business, taking it out of the way. It thoroughly knocks out the Sabbath day. It is equally certain also that the Sabbath day was not reincorporated into the new covenant, the new dispensation. The moral principles of the law of the other nine commandments were renewed in some form in the new covenant, but the Sabbath law never was. So it is of no more authority now than animal sacrifice or the burning of incense. It is forever set aside. Every time men undertake to keep the Sabbath day now they destroy the first day of the week, which is an appointment of the new covenant, setting it and all the appointments con- nected with it aside and trampling under foot the blood of Christ, putting him and all that was sanctified with his blood to an open shame. There is absolutely nothing in the seventh-day theory to rest even the shadow of hope upon. The claim is based on something that was taken out of the way nearly two thou- sand years ago and has never been reenacted in any shape or form or for any purpose. Besides, it never belonged to the Gentile world when in force; yet Gentiles are the very ones that are trying to resuscitate the lifeless thing in which they never had any part. Why, then, not cling to a living, reigning, all-merciful and all-powerful Savior, who is able BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 577 and willing to save all who come to God by him, and let dead issues remain where God has placed them? The sev- enth-day theory is not only a dead issue that has no life, no power to save, but it turns people away from Christ and his blood and his power to save and from his great and precious promises. SABBATH, WAS THE, CHANGED TO THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK? I would be glad if David Lipscomb would write an article in the Gospel Advocate stating who changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week and by what authority it was changed. Give scripture authority, book and verse. The Sabbath never was changed from the seventh to the first day of the week. The seventh day was the only Sab- bath. The Sabbath law and the scripture on the first day of the week do not have any connection with each other, so far as we know. We might argue that as the Lord set apart one day for rest in the Jewish dispensation, which later became a day of worship to God, it is an indication that it is for man's good that one day in the week shall be taken from all secular business and consecrated to the service of God. Yet the Sabbath day was not originally made a day of worship, but one simply of rest and quiet. We have no account of its being commanded or observed, save among the Jewish people after the days of Moses. It was first announced in the wilderness a few days before the giving of the law on Sinai. God tells Moses that the Sabbath should be observed. It was then written on ta- bles, of stone as one of the Ten Commandments. The law as explained by Moses was: "Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord : whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the Sabbath day." No manna could be gathered, no food cooked. The man who gathered sticks to kindle a fire to prepare a meal on the Sabbath was stricken dead. The only authority found in the book of God for the Sab- bath is the law given by Moses written on the tables of stone. There is no account of its having been given to any other people than the Jewish people. When the Savior came, he spoke concerning the Sabbath. Every record made concerning it shows that he was as- serting his superiority to the Sabbath. In Mark 2: 21, 22 he tells you cannot put new wine in old bottles, or a patch on an old garment, then has his disciples to pass through 578 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, the fields and gather corn and eat on the Sabbath. He justifies them. The Sabbath was for man. The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath, claiming his power to control or abrogate the Sabbath law. He healed the afflicted on the Sabbath and justified the taking of the ox or ass out of the pit. Sometimes persons say Jesus only corrected the abuses of the Sabbath by rescuing it from the extreme interpre- tation placed on it by the scribes and Pharisees. This is not true, as any one can see by examining the law. The law forbids gathering the manna, cooking the food, building a fire. Christ justified going into the cornfields, gathering, rubbing out, and eating the corn, or wheat. He was as- serting his power over the Sabbath and his right to annul it. Jesus came to fulfill the law and, in fulfilling it, to take it out of the way. He rested in the grave on the Sabbath and arose on the first day of the week. He met with his disciples on the first day. He passed over seven interven- ing days until the next first day, when he met with them again. The Holy Spirit descended on the first day of the week on Pentecost, and the disciples met on the first day of the week to break bread. The Holy Spirit, in all the epistles of Paul to the churches, draws the distinction between the old and new testaments, the law and the gospel, the law written on the tables of stone and the law of the Spirit written in fleshly tables of the heart. All show that the old testament, based on fleshly relations, was done away, taken out of the way; and the new, ministered by the Spirit of God, was ordained to re- main in perpetual force. "Who also hath made us able min- isters of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit : for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious ; . . . which glory was to be done away : how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glo- rious?" (2 Cor. 3: 6-8.) In Galatians he compares the two covenants to Sarah and Hagar, and says: "Cast out the bondwoman and her son." This is repeated under va- rious forms in all the epistles to the churches. Now, if the law written on tables of stone is the only law requiring this Sabbath observance and it has been taken out of the way. on what ground can it be claimed to be in force? The apos- tles went into the synagogues on the Sabbath day, just as they went to the market places or other places where they could find the people, to teach them. But no example can be found of their meeting for worship on the Sabbath. Our brother may have had in his mind the foolish claim BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 579 made by some that Constantine ordained the first day as the day of worship. The man that will make such a state- ment is either remarkably ignorant or recklessly dishonest. Constantine ordained the first day of the week as the day of rest and religious observance, exactly as the State of Tennessee does it. A great number of his subjects were Christians. He became favorable to the Christian religion. He found them observing the first day of the week as their day of worship and rest from secular labor, and because they were observing this day he decreed his subjects should all observe that as the day of rest from secular business. The act of Constantine is clear evidence that the Chris- tians observed the first day before his time, as he aimed to make the laws of his kingdom conform to their practice. It seems to me that this is satisfactory. D. L. SABBATH, THE "HIGH," AND WHAT "THIRD DAY?" Brother Sewell: (1) On which of our week days did the high Sab- bath occur? (John 19: 31.) (2) Speaking of the resurrection of Christ, Matt. 16: 21 says that he would be raised again "the third day." It could not have been the third day of his death, for there was but one day of his death; nor could it have been the third day of his burial, for there was but one day of his burial; nor could it have been the third day of his death and burial, for both occurred on one and the same day. The "third day" of what, then? (3) The first day of the week, the day on which Christ rose from the dead, being "the third day since these things were done" (Luke 24: 21), on what day of the week were "these things" done, and what were the things done? (1) We understand that it was Saturday, the day of the Jewish Sabbath. At the time spoken of in this verse the passover Sabbath and the seventh-day Sabbath both fell on the same day, and evidently for that reason it was called a high Sabbath. The passover was to be eaten on the night of the fourteenth day of the first month. The fifteenth day of the same month was to be a holy convocation day, on which no servile work was to be done. This holy con- vocation day falling that year on the same day as the weekly Sabbath caused John to say it was a high (or great) Sabbath, a sort of double Sabbath. So at that time they were to prepare for the regular Sabbath and for the holy convocation day at the same time, on the same day. In the Old Testament laws concerning Sabbath days there is nothing about a high Sabbath day. This is the only in- stance of a high Sabbath mentioned. The language of that same verse indicates this was the real Jewish Sabbath: "The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, .that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day." The expression, the Sabbath day, always means, in 580 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, the Bible, the seventh-day Sabbath. I have not been able to find an exception to this. So this high Sabbath was called such because the holy convocation day of the pass- over fell on the weekly Sabbath day. Such is the conclusion of the leading Bible scholars of the world. (2) The third day is plainly the third day of the whole tragical affair of the crucifixion and burial of Christ, and the time he lay in the grave, up to and including the day he arose from the dead. This is a perfectly natural conclu- sion from the language used by the Savior in foretelling his death. He said that he "must go to Jerusalem, and suf- fer many things of the elders and the chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day." The only natural way of determining the third day is to link it with what occurred the two preceding days, and that is easy. On the first of the two preceding days he was cru- cified and buried, on the second he lay in the grave, and on the third he rose from the dead. Paul also said : "How that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures." (1 Cor. 15: 3, 4.) From these passages and others like them it is as plain as any- thing on record that the third day, the day on which he was raised from the dead, was the third day of the wonderful events — the crucifixion, the time in the grave, and his res- urrection. The fact that the third day was the first day of the week, Sunday, or Lord's day, shows that the whole affair included Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, or the first day of the week; and the expression, the third day, fixes the whole affair so definitely that it is impossible to extend the time before or beyond these three days. (3) This question is answered in the preceding. You will find the things that were done fully explained in verses 19, 20, immediately preceding verse 21, which you quote. When we take plain Bible facts as stated, we have no trou- ble to understand them ; but when we undertake to build a theory not expressed in Bible language, we are sure to come in conflict with some of the expressed facts. Then the the- ory ought to be dropped and simply stand on the facts. Brother Sewell: Will you please explain John 19: 31: "For that Sabbath day was a high day?" It seems not to have been a regular weekly Sabbath, but a high day. This Sabbath is called a high day because it was a double Sabbath — that is, a weekly Sabbath and a passover Sab- bath. In the seven days of unleavened bread connected with the passover, the first and seventh days were to be days of rest. No work was to be done on those days. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 581 Sometimes one of these days and the weekly Sabbath would come together, as in this case; and hence it was called a high day. SALARY, STATED, FOR PREACHING. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: When a preacher admits that he cannot put up a scriptural argument in favor of a stated yearly sal- ary, and yet he will not preach for a church without it, what would be the right course for the church to pursue as regards him? Also, when a congregation has set apart one gifted for the ministry, and he lives in the vicinity and refuses to preach for that congregation without any excuse, how should they act toward him? The church ought to do its own preaching. The churches are usually to blame for the unwillingness of the preachers to trust them. We never would contract to preach a year for a church for so much per year or otherwise, but we never saw a congregation that in its practice we would trust to support our family on an indefinite promise to sup- port us. The remissness of the congregations and the in- dividual members in their duty of sustaining a brother spending his time in the work that belongs to the church has given them good ground for distrust. The remedy that we would propose for the first difficulty is that the congregation should raise in cash a sufficiency of money to sustain a brother a specified time, place it in the hands of the treasurer, subject to his call as he needs it, and tell him to go to work and call for it as he needs it. Then, by promptness and care for his wants thereafter, convince him that he can trust the church to do its duty. There is just the same scripture for a stated salary that there is for a preacher preaching statedly to a church for a stated time. The style in which churches usually discharge their ob- ligations to those who labor for them is simply disgraceful. They ought to be made to feel that they are unworthy of trust. A preacher that comes along and gets up something of a revival is usually pretty well paid. Others who do the harder work are treated shabbily. We know of no obligation an evangelist is under to preach to any congregation save as he finds it not in order. If he is doing his duty in preaching to the world, who know not the truth, the duty of his congregation is to sustain him heartily in the work and send often to supply his necessi- ties. If he will not preach at all, or is hunting a big salary, putting himself up to the highest bidder, he is a corrupter of the church, and all ought to be thankful he does not preach for them. D. L. 582 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, SALVATION, "THE COMMON." Brother Sewell: In the general epistle of Jude, commencing at verse 3, we read as follows: "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." Now, what I want to know is, in speaking of the common salvation, does the inspired writer have reference to salvation under the present dispensation or the Jewish dispensation? Unaware of whom did they creep in, and of whom were they ordained? Were they ordained of the Lord, and have we no account of why he or- dained them for that purpose? As the above has troubled me a great deal, I hope you will give me some information. The common salvation spoken of by Jude is, doubtless, salvation from sin through the gospel of Christ, which is common, or alike, to all who are saved. All who are saved from sin are saved alike ; and in this sense salvation is com- mon to all, for all are saved alike. The word common in this passage means belonging equally to several, and with- out doubt refers to salvation by the gospel of Christ, which is just the same to all. Paul alludes to the same thing when, in writing to Titus, he says, "Mine own son after the common faith," meaning the faith of the gospel. The bad characters spoken of in the passage are wicked persons that crept into the church without the members knowing at the time that they were wicked ; hence, unaware to the church. The ordination spoken of means that God has from olden times ordained that such characters as those mentioned in this passage should be destroyed. The Lord did not ordain that these men, nor any others, should become wicked, but that those who by their own bad con- duct become wicked shall be destroyed. E. G. S. SALVATION CAME TO ZACCHEUS, HOW. Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Please explain how it was and on what conditions did salvation come to Zaccheus and his house, ex- plaining also the expression: "Forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham." Had Zaccheus been accustomed to give half his goods to the poor, or was such action the fruit of repentance? The language of the Savior to Zaccheus, saying to him, "This day is salvation come to this house," is to be under- stood this way : The Jews generally did not recognize Christ as the Son of God nor treat him as such; but Zaccheus, though a despised publican, received the Savior joyfully, recognizing him to be all that he claimed to be — the Savior of sinners, the Son of God. He indicated also that he was serving God to the best of his ability under the law of BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 583 Moses, which was still in force, showing that he was a faithful servant, child of God under the law. The other Jews, that regarded Zaccheus as a sinner, were not them- selves faithful to the law, nor did they receive Christ as the Son of God. Jesus, therefore, by this expression shows that Zaccheus, though despised by his countrymen because he was a publican, was a true servant of God, and his ac- tion in joyfully receiving the Savior showed him to be such ; and because he thus received him, Christ says : "This day is salvation come to this house." He only did what every Jew should have done. To every one now that does what the Lord requires through the gospel, will joyfully obey the gospel, salvation will come the same day. E. G. S. SANCTIFICATION. Brother Lipscomb: (1) I want you to explain 1 Cor. 3: 6. (2) What does the word sanctify mean? (3) Did Christ or any of the apostles teach the second work of grace? (4) When is a Christian made perfect? (1) This verse means Paul first preached the gospel to the Corinthians, Apollos taught them after they became Christians, and God through the teaching of the two gave a blessing to those people, first taught by Paul, then by Apollos. (2) The word sanctify means to set apart or sanctify a person to the service of God. All Christians are called sanctified, or saints. You find the Corinthians are called the sanctified, saints. (1 Cor. 1, 2.) All who hear the word of God and walk by it are sanctified. Jesus prayed that his disciples might be sanctified in or by the truth. (John 17 : 19.) Any one devoting himself to doing the will of God is sanctified by it. (3) The Bible knows nothing of a first and second work of grace. One accepts the truth, and in keeping that truth there is a gradual and successful growth in grace. If one starts out and falls away, then starts again, this is a work of grace ; but it is the old one started again, not a new one. (4) A Christian is made perfect only as he ceases to sin. They are perfect in their day and generation when they come up to the standard of the age. Brother Sewell: I am in a neighborhood where the "Holiness" people are in force. They think we should not ask God to forgive us our sins when we offer thanks or pray. They claim to be free from sin, and quote 1 John 1 : 9 to prove that they are free from sin. They claim that sanctification removes and completely eradicates car- nality. They teach sinless perfection, and they quote 1 John 3: 8, 9. They claim to be wholly sanctified, and claim sanctification as a sec- 584 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, ond work of grace. Please give all the light you can on this sub- ject, for I want to honor God by doing his will and not my own. The whole matter of the modern holiness, or sanctifica- tion, is claimed upon an entirely unscriptural basis. It is claimed as a second blessing, and that upon the assumption that they had already received a first blessing of like nature. The first blessing is claimed to have taken place in conver- sion, in the remission of sins, all of which they claim was brought about by an abstract operation of the Holy Spirit, by which they claim to have got religion. But there is no such conversion as this taught in the Bible from beginning to end. Hence, no such first blessing is to be found on rec- ord at all. The conversion that is taught in the New Testa- ment is most certainly effected by the Holy Spirit, but not by any sort of abstract operation. It is the teaching of the Spirit, telling sinners what to do to be saved, through the inspired apostles, as found in Acts 2, when about three thousand were thus converted. But modern Holiness peo- ple cannot find one conversion after their idea of getting religion through an abstract operation of the Holy Spirit, if their lives depended on it. Neither can they find one single example of any man's being made holy by any sort of an abstract operation of the Spirit of God. If they could find one such case, that would settle the possibility of such thing; but they do not and cannot. Hence, if we ac- cept their claim on it, we have to accept it purely and en- tirely upon their say so, without one precept or example for it in all the oracles of God. They will have to produce bet- ter authority than this before any child of God can afford to accept it. The holiness of the New Testament is some- thing to be sought and obtained by doing the will of God. Jesus prayed his Father to sanctify his disciples through the word of truth. He said : "Sanctify them in the truth : thy word is truth. . . . And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth." (John 17: 17-19.) No one can be sanctified in or through the truth unless he obeys the truth. The truth makes people free from sin, but not till they learn and obey the truth. Jesus said to the Jews that believed on him: "If ye abide in my word, then are ye truly my disciples ; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8: 31, 32.) Hence, people that abide in the word of God, continue to obey that word, are free from sin, and are, therefore, holy. Hence, no man can be holy while in disregard of the word of God. Very many of those claiming to be holy in the modern Holiness school have never been baptized, and hence are living in disobedience to BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 585 that divine command. They have had a little water sprin- kled upon them, but that is not baptism. They do not meet regularly on the first day of the week to break bread. They live in continual disregard also of the word of Jesus when he says: "And forgive us our debts, as we also have for- given our debtors." (Matt. 6: 12.) This means: "For- give us our sins, as we also have forgiven the sins of oth- ers. " (See also verses 14, 15.) These things were ad- dressed to the disciples of Christ, and apply to such now. Those, therefore, that claim they are so holy and pure that they do not need to pray for pardon make themselves bet- ter than the apostles claimed to be. When Paul had been preaching nearly twenty-five years, he said: "But I buffet my body, and bring it into bondage: lest by any means, after that I have preached to others, I myself should be re- jected." (1 Cor. 9: 27.) Paul never considered himself to be exempt from temptation, nor that he was free from danger of sin and the loss of his soul. The apostle John said : "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." (1 John 1: 8-10.) Even the loving apostle John does not claim entire freedom from sin, in that he puts himself into the number that sin by saying we and us; and he was an old man when he wrote this letter. It was nearly sixty years after he had been first called to be an apostle. As to the passage named in chapter 3, in which John says one born of God does not and cannot sin, he was there showing the difference between the children of God and the children of the devil, meaning that the children of God make it their business to serve God, while wicked people make no such pretense. They live in sin all the time, while the children of God strive to serve God all the time. But in the verses quoted from the first chapter the same apostle is showing that all are liable to sin, and sometimes do sin, through the weakness of the flesh. Man is not relieved from his flesh-and-blood nature while in mortal life, and while that lasts the best Christians may sometimes do wrong ; but if they will repent of these wrongs, confess them to God, and pray, God promises to forgive. So there is no conflict between these two passages ; both were dictated by the Holy Spirit through the same man. Hence, to be sanctified in the New Testament sense is to become a Christian and strive to always live the Christian life as the word of the Lord directs. But whenever a child 586 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, of God thinks he is exempted from sin and cannot sin, he is then in danger of being led captive by the devil at his will, for he is then entirely off his guard and no longer watching. Brother Lipscomb: I would life to ask you some questions for in- formation. 1. Does man grow into sanctification, or is it a second work of grace? 2. Can a man live above sin? 3. If a man commits one sin a day, is he not a servant of sin, though he may pray many times a day? Does repentance mean to quit the sin business? 4. Will God forgive unless we quit? 5. Does repentance mean to quit or taper off — which? 6. If a man turns his back on sin, will he be holy? 7. Can a man get to heaven without holiness? 1. Sanctification means set apart or devoted to a work. In the Bible it means set apart to the service of God. All Christians are called saints, or sanctified ones. It has ac- quired in later years a meaning of sinlessness. In 1 Cor. 1 : 1 all the Christians at Corinth are called saints. The letter shows they were far from sinless, but desired to serve God, hindered by fleshly lusts and weaknesses. There is no such thing known in the Scriptures as the first and sec- ond blessing. There is a growth in grace. By constant study of and obedience to the word of God and watchfulness of ourselves in bringing our lives, thoughts, and feelings into harmony with the will of God, we grow in grace and the knowledge of the truth and become nearer the divine standard. 2. 'There is no man that liveth, and sinneth not." "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1 : 8, 10.) A man's heart may be per- fect toward God, but so long as he is in the flesh he will sin either by omission or commission. Jesus himself refused to be called good. "There is none good but one, that is, God." All claims to be sinless are presumptuous. 3. He is not a servant of sin unless it reigns in and rules over him. When he intentionally and purposely sins, he is the slave of sin. Repentance means to turn from the pur- pose and practice of sin. Repentance demands the confes- sion of sins, the ceasing to sin, the correcting all the wrongs we have committed against God or our fellow men to the extent of our ability. 4. God cannot forgive our sins until we quit sinning and correct the wrongs we have done. This means when through weakness we fall into sin we must confess the sin, BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 587 correct the wrong, and ask God to forgive us our wrong and strengthen us to avoid the wrong in the future. 5. A man cannot taper off from sins in the sight of God. He will always taper the wrong way. 6. Holiness means separation from sin. Man becomes holy when he ceases to sin, and he grows in holiness as he grows in sanctification. 7. "Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord." (Heb. 12: 14.) But, as said, holiness is progressive. There is holiness of heart or purpose, holiness of state, and holiness of life. There are degrees of holiness. Man in the flesh does not obtain perfect holiness of life. "SANCTIFY," MEANING OF. Brother Lipscomb: What does the word sanctify mean? Please explain 1 Cor. 7: 14; 1 Tim. 4: 5. Please explain the so-called "Ho- liness" people's claim that one has to be sanctified or he is lost, and their claim that sanctification is living- beyond the reproach of sin. Sanctify means to separate to a holy or sacred use. All persons or things set apart to the service of God are sanc- tified, according to the Scripture use of the term. The first use of the word in the Bible is in Gen. 2:3: "God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it." This means he set it apart for his service. No common or secular work must be done on that day. The day in itself had no quality, good or bad ; but it must be devoted to the service of God. The next use of it is found in Ex. 13 : 2 : "Sanctify unto me all the first-born, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast; it is mine." The first-born of man and beast were sanctified to God's service. That did not mean they were sinless. The ani- mals had no moral qualities of sin or sinlessness, and the first-born of men were not sinless. They might be guilty of many sins, yet they were still sanctified to the service of God. Even the first-born of unclean animals were sanc- tified to the service of God ; and if not redeemed by a clean animal, it was to be killed. It could not be used for com- mon or secular purposes. The tribe of Levi was taken in place of the first-born, and the whole family of Levi was sanctified to the service of the Lord around the temple. This did not mean they were sinless, nor was sinlessness expected of them ; but they were required to devote them- selves to the works of God around the temple. They often sinned, but that did not unsanctify them. The priests were sanctified to the service within the temple, but they were not sinless. They had to cleanse and purify their 588 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, flesh before they could enter the sanctuary of God. But sanctification does not imply sinlessness. It implied they were to devote themselves to the service of God, not to the common callings of life. The temple was sanctified, all the vessels of service, all the animals sacrificed. The Mount Sinai was sanctified : "If a beast but touch it, it shall die." A thing set apart to the service of God was sanctified. Then it could not be used for secular purposes unless re- deemed. The disciples of Christ were sanctified by putting on Christ — that is, they were set apart to the service of God. They were redeemed and sanctified by the blood of Christ, and by the Spirit of God are guided in that service. Jesus prayed for his apostles : "Sanctify ["consecrate" — marginal reading] them in the truth : thy word is truth. ... I sanctify myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth." (John 17: 17-19, A. R. V.) They were set apart to the declaration of the truth by teaching and prac- tice. The church of God at Corinth were "sanctified in Christ Jesus," notwithstanding they were guilty of many wrongs. Jesus died that he might sanctify the church (Eph. 5 : 25, 26) — set it apart to the service of God. Rom. 15 : 16 says the Gentiles were "sanctified by the Holy Spirit." It means they were called into the service of God by the Spirit. A sanctified person is a saint. All Chris- tians are called saints in the Scriptures. (1 Cor. 1:2; Rom. 1:7; Acts 9: 13.) All Christians consecrate them- selves to the service of God and are, in Scripture language, sanctified to that service, or made saints. There are de- grees in the work of consecrating themselves to the service of God. Some are more faithful than others. This is called sanctifying themselves wholly. To grow in faithful obedience to the will of God is to become more fully sanc- tified. There is a gradual growth in sanctification, as there is in obeying the truth of God. Sanctification is a growth to be worked out by the Chris- tian, not a special gift from God. Our modern sanctifica- tionists mistake entirely the means of attaining sanctifica- tion. It is something to be worked out and lived, not something to be gotten and professed. They take the wrong name. One who professes or pretends to sanctify is sanc- timonious, not sanctified. Sanctimonious is to profess or pretend to special sanctity. One thing we ought to remember: A person or thing under the Jewish law once sanctified to the service of God could never be afterwards used for a common or unholy purpose. Better for a person never to have known the BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 589 truth than, after he has known it, to turn again from the service of God to "the weak and beggarly elements of the world." 1 Cor. 7 : 14 means the man and woman by marriage sanctified themselves to each other, and could not remarry or be guilty of fornication with others without violating their vow of sanctity and breaking the marriage vow and rendering their children illegitimate. The passage in 1 Tim. means that all kinds of meats are good for food if it be received with thanksgiving. It is set apart to the service of him who eats by the word of God and prayer — what God commands and man receives in prayer. SATAN TEMPTS MEN, HOW? Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: Will you please tell us by what means the devil tempts men? We read in John 13: 2: "And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Is- cariot, Simon's son, to betray him." "And after the sop Satan en- tered into him." (Verse 27.) "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour." (1 Pet. 5:8.) We wish to know if the devil has agents; if so, who are they, and what means of communication has he with them? There are two great rulers in this universe — God and Satan. God rules through his word, his divine institutions. Satan rules and influences men through the "lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life;" for John says these are not of the Father, but of the world. Satan is called the "prince of this world." Again, he is represented as "the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience." Satan controls the kingdoms of this world. Therefore when men yield to the lusts of the flesh in any way that is contrary to the will of God, they are yielding to the influ- ence of Satan. The word of God requires men to deny themselves and follow Jesus, do his will, obey his word. Men are required, in order to live the Christian and go to heaven, to "crucify the flesh with the affections and lusts." Whenever they refuse to do this, but follow the lusts of the flesh, they are following Satan; and when they are tempted to do this, they are tempted by Satan. Satan tempted and deceived Eve through the lusts of the eyes and the pride, the fleshly desires, of life. The influences and means through which Satan tempts men are as varied and extensive as the lusts of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and pride of life extend. If we would not be tempted and drawn to ruin by Satan, then we must 590 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, follow the word of God. This is the only safety for man. Whenever we are following the vain amusements of this world, its follies and allurements, we are following the temptations of Satan and going away from God and mak- ing Satan, not God, our leader. Paul, in 2 Tim. 2, speaks of persons who oppose themselves as led captive by the devil at his will. These were led captive by the devil by yielding to the sinful influences of this world, over which the devil presides. Hence there are many ways for us to be tempted by the devil. But there is just one way to be led by the Lord, and that is to follow his word, do the will of the Fa- ther in heaven. The divine agencies to help us to do right are as extensive as God's divine appointment and his serv- ants extend in their grand work for saving men. The wicked agencies for the temptation and ruin of men are as extensive as wicked men and sinful or fleshly influences extend; for all the wicked of this world, whatever their pretensions may be, are the agents of the devil to lead men to ruin. Many who pretend righteousness are but hypo- crites, and are agents of the devil to lead others astray. SCAPEGOAT, THE. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Since it is a generally conceded fact that nearly everything pertaining to the worship of the Jews prefigured something in the Christian dispensation, we wish you to tell us through your valuable paper what the scape goat prefigured. We think that the scapegoat was a prefiguring of Christ, who would bear our sins away. SECOND COMING OF CHRIST. Brother Lipscomb: Please be so kind as to answer the following questions so far as you are able: 1. Do the Scriptures teach that great numbers will turn to the truth and be saved and a period of righteousness ensue just before the second coming of the Lord, or will things wax worse? 2. Will the Savior's prayer, "That they all may be one" (John 17: 21), be answered this side of the resurrection? 3. When will the vision that John saw on Patmos (described in Rev. 21) be fulfilled? Will it be before the resurrection of the dead or after that event? 4. What does Paul mean in 1 Cor. 11: 19? While I have but little faith in the interpretation of un- fulfilled prophecy, it seems that if a question comes from South Africa it ought to receive some attention. 1. My impression is, before the end comes the disciples of the Lord will become more loyal and faithful to him. It will not be a large, but a loyal and faithful, body. I think the great masses of the Gentiles will reject God, as the masses of the Jews did. The following and other sim- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 591 ilar expressions cause me to so think: "As were the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man. For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall be the coming of the Son of man." (Matt. 24: 37-39, R. V.) The masses will be evil, but a few will be more faithful than any heretofore have been. 2. I think those who are his disciples will be one in this world. All who are guided by the word of God are one now; whenever there are differences, it is because one or both parties to the difference are not guided by the word of God. This failure may be the result of an honest mistake, but it is none the less a failure to be led by the word of God. Yet it is true that when men lose sight of all tra- ditions and customs and come to the Bible with the sole view of learning the will of God, they may do it ; they will see it alike. The trouble is to get to this singleness of pur- pose. 3. I take it this is a vision of the coming of the Son of God. 4. I think it means men must be tested and tried. Di- visions, or heresies, will exist in the churches to try them. They grow out of the fact that all are not Christians. These will produce factions and divisions and test all by giving all an opportunity of going into a faction who are so disposed. It is probable no organization will be all good. SECTARIANS TAKING PART IN THE WORSHIP. Brother Lipscomb : Is it right or wrong to ask a sectarian to get up and read a chapter in the Bible where they take a part with us in the Sunday school, and should they offer prayer after reading? I would say it is wrong to encourage sectarianism in any way, if we can tell which are sectarians; but my observa- tion is, it takes a sectarian to ferret out a sectarian, just as "it takes a rogue to catch a rogue." Unfortunately, all the sectarians are not in sectarian churches; and I hope some in sectarian churches are not sectarians. Things get badly mixed in this world. Sometimes people who wish to obey God are born and raised in sectarian influences. A man who loves party more than he loves God is a sectarian. A man who divides the church of God for a theory or teach- ing not required by God is a sectarian. A person who pushes an idea or practice not required by God, to the dis- turbance of the peace of the church, or that exalts a hu- 592 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, man opinion or practice to an equality with the commands of God, is a sectarian and a heretic. There are some in nonsectarian churches who are secta- rians, who violate the laws of God in order to oppose sec- tarians. They are sectarians in their opposition to sec- tarians. There are some in sectarian churches who will obey God and follow him in spite of the sectarianism of the churches in which they find themselves. As examples, there are persons in the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyte- rian Churches who were baptized to obey God rather than to please the sects. In this they rise above the sectarian spirit, despite the parties in which they find themselves. They ought to get out of the sectarian churches, but they see so much sectarianism in the nonsectarian churches that they think they are all alike. Peter and John, Paul and Barnabas, all met with the sectarian Jews at their times and places of worship and participated with them, that they might find an opportunity to speak a word for the truth. I do not think it hurts any man, sectarian or sinner, to read the Bible anywhere or at any time. I do not think it hurts any one to hear the Bible read by sectarian or sinner at any time or place. The great end is to be true and faithful to the truth and at the same time kind and sympathetic with those in error. The nearer we can do these two things, the more like Jesus we will be and the more sinners and sectarians we will save. D. L. SECTS, COMMUNING WITH THE. Is it right to take the Lord's Supper with the sects? Should those of the Christian Church commune or take the bread and wine with the denominations (so called)? Do we not receive members into the Christian Church from the sectarians who have been im- mersed by those who were only sprinkled, and yet we regard their baptism valid — that is, those whom we receive? Then if those who immersed them had the right to baptize, have they not the right to set the Lord's table? And if they have the right to set the table or break bread, have they not the right to commune with us? Or should the Christian Church take the bread and wine only with those that are of the Christian Church? These troubles about baptism and communion have all arisen since sects arose. There were no such sects in the days of the apostles ; and, therefore, no directions are given as to how we ought to fraternize with them. There ought to be no sects, and then we would have no trouble on these matters. But, then, they are here among us, and it is sometimes difficult to determine what ought to be done in reference to them. One thing is evident, and that is that the validity of an ordinance, either baptism or the Lord's BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 593 Supper, does not depend upon the administrator. If the subject is all right when immersed, his baptism is valid to him, whether the administrator is or not. The same, we think, is true with the Lord's Supper. But there are no instructions as to open or close communion in the Bible, and we cannot undertake to give any. SHEPHERD, THE TRUE. Please explain John 10: 1-3 through the Gospel Advocate. The intention of the Savior in these verses is to show that he has come into the world to be the true shepherd of the sheep — the Lord's people. The Jews in the preceding chapter had accused him of being a deceiver — that is, that he was not from God ; and they had turned the young man out of the synagogue because he tried to defend Jesus as being from God, showing that had not God been with him he could not have done such miracles as opening the eyes of one born blind. In this tenth chapter, therefore, Jesus is showing that he is no hireling, no deceiver, but that he is the true shepherd, the real defender of his sheep, which are his followers, his disciples. He intends them to under- stand that he enters upon his grand mission to save men in a lawful way, just as a true shepherd enters into his sheepfold by the door. He does not sneak in, as a thief, some other way. None but thieves and impostors would do that way. Jesus enters by the door into his work, as a true man would always do. He comes to do the bidding of his Father and by the authority of the Father. The thief, the robber, the hireling, only climbs up some back way, and sneaks in for his own advantage, seeking the fleece, and not the good of the flock. But Christ enters his work not to seek his own good, but the good of a perishing world. The good shepherd literally enters by the door of his fold, and to him the porter opens, for he knows the shepherd's voice. So also the Son of God is known and recognized by all true servants of God and encouraged by them in his work, and is not treated by them as an impostor, as those Jews were then doing. Thus he gives them a severe rebuke for their treatment of him in rejecting him as an impostor. Then, again, the true shepherd knows his own sheep and calls them by name, and they hear his voice and follow him. So Christ knows his own servants, and they know him and hear his works and follow his directions and follow in his ways. Like the true shepherd that leads his sheep out to graze in green pastures and to streams of water, so the Lord's people have the promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come. 594 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, The whole passage is a beautiful figure to show the truth- fulness of the claims of Jesus to be the Son of God, and to show that all true servants of God will receive and hear him as such, and that those who reject him as an impostor and will not hear his voice are not his people ; and such were those Jews to whom he was then speaking. SICK, ANOINTING THE. Brother Lipscomb: Please explain James 5: 12-15, more particu- larly as to what kind of sickness is meant in verse 14 and what kind of oil to use. We do not know of any sickness needing bodily applica- tions except the sickness of the body. We suppose the remedy proposed is equally efficacious for all diseases of the body. We have not a particle of doubt as to its being the disease of the body. It was the body that was to be anointed, and the body was to be raised up. It was the body that was to be healed. If he had committed sins, they were forgiven. We cannot see a single point in the verses that we can make plainer. If a physician had written such direction, we do not think any one would have asked an explanation. Why mystify language or put doubtful con- struction upon it because the Spirit spoke it? Is not the Spirit as capable of using language that will convey its meaning clearly as man? Olive oil was universally used in sick applications, and is almost the only oil known to the Bible. D. L. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain, in the light of revelation, through the Gospel Advocate, the following passages: James 5: 14, 15. If the above should be practiced now, as you have intimated in the Advocate in time past, would it be a miracle similar to that performed by the Savior in raising Lazarus? Also, please explain Matt. 6: 6. The rewarding openly is particularly what I want explained. We do not think there would be any miracle in it at all, not a particle more than in working and praying for our daily bread. God ordains it as one of the means to effect the end proposed. We do not think healing would always result from the anointing, and healing would be modified by other influences. "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Every other condition needful for the restoration of health must be attended to as well as this. Then God designs that all should die at some time. These acts of obe- dience would not contravene the great purpose of God in this matter. All these promises must be interpreted in the light of God's well-known will in other things. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 595 The promise to reward openly those who pray in secret we understand to mean that God will bless the individual in such a manner that the world can see the blessing, and this, too, both as to this world and the world to come. D. L. SIGNS TO FOLLOW. Brother Lipscomb: Please explain Mark 16: 17, 18, which reads: "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues," etc. Now, there is one of our neghbors that says that meant all that believe, and the Bible is not fulfilling the prophecy. He does not profess to be a Christian. I fear he will lead some of the young people to believe the Bible contradicts itself. There never has been a time in the history of the church that all who believed and were baptized had these miracu- lous gifts. Those converted by the apostles themselves could not all do these miracles. The promise was not in- tended to embrace all, but enough should be endowed with these gifts to confirm the Scriptures as from God and to enable the world to believe. Such evidences were neces- sary in the first dawn of Christianity to attract attention to the doctrine; but our Lord's words do not mean they shall be in perpetuity, as a continual recurring of the evi- dence of the truth of Christianity. St. Gregory, on 1 Cor. 14 : 22, says ; "These signs were necessary in the beginning of Christianity. In order that faith might take root and increase, it must be nourished by a miracle ; for so even we, when we plant shrubs, only water them until we see they are taking root; and when we see they have rooted them- selves, we cease to water them. This is what St. Paul means when he says: 'Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to the unbelieving.' (1 Cor. 14: 22.)" " 'In my name shall they cast out devils.' St. Mark, of all the evangelists, dwells most, perhaps, on this, as character- istic of our Lord's work and as the evidence of his supreme dominion over the spiritual world. They shall speak with new tongues.' This was the first intimation of the great miracle to be inaugurated on the day of Pentecost. The gift was continued but for a limited time. They shall take up serpents.' The instance of St. Paul at Melita (Acts 28: 3-5) would be familiar to St. Mark's readers. 'And if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them.' There are some traditionary notices of the fulfillment of this promise, as in the case of 'Justus Barsabas,' mentioned by Eusebius (H. E. 3: 19), and of St. John, mentioned by St. Augustine. It may be observed of this passage that no one could have interpolated it after the cessation of the 596 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, signs to which it refers, which took place very early." (The Pulpit Commentary.) Brother Seivell: I have never asked a question through your query- department, but will now. I would be pleased to have you give an explanation of Mark 16 : 17, 18. The verses are: "And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues ; they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall re- cover." All these miraculous powers belonged to the apos- tolic or miraculous age of the church. All these things were done by the apostles and by others who were endowed with miraculous gifts; but when that miraculous age passed out, these miraculous powers all ceased, and no man has worked those wonderful miracles since. Mormons claim that some of their men have this power now, but no man has ever seen one of them perform a miracle. Even Joe Smith, the founder of Mormonism, never performed a miracle. I tested two Mormon elders some years ago on that line. They had come to my house to teach me the ways of Mormonism more perfectly. While they were there, we got on the matter of working miracles ; and they said that their people could work miracles. Just as we were discussing this matter the hour came for the funeral of a young man about two or three blocks away, and I said : "Let us go up, and you bring that young man back to life again, and then you can take this city." But they would not budge a step, claiming, as their reason, that the people there did not believe they could perform a miracle. I said: "No, they do not; but Christ and the apostles per- formed miracles to produce faith. You do that, and then we will know that you can work miracles." But not a step would they go, and they left me and returned no more. The trouble is, they misapply this scripture and disregard the statement of Paul in 1 Cor. 13 that miraculous powers were to cease. The statement of Paul that miracles were to cease came to pass about the time the New Testament was com- pleted or very soon after, and miracles have not been known on earth since. Brother Sewell: Please explain Mark 16: 15, or from verse 15 on down. I want to know who are the ones that these signs shall fol- low. Does it mean those that are baptized or the apostles? I find a great many people that do not understand this passage of scripture. In the American Standard Revised Version the passage reads: "And these signs shall accompany them that be- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 59? lieve." The Greek word rendered follow in the King James Version does not necessarily mean to follow indefinitely, but rather to accompany , to attend one where he goes, and only applies to the miraculous age, and must not be un- derstood so as to extend to or apply to any one beyond the age of miracles. Miraculous power was not intended to continue to the end of time, for the New Testament shows that miracles and miraculous powers were to cease. Paul says: "Love never faileth: but whether there be prophe- cies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part ; but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away." (1 Cor. 13: 8-10.) This pas- sage plainly teaches that power to prophesy, to foretell fu- ture events, to teach things the teacher had never learned, to speak in languages he had never understood, and such like things, would all be done away; that they would be done away "when that which is perfect is come," and that means when a complete revelation of all things pertaining to Christianity should be revealed. This was done when the New Testament was completed, done in the early ages of the church ; and from that time until now there has not been a man on the earth that could perform miracles. There is not a Mormon on earth to-day that can perform a miracle, and there never has been. Mormonism came into existence many hundreds of years too late for it to be pos- sible for any of its followers ever to perform a miracle. If all the Mormons on earth were together in one place and should unite all their prayers and efforts, they could not, if their lives depended on it, perform one single miracle. They can go around and prate about contradictions in the Bible and about their ability to perform miracles, and mis- apply the above passage about believers being able to per- form miracles till doomsday, and yet they will never per- form a miracle. You may put them to the test in any way you choose, but they will never perform a miracle. They will not simply because they cannot, and those who claim the power to work miracles know they cannot. If it were in their power to perform miracles, they would soon fill the whole world with them, and they know it. All ought to study the Bible and fortify themselves against such empty claims and vain pretenses. SIN, NOT PARDONABLE. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain Heb. 10: 26, which reads thus: "For if we sin willfully after that we "have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins." 598 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, Also explain 1 John 3: 9, which reads thus: "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he can- not sin, because he is born of God." The apostle perhaps in this passage alludes to the sin of openly denying Christ and counting the blood of the cov- enant wherewith they were sanctified an unholy thing and doing despite unto the spirit of grace. But the Bible teaches abundantly that any sin willfully persisted in will become unpardonable. If the Jews had ceased to sin at nine times, they might have entered the promised land ; but they willfully sinned the tenth time, and no repentance could then take them into that goodly land. Whenever men sin in such a way as to set God at defiance, and go their own way when they know he commanded otherwise, as Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, no pardon can be ob- tained for them. The sin of Ananias and Sapphira was doubtless of this character. But the Bible teaches very plainly that when men sin through the weakness of the flesh, when it is not their intention to disobey and dishonor God, they may obtain pardon. John says : "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." The sins for which pardon is promised are not willful, presumptuous sins ; for such there is no pardon. All should strive to so live that they may never be guilty of willful sin. In the passage in John 3 the apostle is showing the char- acteristic difference between the children of God and the sinful people of the world who make no pretensions to honor God. The whole purpose and effort of the true child of God is to do his will, to do what is pleasing in his sight; while with the people of the world who reject the Lord, their whole purpose and effort is to go their own way and do as they please. The child of God loves him, and his whole de- sire is to do the Lord's will ; and while the seed, the word of God, remains in him, he cannot willingly sin. In other parts of the same letter he shows that none are free from sin. The weakness of the flesh is such, and the tempta- tions we meet in this life are so strong, that we are liable through mistake or sudden impulse to do wrong at any time; but sin is contrary to the purpose, the intention, of every true child of God, and he cannot willingly do what he knows to be wrong. Jesus said : "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." This is the same idea, only expressed in different form. E. G. S. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 599 SIN, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PETER'S AND PAUL'S. Brethren Lipscomb and Setvell: Please explain 1 Tim. 1: 13. If Peter had sinned knowingly, would there have been any remission for him? If this is so, will there be any remission granted to persons who sin now knowing the law of Christ? Observe John 9: 39-41 with the above-mentioned passage. Paul says, after having persecuted the church of Christ and wasted it, that he obtained mercy because he did it ig- norantly in unbelief. From this it is certain had he known that Jesus was the Christ and then engaged in the fierce persecution of that church that he did, he could not have been forgiven. But this is not saying all that is committed with a knowledge that it is sin is unpardonable. If so, only the sins of ignorance are pardonable. We find in the law of Moses that sins wittingly performed might be turned from and forgiven. (Lev. 5: 6.) It is equally true in the New Testament. Things of this character are the same under all dispensations. Peter did sin knowingly. He denied with a bitter oath that he knew Jesus ; he lied when he did it, and knew he was lying. He swore profanely, knowing it was wrong when he did it ; yet he obtained par- don. If Paul had committed his sin knowingly, he could not have been pardoned. Peter did sin knowingly, and was for- given. Wherein is the difference? We think it was in the character of the sins. Paul was a fierce, bitter persecutor. His heart and his soul were in the work. It was a sin of deliberate purpose — the intent of the soul to destroy the religion of Jesus from the face of the earth. Such a sin knowingly performed was (is) unpardonable. Peter's sin was not one of this character; he did not wish to injure Christ — to destroy his religion or hurt his children. He only wished to save himself from harm. It was not a sin of purpose of the heart, of design; it was a sin of weak- ness—a sin of the flesh. The spirit was willing, the flesh weak, in this case, as on another occasion. Then a sin of fleshly weakness, although we may know it is sin when com- mitted, if repented of, may be forgiven. If not, all men are lost. No man liveth and sinneth not. A deliberate pur- pose of destroying Jesus Christ and his work, engaged in, knowing that he is the Christ, yet with the purpose of de- stroying that work, is unpardonable. Judas sinned a sin of this kind. He deliberately in his heart determined to destroy Jesus, knowing him to be a good man. He could not be forgiven. This distinction as to sins is kept up throughout the Bible, and explains many of the apparent contradictions on the subject of sins. 600 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, The passage in John 9 : 41 says : "If ye were blind, ye should have no sin : but now ye say, We see ; therefore your sin remaineth." This is saying, if they were blind, they would not be guilty of the sin they were then guilty of, claiming, as they did, that they could not see. We ought all to be troubled enough by these passages to make us strive to avoid all sin, and, when through weakness of the flesh we fall into sin, to make us quickly repent and turn from it. D. L. SIN, CAN A CHILD OF GOD? Brother Sewell: Please explain 1 John 3: 9. John was not discussing whether a child of God can sin or fall from grace or not. He was showing the difference between the righteous and the wicked. A faithful child of God is always striving to do God's will, and will not do what the word of God forbids. The man who goes contrary to the will of God is a child of the devil and not of God. Je- sus teaches the same thing when he says a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, nor can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. A man whose heart is set on doing what God re- quires will not do wickedly, is the idea. In verse 6 he says : "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him." Again, in verse 8 he says : "He that committeth sin is of the devil ; for the devil sinneth from the beginning." In verse 10 he says: "In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil." From these expressions it is plain that John in this chapter was showing the difference between the children of God and the children of the wicked one. The Lord's people will not knowingly do wrong, while the wicked will not try to do right. When a Christian knowingly does wickedly, he ceases to be God's child and goes over to Satan. Hence, in verses 18, 19, John says: "My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue ; but in deed and in truth. And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him." So it depends upon the child of God whether he holds with God or with the devil. SIN, WILLFUL. Brother Lipscomb: Please explain Heb. 10: 26: "For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins." If one forsakes the as- sembling together on the Lord's day when he knows it is commanded that disciples come together to partake of the bread and wine as God has commanded, is it not a willful sin? If one gets drunk after he knows it is wrong, is that not willfully sinning? BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 601 When Abraham told Abimelech that Sarah was his sister to deceive him and save his own life, he knew he was mis- leading him. Again, Isaac denied his wife in the presence of Abimelech. (Gen. 26 : 7.) David knew he sinned when he defiled Bath-sheba. When Peter denied that he knew Jesus, he knew he lied. He knew he acted deceitfully when at Antioch he and Barnabas "dissembled" and refused to eat with the Gentile converts. (Gal. 2: 11-13.) All sins that we know to be sins are not willful sins. If they were, none of us would be saved. Every one knowingly commits sin. The willful sin of the Bible seems to me one in which the sinner seems to be wiser and smarter than God, assumes to change God's laws, and substitutes his own inventions for the appointments of God. King Saul did this. (1 Sam. 15: 3.) God told Saul to go and smite all the Amalekites and destroy the men, women, and children, and all the stock of every kind and description. Saul changed it so as to destroy the vile and refuse and save the fit and desirable animals to sacrifice to the Lord. He thought he would honor God by changing the law of God rather than by obey- ing it. God refused to forgive this sin. This was to sin willfully. God said: "Because thou hast rejected the word of Jehovah, he hath also rejected thee from being king." (Verse 23.) To intentionally displace a command of God with an invention of man is the willful sin. This is espe- cially true since the commands of God are sealed by the blood of his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. The habitual neglect of the Lord's service or any worship of God educates and schools man to set aside God's laws and to set up his own ways in their stead. Brother Sewell: . (1) What is meant by sinning willfully, as given in Heb. 10: 26? (2) Please tell what Heb. 6: 6 means. (3) Again, please make Matt. 12 : 32 as plain as possible. (1) The passage evidently means an open, willful disre- gard of any part of the will of God. Any child of God that does that virtually rejects Christ as his Savior and deprives himself of all the blessings of salvation provided through him. There is a very great difference between willful sins and sins committed through the weakness of the flesh. In the one case we purposely refuse to do the will of God ; in the other we allow sudden impulses of the flesh to so over- come us that we yield to them, and do and say things that are wrong, not because we want to do the wrong, but sim- ply through human weakness. These latter sins may be repented of and forgiven, while willful sins cannot be for- given. (2) This passage teaches virtually the same thing, show- 602 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, ing most emphatically that those who willfully rebel or sin against the will of God virtually trample the Son of God underfoot, thus discounting the blood of the covenant wherewith they had been sanctified and depriving them- selves of all the blessings of salvation. (3) This verse says: "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him : but who- soever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be for- given him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." This passage seems to indicate that personal wrongs can be forgiven upon genuine repentance, but that the sin against the Holy Spirit can never be forgiven. Christ was manifested in a human body, a body of flesh and blood. The Jews that insulted and spoke against him did not look upon him as divine in any sense. Hence there was a chance for them to repent and be forgiven. Hence he prayed for the forgiveness of his persecutors while he was on the cross; not meaning, of course, that they could be forgiven without repentance, but that if they would repent they should be -forgiven as other penitents. We may not be able to understand all the reasons why it is so much more dangerous to speak against the Holy Spirit than against the Son of man; but Jesus knew, and it ought to be sufficient for us that he said so. It is also a matter of fact that it was through the miraculous inspiring power of the Holy Spirit that we have the Bible, the word of God, to-day. Even the apostles could not have preached the gospel to the world without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and we would not have the New Testament, the gospel plan of sal- vation, to-day, if men inspired by the Holy Spirit had not written it down. From the time the last inspired man died the whole world has been dependent upon the New Tes- tament, which was given through the miraculous inspi- ration of the Holy Spirit, for all spiritual light. Hence, man knocks out his last chance of salvation when he blas- phemes, or speaks against, the Holy Spirit of God. The verse immediately preceding the one you name dis- tinctly says : "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blas- phemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." Mark (3: 29, 30) says: "But he that shall blas- pheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: because they said, He hath an unclean spirit." The Pharisees had just accused him of casting out devils by the prince of the devils, and that was what brought forth the terrible condemnation mentioned in the passage you name. Hence, all should be BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 603 careful not to express an intimation of wrong against the Holy Spirit, which shows us the way of salvation through the precious words of the New Testament. SIN, "THE MAN OF," AND OTHER QUESTIONS. Brother Sewell: (1) Please explain who is the man of sin spoken of in 2 Thess. 2: 3. When was he revealed? (2) Does one member in the body of Christ possess more power or rights than another? (3) Can you tell us which is the oldest congregation of disciples, or Christians, in Tennessee? (1) The man of sin is understood to be a principle of error or lawlessness that arose in the church after the apos- tles had passed away. This lawless principle, as it is called in the Revised Version, is a principle among those claim- ing to be the Lord's people that are not willing to be con- trolled in all things by the word of God. When it suits them, they go by it and make claim to be sticklers for the Book ; but when it does not suit them, they introduce some- thing in its place, thus assuming to be wiser than God. That is what is meant by the statement in that chapter that he will sit in the temple of God, showing himself to be God ; that he would exalt himself above all that is called God ; that will with impunity set the word of God aside or change it to suit themselves. This power began to arise, little by little, in the early centuries of Christianity, but it was not until the early part of the seventh century that it was de- veloped in its most objectionable features. There was a bitter contest between the bishops of the cities of Rome and Constantinople as to which one of those churches should have the universal bishop. This struggle began in the sec- ond century on a small scale, when the churches first began to hold a sort of general councils, including certain sections of country at first, but which kept enlarging, and making the most prominent bishops of the churches, or of the churches of the largest cities, to preside over these conven- tions. They kept assuming more power in these conven- tions, and giving leading or prominent bishops more and more power and influence, till the struggle settled down between the two large cities named above — Rome, in the west, and Constantinople, in the east. But about the year 606 the Roman emperor conferred the title of "universal bishop" upon the bishop of Rome. Then the churches of these cities separated. The church of Constantinople be- came leader of the Greek Church, while Rome became head of the Roman Catholic Church. These two churches have likely become the largest developments of that lawless prin- ciple that are known in the religious world. But many of the leading Protestant denominations are following after 604 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, their mothers in the way of introducing innovations upon the word of God. The church of Rome, after immersion was virtually the one baptism for about thirteen hundred years, in one of their large conventions, or councils, de- cided that affusion, sprinkling and pouring, should be rec- ognized as all right. Affusion soon became the universal practice in the church of Rome, or the Roman Catholic Church. The Protestant churches that came out from Rome brought that innovation with them, and others like- wise have adopted it. Now quite a large portion of the whole religious world practice affusion instead of baptism, immersion. The Greek Church, however, still holds to im- mersion, though they have made many other bad breaks. The whole matter of creed making, instead of being gov- erned by the word of God, is quite a large development of the man of sin. The matter of building up societies of hu- man wisdom to do the work of the church is another devel- opment of this lawless principle. Anything that sets the word of God aside and exalts human wisdom or opinions to its place is understood to be of the man of sin. So it is a principle personified, rather than a person, that is called the man of sin. (2) There is no member that has any more power than another in the way of authority. Christ has all authority in heaven and on earth, and is "head over all things to the church." So there is not a particle of legislative authority belonging to any member of the church, or body of mem- bers, on earth. But as a matter of talent, or ability, and disposition to work, there are some members that have a much greater power of influence and executive ability than others; but there is no such a thing as official authority one above another, or rights that others do not have. The whole church of God is a kingdom of priests to him, with equal rights and privileges before the Lord. God has or- dained, appointed, however, that some members, on account of their age, Bible knowledge, experience, and ability to work, shall be overseers and servants in the church, to keep the churches under guidance of the word of God ; not to be officers over them, but examples to the flock. Some mem- bers that have more talent than others are under more ob- ligation to do certain work than others, because of ability, not because of any sort of official authority. (3) We are not able to state which is the oldest congre- gation in the State. The church at Roan's Creek, in West Tennessee, is said to be one of the oldest, and is the mother of a number of other younger and prominent congregations in that section of the State ; but we cannot tell which is the BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 605 oldest. In may be that some that may see this can give the information. Brother Lipscomb : Please explain Thess. 2 : 3-13 through the Gos- pel Advocate. I suppose the second letter to the Thessalonians is meant. It is universally agreed that it means an apostasy in the church would take place before the day of the Lord, or the judgment of the world, should come. A power would arise in the church that would turn away from the law of God, that would exalt itself into the place of God. God's place is to make laws for his people. This power would take this authority on itself and change and modify the laws of God. So it is said to sit in the temple of God, to exalt and oppose God as the only Ruler and Lawgiver, and set itself forth as the rival of God. Paul tells them he had warned them of this when he was with them. Paul said that power was beginning to work in his day, but was restrained, for the time, by a power which I believe was himself; that when that power was taken out of the way — when Paul should die — then he would be revealed ; that power would come, according to the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceit of unright- eousness for those who refuse to receive the truth in the love of it. That power Jesus will destroy with the breath of his mouth and bring it to naught by the manifestation of his presence. God permits this delusion to come upon his people, that they might believe a lie and be damned, be- cause they did not believe his truth, but had pleasure in un- righteousness. The Holy Spirit tells this would come to pass. The question of difficulty is: When did it come to pass, and what are the manifestations of it? This power was to rise in the church, be of a religious character, set aside the law of God, and make laws to take the place of these laws of God. Protestants generally say the Roman Catholics constitute this growth that began in the days of Paul, but was hindered in development until his death ; then professed Christians began to meet to consider the general welfare, and, through delegates, to form organiza- tions that by degrees grew into the papacy. I think there is but little doubt this is true, but this is only one develop- ment of the principle. All dissatisfaction among Chris- tians with the laws and appointments as God gave them is a manifestation of this spirit of lawlessness or rebellion against God, and all organizations growing out of this spirit of dissatisfaction are manifestations of the man of sin. Roman Catholicism, I do not doubt, is the highest manifes- 606 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, tation of the spirit of the man of sin. But every time we manifest a dissatisfaction with the laws and appointments of God ,we show this spirit, and every law adopted or or- ganization made is an embodiment and manifestation of the spirit of lawlessness. Lyman Coleman, an eminent Presbyterian historian, voices the unanimous decision of church historians when he says : "They instituted no external form of union or con- federation between those of different towns or provinces; nor within the first century of the Christian era can any trace of such a confederacy, whether diocesan or conven- tional, be detected on the page of history/' ("Presbyte- rian Church," page 47.) "It is not until the second cen- tury that any traces of that sort of association from whence councils took their origin are to be perceived, when we found them accruing here and there. Some of them were tolerably clear and distinct; others, again, but slight and faint ; which seems plainly to prove that the practice arose subsequently to the times of the apostles." These coun- cils to consult for the good of all sprang up after the death of Paul and through successive stages culminated in the papacy in the sixth century ; but if the papacy is the grown man of sin, these converts in their successive stages repre- sent him in his childhood and youth. All similar organi- zations are of the same character, although external sur- roundings may hinder a growth into the same form and character. All substitutions of human order for God's ap- pointments are phases of the development of the mystery of iniquity that began to work in Paul's day. Jesus will destroy all these developments when he appears. SIN, THE, "UNTO DEATH." Brother Lipscovib : Please give your views on 1 John 5: 16, 17: "If any man see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and God will give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death : not concerning this do I say that he should make request. All unrighteousness is sin : and there is a sin not unto death." "If any man see his brother sinning a sin not unto death." How are we to know? "He shall ask, and God will give him life for them that sin not unto death." Give who life? If to the one that asks, how can it help the brother who sins? Also, some of the native believers think verse 17 affords an excuse for some sins — that, for instance, it is not very bad to lie a little. We have never been able to reach a conclusion as to the meaning of this scripture. Most commentators refer it to the spiritually gifted. They connect it with James' direc- tion to the elders to anoint the sick with oil, pray over them, and they shall be healed, and refer both to the age of miracles. It has always seemed to us unnatural and BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 607 strained to take two or three verses out of scriptures di- rected to all Christians and for all ages and apply it to a specific class in one age. This gives great license for many evils. Macknight thinks that mortal diseases were brought upon people in that age for sin. The spiritually gifted could discern it. "To encourage those to repent who by their sins had brought on themselves mortal diseases — these were in the first age persons who, being endowed with the gift of healing diseases miraculously (1 Cor. 12: 9), were moved by the Holy Ghost to heal the sick, who had repented of the sins which had brought on them the diseases under which they were laboring. We may, therefore, believe that when John directed any one who saw his brother sinning a sin not unto death to ask God to give him life, he did not mean any ordinary Christian, but any spiritual man en- dowed with the gift of healing diseases; and that the brother for whom the spiritual man was to ask life was not any brother who had sinned, but the brother one who had been punished for his sin by some mortal disease, but who, having repented of his sin, it was not a sin unto death; and that the life asked for such a brother was not eternal life, but a miraculous recovery from the mortal disease under which he was laboring." That explanation is not satisfactory to me, as I see no reason for confining this to the miraculously endowed and applying the remainder to all ages and people. To give men license to thus set aside scripture as inapplicable to us that does not seem clear and possible, goes a long way toward setting aside the author- ity of scripture. But I have no clear and definite idea as to the meaning of the scripture, or how we can tell which sin is unto death and which not. Yet in that age there were clearer distinc- tions as to sins of this character than we have. Paul states Christ was of none effect to those who went back to Juda- ism. These were fallen from grace. (Gal. 5:4.) Again, for him that sinned willfully there was no more sacrifice for sin. These sins for which there was no forgiveness were better defined in the apostolic days than now. Our failure to keep a clear distinction comes somewhat from our altered surroundings and somewhat from loose habits of thought into which we have fallen. I think the life and death referred to are spiritual, and not bodily. When he gives life to the prayer, it is the spiritual life of those who sin. They are forgiven, and are said to be given him who prayed for them, as they were forgiven in answer to his prayer. Lying certainly is not classed among the minor sins in the Bible. 608 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, SINGING, QUERIES ON. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: (1) In our Bible class we differ some in regard to our song service. Can erring brethren and sisters honor God by singing praises to his name, while at the same time they refuse to pray and commune at the Lord's table? One good brother says if any one wants to sing, he has no objections. (2) Is it not the duty of the elders to teach the people that they should not degrade the song service? (3) Is there not danger in our endeavoring to teach the church to sing different parts of music to time of causing them to neglect the example given by the apostle in 1 Cor. 14: 15? (4) Is it in keeping with the New Testament Scriptures for our breth- ren to teach the world to sing spiritual songs? (5) Have we not rea- son to believe that singing different parts of music in church leads some to the opinion that instruments are admissible? (1) Members of the church that are not faithful to the Lord and will not pray nor partake of the Lord's Supper cannot do anything that will be well pleasing to the Lord, except to turn from their evil and rebellious ways and go to serving the Lord in the earnestness of their souls. Such may enjoy the singing as a mere matter of music, but are not in a condition to sing with grace in their hearts to the Lord. As a matter of service and praise to God, their sing- ing is a failure. But I do not know that there is any au- thority to forbid them to sing. They sing on their own responsibility ; and if their singing the songs of Zion should help to bring them to repentance by the kindly admonitions of the songs which they sing with the congregation, then that much good is done by their singing. Christians are to teach and admonish one another in song, and sometimes the singing of a good song may cause even lifeless members to repent and turn to the Lord and do their first works. It is not well to establish rules where the Lord has estab- lished none. This is about as dangerous as to leave undone rules that he has established. (2) It is certainly the duty of the elders to teach the members all that the word of the Lord teaches on singing and everything else ; but it is not the duty of the elders to make and enforce any rules of their own in regard to the worship of the Lord. If all who are not faithful Christians are to be debarred from singing in the congregation, I think the elders would sometimes have a troublesome time of it to draw the lines so as to say just who may sing and who may not. But whenever members are notably bad and cannot be improved by teaching and admonition, they should be withdrawn from, and that would remove the trou- ble. So long as such members are allowed to remain in the church, I do not see how the elders could consistently stop them from singing. (3) There is, doubtless, some danger at this point that BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 609 should be avoided if possible. Christians should be taught to sing correctly, and I do not see how one part in music can be objected to more than another, nor how any part can be objected to if we sing tunes at all. In the worship Christians should be taught to have their hearts on the sentiment and to sing with the spirit and the understand- ing also. If Christians sing only one part of a tune in the worship, and yet sing that one part simply to enjoy the mu- sic there is in it, and not with a purpose to praise and honor the Lord and to benefit their own hearts and lives by the sentiment of the song, then their singing is no benefit to themselves and no praise to the Lord. All extremes should be avoided in the matter of song by Christians, and they should sing, when engaged in the worship, with "melody in their hearts to the Lord." If Christians sing in the wor- ship merely for the sake of fine music, there is no worship and no good in it. When people are learning to sing, they then have to give attention to the music; or if they sing just for the sake of the music at times when not engaged in the worship or sing for pastime, there is nothing wrong that I can see for them to simply enjoy the music as a pleasure. But not so when they are in the assembly of the saints and engaged in the worship of the Lord. Then they should sing with the spirit and with the understanding also, and this can be done just as well in singing different parts of the tune as in singing only one part. (4) I do not see any impropriety in using spiritual songs when teaching the principles of music and when they are not assembled for worship. If the people of the world want to attend the classes when teaching members of the church to sing these songs and when only the matter of learning to sing is up as the purpose, I can see no impro- priety in it; but aliens cannot honor the Lord by singing spiritual songs anywhere, in the congregation or out of it. When aliens learn to sing these songs before they come in, then they are ready to sing in a way that will honor the Lord and benefit their own hearts when they do become Christians. (5) No, it is not the singing of the different parts of the tunes that cultivates the desire for the organ, but a worldly, fleshly mind and a mere desire for fine music and to have something to attract and entertain that brings in the organ. God commands his people to sing, and does not say whether they shall sing one part of the tune or two or three. No, it is not the doing of what God commands that brings in the organ; it is a perverted taste, a perversion of God's divine arrangements, that does it. If Christians 610 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, sing in the worship alone for the music there is in it to their own ears, and not with the purpose to worship and honor the Lord, this is no better than putting in an organ for the same purpose. It is well that Christians should think on these things; and there should be good, sound teaching done along this line to prevent evil from creeping in where God has arranged for pure praise and honor to him and for our own edification. Select choirs to make the music for a worshiping assembly, with a part of the choir not members of the church at all, is not worshiping the Lord in song. The members of the church themselves and for themselves are the ones that are required to sing, and they cannot hand this duty over to a choir, whether with the organ or without the organ. No doubt there are many members of the church who have never studied the matter of worshiping God in song as they should. Too many have the idea that singing is something to please and gratify their own ears, and not a matter of praise, devo- tion, and service to God or a matter of teaching and ad- monishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. On the other hand, we need not think that because the singing is a matter of worship to God, therefore we need not pay any attention to the manner of singing. Bad singing may so grate on the ear as to destroy even the idea of devotion. The singing should be so carried on that there will be nothing in the manner of it to take the attention of the worshipers from their devotion to God. Hence, all Christians who can sing should learn to sing reasonably well, so that there shall be nothing in the manner of sing- ing that shall be unpleasant, harsh, or in any way inharmo- nious, so that the devotion of the heart may not be dis- turbed thereby. So there can be no objection to good sing- ing. But any good thing may be perverted. Good sing- ing may be perverted and run away with ; and this, doubt- less, is very extensively done. E. G. S. SINLESS, DO CHRISTIANS BECOME? Brother Lipscomb: Do the Scriptures teach that the children of God can become perfect while in the flesh — that is, reach a state of perfect love and a state in which they cease to sin? If so, please ex- plain the following scriptures: "At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you." (John 16: 26.) "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." (Heb. 7: 25.) "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." (Heb. 9: 24.) "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." (1 John 2: 1.) "And having a high priest BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 611 over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in full as- surance of faith, having- our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." (Heb. 10: 21, 22.) If the Scriptures teach that we cannot reach such a state, please explain the following scriptures: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matt. 5: 48.) "Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect." (1 Cor. 2: 6.) "Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus." (Col. 1: 28.) "Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen." (Heb. 13: 20, 21.) "But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you." (1 Pet. 5: 10.) "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God." (1 Pet. 4: 1, 2.) Christ was not made perfect until he had suffered. "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor ; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through suffer- ings." (Heb. 2: 9, 10.) "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered ; and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salva- tion unto all them that obey him." (Heb. 5: 8, 9.) If it required the sufferings of the cross that Jesus, the Son of God, might learn obedience and be made perfect, that he might become "the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him," it seems to me hardly possible that man, frail and sinful, should be made perfect without equal suffering. I do not believe any human being equals Jesus in this. 1 Pet. 4 : 1 says : "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind : for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin." Jesus possessed the sinful emotions within him until they were purged out by suffering. I do not believe the emotion and temptation to sin can be purged out of any without suffering in the flesh unto death. I think this explains the reason of much of the suffering that good people undergo. It explains why the infant suffers. I might say more along this line, but a person that claims he is equal to or surpasses Jesus in the elements of his character that lead to freedom from sinful desires and im- 612 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, pulses is hardly to be reasoned with. Yet there was a perfection that Jesus attained to and cherished during his life — that is, his heart was perfect toward God. He de- sired with a perfect heart to do the will of God. His will to do the will of his Father was sufficiently strong to hold in check the sinful emotions of the flesh, so that he com- mitted no sin. Man may approximate this perfection of the heart. The heart may be brought to sincerely desire to do the will of God. Does it attain the degree of power over the flesh that the man never sins in thought, word, or deed; by commission or omission? I do not believe it does. To do this would be for man in his human nature to equal Jesus with his divine nature. The thought and claim of sinless perfection in human beings savors of presumption, the worst of all sins before God. The claim of persons who really know very little of what constitutes true Christian- ity being sinless is well calculated to bring the religion of Jesus into contempt with thinking men. While this is true, it is right for every Christian to keep before him the ex- ample of the sinless life of Jesus and the perfection of the heart in its sincere and earnest desire to do the will of God. and strive to emulate them. These latter scriptures quoted are exhortations to strive after this, or prayers and hopes that they may finally be made perfect in Christ Jesus, that they may be accepted of God. Every passage quoted rec- ognizes man as in an imperfect state and needing to go on to perfection, that he may strive after and approach that state. Some of the quotations give clear intimation that perfection can be attained only when freed from the fleshly impulses. Any one that will read these passages over with this thought in mind will see this is true without my going over and applying it to each separately. A perfection of heart — that is, a sincere desire to do the will of God in all things — is to be cultivated and striven for. Its attainment is gradual, and I doubt if it can ever be said to be perfect while in the flesh. As the heart approximates this perfec- tion, it seeks to bring the flesh in subjection ; but the sinful emotions and desires are purged out only through the suf- fering and weakness that end in death. Brother Sewell: Does 1 John 3: 9 teach that a Christian is to reach a point in his Christian character here in this life that he can- not sin? The verse is this: " Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." These "sanctification" folks, who teach that they do not and cannot sin, make John contradict himself. In the first chapter he says : "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 613 ourselves, and the truth is not in us." In this he was talk- ing to Christians, and included himself, which shows that none can live in the flesh and in this sinful world and not sin. Hence those that so interpret verse 9, chapter 3, as to make him say that if a man be truly a child of God he cannot sin in any sense make the word of God a contradic- tion. It is evident, therefore, that they misinterpret verse 9. The apostle in this passage was showing the difference between wicked people, who do not pretend to serve the Lord at all, and the children of God, who are trying to serve him all the time. In the next verse he says: "In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil : whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother." In the case of wicked people they do not try to serve the Lord at all, but serve the devil all the time ; but the children of God are all the time striving to do the Lord's will and to avoid sin. A true child of God, therefore, cannot and will not willfully or purposely sin, and this is the point John was making. A true child of God is all the time trying not to sin, while wicked peo- ple — the children of the wicked one — have no such thought or purpose, but are heedlessly sinning all the time. But while the righteous are striving all the time to do right — to do the Lord's will — while the spirit is willing, the flesh is weak, and temptations are sometimes sudden and strong ; and through these weaknesses the best of people, even as John himself, are liable to sin. This weakness, this lia- bility to sin, is what he was talking about in the latter part of the first chapter, as quoted above, in which the liability of all to sin is taught. He also teaches, in the same con- nection, that sins through weakness, that were not sins of purpose, can be forgiven. So there is perfect harmony in the two passages. Hence those who teach that they reach such a state of sanctification that they cannot sin misapply the passage in chapter 3, and thus hold up the Bible in these matters as a book of contradictions. On account of the weakness of the flesh and the multitude and strength of temptations it keeps Christians watching and praying as long as they live to keep from sinning, and even then they will sometimes make a miss. Such is the teaching of John. E. G. S. SINNERS, ALIEN, AND RESTITUTION, ETC. Brother Lipscomb: (1) Does an alien sinner have to make resti- tution before he can become a Christian — that is, if he has stolen, if he has slandered his neighbor, if he has defrauded any one, if he has taken anything that does not belong to him, must he redress the in- jured parties? If so, why do not our preachers say something about it and let the people know it? (2) One of our big preachers said the 614 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, other day that the new covenant is our mother, and not the king- dom; that we are begotten in the covenant, born out of it into the kingdom — something new to me and the brethren. Are not the new covenant and the kingdom the same thing? (1) All misrepresentation or deception is lying. Every- thing gained through misrepresentation and deception is stolen. So long as a man intentionally permits a misrep- resentation he has made to remain uncorrected, he is guilty of lying; so long as he retains what he has dishonestly gained, he is a thief. If I slander a man, so long as I fail to correct that slander, I am a slanderer; if I defraud a man by misrepresentation, so long as I fail to restore, I am both a liar and a thief. There is no repentance of a sin without undoing it. If a man has wronged another and is not able to correct the wrong, it is his duty to confess the wrong toward the man and to the extent of his ability cor- rect the wrong. If the preachers do not dwell on this, I suppose it is because the sins are so common they are dis- couraged from undertaking to correct it. (2) I am not up on the questions the big preacher dis- cusses. I think much of the reasoning darkens counsel rather than throws light on it. The covenant embraces the laws which must rule in the kingdom, I would say. SINNERS, ALIEN, AND PRAYER. Brother Lipscomb: Will God hear the prayers of an alien sinner? God has heard alien sinners who were anxious to know and do the will of God. Cornelius is a notable example of this. On the other hand, he will not hear sinners in the church who refuse to hear. "He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomina- tion." (Prov. 28: 9.) And similar expressions (Prov. 15: 8; 21: 27; Ps. 50: 9) are all spoken to the professed serv- ants of God. The truth is this: When a man is refusing to obey God, whether in the church or out of it, God will not hear him ; when he is seeking to know and do the will of God, his prayers are acceptable to God. When a man prays God to forgive his sins while refusing to do what God tells him to do that he may receive the forgiveness of sins, God will not hear that prayer. That is all that is needed to be taught people. Go forward and do what God commands, "calling on the name of the Lord." SLAVES AND MASTERS. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Will you please give us an expla- nation of the following scriptures, as there is a difference of opinion in this neighborhood in reference to who are the servants and mas- ters referred to? Some of us think the servants are the negroes who BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 615 have been liberated in the United States; others think differently. The passages are: "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed." (1 Tim. 6:1.) "Servants, be subject to your masters, with all fear; not only to the good and gen- tle, but also to the froward." (1 Pet. 2: 18.) "Servants, be obe- dient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ." (Eph. 6:5.) "Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again." (Tit. 2:9.) The apostles in the above passages, we think, had no di- rect reference to the United States in any way. Yet they laid down principles that apply as well in the United States as any other country under like circumstances. These pas- sages had direct reference to the churches to which the let- ters were addressed, but will apply equally well to any other churches where like relationships exist. According to the history of that country in which these churches and indi- viduals were to which these epistles were written, slavery of a very rigid form was in force, in which the master had full possession and control of the servants. The Christian religion never proposed to interfere with the political in- stitutions of any country, but always inculcated and re- quired the quiet submission of the members of the church to the laws of the country where they lived, except as mod- ified by their higher obligations to God in case there should be a conflict. Hence, where slavery was the law of the land, instead of interfering with the institution, Christianity di- rected both the master and the servant how to act toward each other in that relationship. But when one man en- gages himself to serve or work for another in any capac- ity, even where both parties are equally free, so far as po- litical relations are concerned, the one employed should serve his employer faithfully and honestly, according to agreement ; while at the same time the employer must treat the one employed with equity and justice, according to con- tract. In this sense the principles of the above passages apply to the colored people of our country at the present time. When they engage themselves to their former own- ers or others, they are required to be faithful to their en- gagements as rigidly as if they belonged to them; and at the same time the white brethren who employ them are un- der the strongest obligation to fulfill their engagements to the colored man. But the relationship politically that ex- isted then between the master and the servant was very different from that which now exists in our country. Then it was actually master and servant in the sense of posses- sion or property ; now it is so only by voluntary agreement for a specified time or purpose. 616 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, So, then, we conclude that the passages under consider- ation have no direct reference to the colored people of our country, any more than to any other citizens who are mem- bers of the church. We understand that in the above pas- sages both masters and servants were members of the church, and these instructions are intended for all Chris- tians wherever the same relations exist. Very much the same principles hold good in the case of hired servants. Both parties are bound by the laws of God to treat each other justly. If those apostles had been writing to churches in our country as it now exists, where the churches were composed of white and colored members, they would not have addressed them as master and servant ; but they would have taught them to treat each other honestly and faith- fully in all their dealings with each other, which principle is abundantly taught throughout the New Testament. If the institution of slavery still existed, then the address would be as the passages above. E. G. S. SOCIABLES, PARTIES, ETC. Please give what you understand the Bible to teach in regard to Christians attending what they term sociables, wherein they engage in all kinds of songs and plays. They claim that because they do not dance they commit no wrong. The Christian religion does not propose to repress all recreation or social pleasures among the young; and when we are children or young, we will have childish ways. The danger is with the young that they become excited and car- ried away by their excesses and engage in that which is fleshly, sensual, and demoralizing. The young need to be guarded and restrained, lest they go to excess and lest they engage in that which is hurtful. The dance is sinful, because its chief attraction is in the excitement of the lusts and tempts to wrong. The young will and should have pleasant associations with each other in ways that lead to no excess. Parents and older persons ought to study to provide the young with these, and to be present in their social gatherings to see that they do not thoughtlessly run into excess. I cannot speak of what are called sociables or social gath- erings of the young. They may be evil or they may not be. Good society demands the presence of older and prudent persons in these gatherings to restrain from excess and to lead in ways that are proper. Much more Christianity de- mands of parents in these matters. Do not try to deny the young social enjoyments and recreations, but try to guard against evil and direct them in the ways that are not sinful. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 617 SOCIAL MEETINGS. Brother Lipscomb: Kindly tell through the Gospel Advocate whether or not it is wrong for a number of people to meet at their homes one evening in each week to study moral philosophy, ethics, or good morals. Suppose that a number of people take Professor Gau's textbook, "Good Morals and Gentle Manners," and study a chapter or a number of chapters at an appointed place once a week, select a leader, and recite as we would recite a lesson in school ; would that be right or wrong? We have no officers, no by-laws, no admis- sion fee, no pledge. There are some very good people who class such work or study with Christian Endeavor Societies, aid societies, church fairs, festivals, etc.; hence I want information. I do not think it wrong for Christians to meet with the persons of the world to help them in any work that benefits men and women and violates no command of God. There is no harm in Christians meeting with those not Christians, to build houses, roll logs, make a quilt, learn to read or write, sew, study farming, or do anything that would im- prove any one or all. "If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go ; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no questions for conscience' sake. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for con- science' sake." (1 Cor. 10: 27, 28.) Here permission is given to Christians to go to feasts of unbelievers at which it was probable things offered to idols would be placed be- fore them to eat. Certainly if they could attend feasts with heathens for social and fleshly enjoyments, they could meet with them for mutual improvement of mind or body. It is the duty of Christians to cultivate kindly relations with sinners — to go among them, associate with them in such way as to be able to help them, and thus to be able to teach them the truth. "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith." Every opportunity we have of helping them to improve their conditions — spiritually, men- tally, or bodily — it is our duty to use to aid them. The idea that we are to stand aloof from men and women be- cause they are not Christians — to refuse to mingle and as- sociate with them and take an interest in promoting their good and happiness in every way — is a perversion of the religion of Jesus Christ. He so associated with them and took an interest in all their affairs that he was called the "friend of sinners." The evil to be guarded against is not that we will be brought into contact with the world, but we are not to enter into such relations with or obligations to un- believers that we are liable to be controlled by their actions. A simple meeting together with them or association purely voluntary, by which one is not controlled by their actions, 618 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, is not of this class. Then religious organizations formed by men to do work God committed to the church and to Christians in their individual capacity — this last is to indi- viduals as members of his church — are adding to the ap- pointments of God ; they supersede his appointments or di- vide their work with them and weaken and dishonor them ; they are sinful, regardless of the work they do. But in meetings for social intercourse or mutual helpfulness in any mental, moral, religious, or bodily improvement there can be no wrong. SOCIETIES, REPLY TO J. W. HIGBEE ON. Brother Lipscomb : I have been reading the Gospel Advocate since January 1. I have seen nothing harsh or unchristianlike in it until lately, and I know you will pardon me if I am mistaken. In the is- sue of that paper, bearing date August 15, on page 504, we have a letter from Brother F. M. Green in regard to the work of two mis- sionary societies, and followed by comments from your pen. Could a Christian in the name of Christ do what you charge Brother Green with doing in the second and third paragraphs of your reply? Could a society doing so dishonestly be a "Christian missionary society?" The first five periods of the fourth paragraph convey the idea that all of those who through the preaching of this society give their hearts and are "buried with him by baptism unto death" "will be burned out in hell by the unquenchable wrath of God." Again, that these mis- sionary preachers, though with trusting and loving hearts they are ^reaching "all the words of this life" in the exact "form of sound /ords" to the "strangers to the covenant of promise," yet their gos- iel is impure, and consequently another, which will bring down the t'rath of God upon the preacher and society, and "will be burned out n hell by the unquenchable wrath of God." The Review of August U0 does not agree with my brother. "J. F. R." speaks better than that of the Foreign Society. Do you agree with that paper about that society? J. W. Higbee. We certainly thank Brother Higbee for calling attention to anything that is wrong in our writing or teaching. This we tried to do with the teachings of the missionary society, and we would be done by just as we do to others in this re- spect. We may use terms a little harsh-sounding some- times. We sometimes do this to make persons think. Ev- erything displeasing to Almighty God in this world will be burned up in hell. I believe this. Does Brother Higbee? "Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up," says Jesus. "Upon this rock I will build my church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The gates of hell, then, shall prevail against every other church or organization except this church of Jesus Christ. "Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, Wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall de- clare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 619 shall try every man's work of what sort it is." Now, all work done under the direction of God is "gold, silver, pre- cious stones." All work done not under the direction of God, all done through teaching for doctrines the command- ments of men, is "wood, hay, stubble," and will be burned up "by the unquenchable wrath of God." You believe this, do you not, Brother Higbee? Then if anything that I have said is unchristian, it will be burned up "by the unquench- able wrath of God." When Brother Higbee says that my language is "unchristianlike," he means it will be burned up "by the unquenchable wrath of God." I do not think it would have been harsh or unchristian for him to have said so. I thought, I still think, the building these associations unauthorized by the God of heaven unchristian. I think everything unchristian, work and thought, will be burned up "by the unquenchable wrath of God." I said so. It may be harsh, unchristianlike; but I fail to see it so. I have no doubt I have done work that will be burned up in hell. I wish for the future to do as little of that kind of work as possible. If one of my brethren, or any one else, sees me doing work that he thinks will be destroyed in hell, I will thank him for calling my attention to it. I will review it carefully. I said not one word about the fate of any one. I have no doubt that many persons have been converted to Christ by agencies and even individuals that were doomed to hell; yet the converts were saved. Paul seemed to think so. (See 1 Cor. 9 : 27.) The converse is also true. We say not one word about Brother Green's work. We saw him ; we liked him. He made a report when he went home of things of which he knew but little. We spoke of the society, not of the men ; nor did we speak of motives. We do not believe it is a Christian missionary society. We do not believe any organization or practice is Christian un- less ordained or authorized by Christ and his apostles. This society is not ordained of God, God nor Jesus Christ ever ordained or authorized a society or a church from which his humble, faithful children are excluded on account of their poverty or in which membership and honors and influence are based upon money considerations. A society based on and acting upon such principles is subversive of the whole spirit of the religion of Jesus Christ, and is sail- ing under false colors when it calls itself Christian. Its tendency is to build up a moneyed aristocracy in the church of God. There is not a precept or an example in all the book of God that indicates God could favor an association based upon such principles. The preaching the gospel to 620 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, the world is a work in which every Christian has a birth- right to bear a part, to hold fellowship. To deprive one of fellowship in this because he or she is not able to pay a specified sum of money is just as great a violation of God's order and of Christian fellowship and brotherhood as to say a poor brother or sister cannot partake of the Lord's Supper unless he or she will pay a specified amount of money. 0, no, Brother Higbee, no such society as that ever had its origin with God or Christ; and "every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up." It is not Christian. Our statements concerning Brethren Brayboy and Wood are true. They were at work, doing a good work. A very few dollars a year are sent them. Their work is reported as society work. It injures them by letting the impression get out that they are supported by the society, so that oth- ers in their vicinity who would help them feel that they are released from the obligation to aid them. We can give other cases in which the influence of support promised stopped active white preachers from work. If the preachers preach all the words of this life as given in the Bible, they do not preach missionary societies other than the churches of God. They teach the necessity of taking God's ordinances and appointments just as the apos- tles delivered them, adding nothing to, taking nothing from. It is just as great an assumption of authority to organize a society and substitute it for the church of God to spread the truth as it is to form a Methodist society; just as great to change the work of preaching the gospel from the church to which God committed it to a society formed by man on a money basis as it is to change immersion into sprinkling. A man who claims the right to change any appointment of God or to substitute for it an organization of man does not preach "all the words of this life" and cannot preach a pure gospel. Disciples of Christ have no more right to change God's appointments than Methodists or Baptists or Romanists. They have no more right to change or modify his arrangements for spreading the gospel than they have to change the ordinances for admission into his church. The only Christian course is : Take all of his appointments just as he gave them; add nothing to, take nothing from. He who adds to or takes from forfeits to that extent his scriptural claim to be a Christian. It never costs us a thought as to whether we agree with the Review or not. We strive to agree with the Bible. If the Review agrees with it, we will agree with the Review. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 621 If it fails to agree with the Bible in any matter, we hope in that we disagree with it. We try to, at least. We have written plainly, we do not think unchristianly. Christian writing is very plain as given in the Bible. We know we have written in greatest kindness of feeling to- ward all men. D. L. SOLOMON, WAS HE A COLORED MAN? Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Please explain the passage of scripture found in the Song of Solomon 1 : 5,6. What is meant by the word black? Some of our brethren think that Solomon was a black, or colored, man from this passage. I do not. Solomon was a Jew; was as dark as the general run of Jews. He may have been a dark-skinned Jew. We pre- sume this is all he meant. It is all we know about it. "SONS" OF GOD AND "DAUGHTERS" OF MEN. Please explain Gen. 6: 2. Were the sons of God and daughters of men both descendants of Adam and Eve, or were they two different sets of persons created at different times? I have never found any account of creation of but one race of men. I am sure all that I have ever seen sprung from the one race. They are all brothers in a common hu- manity. But from the beginning in Adam's race some fam- ilies were more faithful to God than others. The sons of the more faithful took to races of the less faithful families, and all went the downward path together, just as they do now. SOUL, WHAT IS THE? Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Will you please explain through the Gospel Advocate what the soul of man is? Is it not that which God breathed into him when he became a living soul? This is a question that no man can fully answer. It is, doubtless, one of the untaught questions that Paul says to avoid. We may learn something of what the word soul represents as found in the Bible, but no man can tell what the soul really is. In some places in the Bible the word soul refers to the whole man as an individual being, as when God breathed into Adam the breath of life and he be- came a living soul — that is, a living being. And, again, when in Ezekiel God says, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die," he means the man — the man that sins — shall die. But when Christ says, "What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" he means something more by the word soul. He means that part of man which lives on after the body dies and which 622 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, will exist through all eternity. But the question is still unanswered : What is the soul — that part of man that never dies ? No man can answer. It is enough for man to know that he has a soul that will continue to exist when the body dies, either in happiness or misery, and that this happiness or misery depends upon whether we obey or disobey the word of God in this life. SOUL AND SPIRIT, DISTINCTION BETWEEN. Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: I desire to ask you a question upon the following verse: "For the word of God is quick, and power- ful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the di- viding asunder of soul and spirit." (Heb. 4: 12.) This seems to me to imply a difference between the soul and spirit. If so, what is the distinction? We cannot undertake to tell with any degree of certainty what is meant in this passage by the word soul. It is gen- erally understood that in such passages as this the word soul means the principle of animal life which is possessed in common with all animals, and that the word spirit means that part of man which does not die when the body dies. This is as good an exposition as we know on the subject; and, whether right or wrong, it will affect no man's salva- tion either to receive or reject the interpretation. If we obey all the practical precepts of the word of God, we need not be uneasy about the distinction of soul and spirit. The word of God is sufficiently powerful to separate soul and spirit, and that much we are called upon to believe, and beyond that we need not be uneasy about the meaning. It is a blessing to us that the word of God plainly reveals all we need to know and does not burden us by telling us what would not do us any good if we did know it. E. G. S. SOUL, WHERE IT GOES AT DEATH. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Where does the soul stay while the body rests in the tomb? Some seem to think that the soul goes to heaven, and others think not. We find a few passages in the word of God bearing upon this subject. Christ says of Lazarus when he died that he was carried by angels to Abraham's bosom. This means a place of rest and enjoyment, but we need not say it means heaven proper. Paul said he had a desire to depart and be with the Lord, indicating that in some very desirable sense he would be present with the Lord as soon as the spirit should leave the body. These passages are as plain on the subject as any we know, and clearly indicate that when the righteous die their spirits at once go to Abraham's bosom, BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 623 are at once with the Lord in some important sense that they are not in this life, while in the body. We need not say that this is heaven, nor need we say it is not heaven. The passages just as they stand are sufficient to give us all the consolation we need on that subject. E. G. S. SPECULATION, AVOID. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I am solicitous to know your view on Rev. 11, more particularly verse 3, concerning the two witnesses spoken of — who they are or who they were. We do not know who the two witnesses are, and, there- fore, cannot undertake to tell. Whenever the time comes in the wisdom of God for men to understand who they are, our judgment is, the matter will be plain. We are so busy about plain, practical matters that are expressed in plain, unfigurative language, involving present duties and respon- sibility, that we have not had time to study the figurative language of Revelation. Some men have tried to tell, but they differ so widely that we are inclined to think that none of them know. We, therefore, will not venture an opinion even on the subject. E, G. S. SPECULATIONS, WHAT ARE THEY WORTH? The religious world is full of all sorts of speculations, after which many are running instead of adhering to the plain word of the Lord. These speculations come up in almost every possible and imaginable shape and form. When men once take hold of a speculation and become wedded to it, they think a great deal more of that specu- lation than they do of the word of God ; and whenever it comes to the test that their speculations or the word of God must go by the board, the rule is that the word of God is laid aside, while the speculations are clung to like dear life. Take, for example, the speculation that the Spirit of God in the conversion of the sinner works directly upon their hearts to quicken the dead faculties of their souls, as some express it. Suppose this to be true just as claimed, how far can this affect the responsibility of man? Just none at all, because this, if done, is wholly the work of God, and not of man. But, on the other hand, obedience to the word is the work of man, and without which he is for- ever doomed. He that hears the word and does it not builds upon the sand ; and his house will certainly fall, no matter what else may be done. The great trouble is that those who believe and trust in the speculation turn away from the word and will not in any wise obey the word. When a man is once made to be- 624 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, lieve that the Spirit of God will enter directly into his heart to convert him, it is impossible to move him to obey the word and trust its promises. These people cannot be in- duced to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. They wait and still wait for the Spirit to come and do the work. Yet the one is the plain word of the Lord, while the other is a mere human specula- tion, without one word of authority for it in the word of God. To such as believe this speculation of the direct work of the Spirit upon the heart in conversion you might read the words of the Spirit, "Repent, and be baptized/' till doomsday, and they would refuse it as "Campbellism" or something of that sort, while they would cling like life itself to any ignoramus that will tell them that the Spirit will certainly work directly upon their hearts to convict and convert them. Yet every one that will think for a moment must know that the word of God must be obeyed or we must be eternally condemned. All that will think at all ought to know that when they refuse the word they will be condemned. But as to the direct work of the Spirit, if that is done at all, the Lord has that to do, and that obe- dience to the word will not hinder it. Therefore the man who obeys the word is safe, while the man that rejects the word and refuses to obey it will be irrecoverably lost, no matter what else may be done. So the man that simply depends upon the speculation is certain to fail, while the man that obeys the word is infallibly safe, no matter what else may be true. The speculation, therefore, is worth nothing and will save no one, while the word of the Lord is worth everything and will save to the uttermost all that obey it. What a pity that so many people will be deluded out of their souls by a mere speculation, for which there is not one word of authority in all the Bible ! Then, again, some claim that it is impossible for those once converted to God ever to turn back and be lost. This is pure speculation. But suppose even this were true, it is also true that he that continues to obey the word and holds out faithfully in his service to God to the end of life is per- fectly certain to be saved. On the other hand, if it turns out that only those who keep the word faithfully to the end can be saved, then those who trust to the speculation and do not keep the word will be forever lost. This specula- tion, therefore, is worth nothing to any man. Its only ten- dency is to delude and cheat men out of their souls. • Why will men cling to these delusions, these speculations of men, and risk their eternal all upon them, when the plain word of God is in the reach of all and all may obey and live? BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 625 Truly the actions of some in this world are passing strange. Others there are that are making a great ado about soul sleeping, or the utter unconsciousness of the souls of men from death to the resurrection. This, again, is speculation. The word of God does not say so. It is only what men think. But what is it worth? Suppose it to be true as claimed, will this help to save any one? Will it cause any man to love God more or to be in any sense a better or ho- lier man ? By no means. Just the reverse is true. Those that become infatuated with this delusion lose their inter- est in the plain, practical word of God, and spend their time in advocating it, and thus miss the only chance there is for the salvation of their souls, which is to faithfully obey the word of God. These soul sleepers, many of them, even reject the Lord's Supper and deny the existence at the pres- ent time of the kingdom of God on this earth. And, be- sides, it is so much more cheering to believe what the Sav- ior said about Abraham and Lazarus, in the joyful state in which they are mentioned, than to believe in soul sleeping. Granting it to be true, and still it cannot possibly do any one any good to believe it ; while, on the other hand, it will save all men who believe and obey the plain, practical word of God. Those who believe in and obey the word of God have every possible advantage over those who believe mere speculations of men. They are much purer and happier in this life and are certain of eternal life beyond the grave. Universalism is another one of these speculations, and a very delusive one, at that. There is no one delusion likely that is taking so many people away from the word of God, the. only hope of a ruined world, as this. It encourages men to go on in any sort of sinful life, to practice any in- dulgence of the flesh that they may desire, without any fear of eternal condemnation. It virtually takes all fear of God from the eyes of the people and turns them loose to do as they please. But without any argument to the contrary at present, suppose it to be true, and what can there be in it to benefit human society in believing it ? Will it make men any better, more honest, more truthful, or holy? Every one that thinks is bound to know that the reverse will be true. Take away entirely the fear of future punishment from men, and the result to the masses would be fearful. On the other hand, suppose that men never thought or heard of Universalism, but that they take the word of God and obey it; that they obey the gospel and become Chris- tians, and then live the Christian life to its close. Every- body knows that this will make men better, purer, and ho- 626 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, lier ; it will make them honest, truthful, and charitable ; it will make husbands true and faithful to their wives; it will make wives virtuous and true; it will make parents true and faithful to their children, and children obedient and true to their parents ; it will make all men in all rela- tionships of life better, will make society purer and more enjoyable every way, to believe and obey the word of God as it is. Then suppose Universalism at the end should turn out to be true, will the man who faithfully obeyed the word of God through life lose anything by not having un- derstood and believed it? "Nothing/' says every one — "nothing at all ; he is just as well off as he possibly could have been if he had believed it and confided in it all the days of his life." But suppose Universalism turns out to be false, and that nothing but humble and faithful obedience to the word of God will save men, then what becomes of the Universalist who has not obeyed the word? Will the word save him then? Nay, verily. Such will be undone forever. What, then, is Universalism worth? Simply nothing but to defraud men out of their souls. Why will men cling to such delusions at the peril of their souls? This much may be said of all the speculations that men ever have invented or ever may invent. The true secret of most speculations is that they are invented and advocated just as an excuse for not obeying the word. Men want to live a fleshly life and want an excuse for it. There is no safety to any living man except in a faithful submission of heart and life to the will of God. Everything that hinders from this is ruinous to all that accept. E. G. S. SPECULATING CONDEMNED. Please explain through the Gospel Advocate the meaning of Ezek. 37 : 12-14. In doing so you will oblige a brother in Christ. The Jews were in captivity at the time Ezekiel used the language referred to, and the Lord was promising them a return to their own land ; and we think the language used in the verses referred to was a strong figure to give un- doubted assurances that the promises would be fulfilled. If any one can make anything else out of it, he is at lib- erty to do so. We have no time to indulge in speculations. We are not through with the practical in religion yet. SPECULATIONS ON THE SECOND COMING WHEN THEY CAUSE DIVISION. Brother Lipscomb: Inclosed you will find two tracts which were handed to me by one Mr. Sallie. He claims to be a Christian minis- ter; but he contends that Jesus, the Christ, has no visible kingdom on earth yet; but he is looking for him to come in person to reestablish BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 627 his father's (David's) throne and resurrect the saints, and the apos- tles are to sit on twelve throne in Jerusalem. Such teaching I can- not subscribe to in a literal or personal sense. I think such teaching is calculated to cause divisions among churches and brethren, and thereby do a great deal of harm. Paul says: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned: and avoid them." (Rom. 16: 17.) And, again: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you: but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." (1 Cor. 1: 10; see also 1 Cor. 3: 3; 11: 18.) I told Mr. Sallie that there was no salva- tion in preaching and praying for the kingdom to come, but to preach the gospel. "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures." (1 Cor. 15: 1-4.) Brother Lipscomb, I would be pleased if you would examine these tracts and give the scriptural sense on the main passages that such men as those who preach that Christ will come to sit on the literal throne of his father David build their theory on. I think we need such teaching exposed, and I do try in my weak manner to do all that I can to keep brethren from believing such. I also make this request : If any of our preaching brethren come to Hot Springs for the ben- efit of the waters, to make themselves known and preach for us, as we aim to build up a congregation as soon as we can get brethren enough together. Here a preacher can preach to people from nearly all nations on certain occasions. Many of those ideas concerning the second coming of Christ are in themselves harmless; but if preached as the gospel or in lieu of the gospel, or are made hobbies to cre- ate division and strife among brethren, or to attract the people, in their faith, love, and practice, away from the great practical concerns of life eternal, they are evil, and only evil. Of such are the two tracts sent us. A man preaching and teaching such things and claiming simply to be a disciple of Christ is sailing under false colors and should be reported. D. L. SPIRIT, THE HOLY. Brother Sewell: I have read your comment on Acts 10, and note what you have said in reference to the baptism of the Holy Ghost; and as some who read your article may want to know what we (or the Bible) teach in reference to the operation of the Holy Spirit, I would be glad if you would answer the following questions through the Gospel Advocate: 1. Does the Holy Spirit enter the heart to make a believer? 2. Does the Holy Spirit enter the heart to produce repentance? 3. Does the Holy Spirit enter the heart to produce obedience? 4. Does the Holy Spirit enter the heart to prepare us for baptism or because we have been baptized? 628 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 5. Does the Holy Spirit enter the heart to make us children of God or because we are already children? 1. Certainly not, for Paul to the Ephesians says: "That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation : in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise." (Eph. 1: 12, 13.) This passage shows that it was after these Ephesians believed that they received the Holy Spirit ; and not only that it was after they believed that they received the Spirit, but shows that they were in Christ when they received it. "In whom" — that is, in Christ. The word of God teaches that we enter into Christ by baptism; that we are baptized into Christ. None are ready to be baptized into him till they have believed and re- pented. Hence it is perfectly and positively certain that the Holy Spirit does not enter into the hearts of sinners to make them believers. Besides, the word of God teaches that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Faith comes by hearing the word of God ; and since it comes by hearing God's word, it is again certain that it does not come by the Spirit's entering into the heart to pro- duce it. Again, Peter, in Acts 15 : 7, says : "Ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe." The Gentiles were to hear the word of the gospel, and believe; hence not made believers by the Spirit entering the heart. Again, John said of the miracles of Christ: "These are written, that ye might believe that Je- sus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." (John 20: 31.) The word of God, the gospel, through which faith comes, is written down, as also the miracles that Christ performed, as evidence of the truths and facts of the gospel, so that the people may read these, or hear them proclaimed, and believe and be saved. This whole teaching that sinners must receive the Spirit of God into their hearts to make them believers is contrary to the word of God, and virtually sets that word aside, and thus destroys confidence in the very channel, and the only channel, through which God has ordained that faith shall come. Thus the word of God is made of none effect by the doctrines and traditions of men. People should be careful whom they follow, God or men. When they follow God, they are right, and in that case will certainly be saved ; if they follow men, they walk in dark- ness and imperil their eternal interests. 2. No. God "commandeth all men everywhere to re- pent," says Paul. Sinners, therefore, are to be led into re- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 629 pentance by the word of God, and not by the Spirit enter- ing into their hearts to produce it. Repentance and remis- sion of sins were to be preached among all nations. How, then, was repentance preached ? Answer : By telling the people that God commands them to repent, not by telling them that God will send his Spirit into their hearts to pro- duce it. This latter is the invention of men, but the former is the word of God. Again, the Holy Spirit said to the three thousand : ''Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." This passage plainly expresses that sinners must repent before they have any promise of the Holy Spirit. It would be folly, would be utter rashness, for any one in the face of this passage to claim that the Spirit of God is sent into the heart of the sinner to produce repentance, when it plainly shows that the sinner must repent before the Spirit is promised, and that, too, in order to its reception. Christ pronounced many and terrible woes upon the people "because they re- pented not." "Because they repented not." These woes were pronounced, not because the Spirit did not enter into them to give them repentance, but because they did not. would not, repent. Again, Jesus said : "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." "Except ye repent," not "ex- cept the Spirit enters your hearts to give you repentance." The word of God commands the sinner to repent, and dooms him if he does not. The doctrine that the Spirit must en- ter the heart of the sinner to work repentance nullifies the word of God and causes the sinner to rest his soul upon the word and promise of men, and not upon the word and prom- ise of God. Men that teach sinners to expect this virtu- ally steal away the word out of their hearts, lest they should repent and be saved. 3. No. Peter says : "And we are his witnesses of these things ; and so also is the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him." (Acts 5: 32.) This passage needs no comment nor any additional ones. It forever set- tles the question that God gives his Spirit not to sinners to enable them to obey him, but, on the other hand, that he gives it to those who have become obedient. 4. The passage we quoted from Acts 2 regarding repent- ance applies equally in this case, and shows as plainly as can be that the Spirit of God is not promised till men are baptized. "Be baptized, . . . and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost," is the part of the passage that ap- plies especially in this case, and settles the question beyond a peradventure. We have shown in a preceding article 630 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, that when Cornelius and his house received the Spirit be- fore baptism it was the miraculous power of the Spirit, just such as came upon the apostles on the day of Pente- cost, and that it had nothing to do with their conversion in any way, but that it was to bear witness to both Jews and Gentiles that the Gentiles as well as the Jews were to be partakers in the blessings of the gospel of Christ, and that this once accomplished, the thing was never repeated. This case of Cornelius, therefore, has no bearing in this case and cannot be applied to it. So the proposition stands sustained by the passage in Acts 2 that people have no promise of the Spirit of God till baptized. There is no one passage in the New Testament that has been more thor- oughly perverted and misapplied than this one regarding Cornelius; and when taken as it is, it shows clearly that the miraculous outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon those Gentiles had no more to do with their baptism, to prepare them for it, than the very same sort of outpouring had upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost, who had already been the disciples of Christ for about three years and a half. There is not a syllable anywhere to indicate that the Holy Spirit ever was given to an alien to prepare him for bap- tism. God only promises the Spirit to people when bap- tized into Christ, not to prepare them for this. 5. Paul says: "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." (Gal. 4: 6.) This passage settles the question clearly and beyond all dispute. There is not a greater de- lusion taught in the nineteenth century than that the Spirit of God is sent into the heart of the alien sinner to aid in any sense in his conversion. There is nothing of the kind taught in the word of God. This doctrine is defrauding thousands out of their souls by hindering them from an obedience to the gospel, without which none can be saved. Paul says of those that obey not the gospel : "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." (2 Thess. 1:9.) Let all read or hear and obey the word of God, the gospel of Christ, and then have the promise of the Spirit to dwell in them, that by it their mortal bodies may be quickened. E. G. S. Brethren Lipscornb and Sewell : Please explain Acts 9 : 1 ; Acts 22 : 9. Hearing the voice in one verse, they heard not the voice in the other. Also, what does the word filth have reference to in 1 Pet. 3: 21? 1. The word hear sometimes means to understand. So when in one of these passages it says they heard not the BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 631 voice, understand it to mean they understood not the voice, and all is plain. The voice spoke in the Hebrew tongue, which very few then understood. Paul understood what was said to him in this language, but those with him did not. They heard the sound, but did not understand the meaning of what was said. 2. The verse in Peter is where he says: "Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh," etc. The expression, filth of the flesh, was to explain to the Jewish Christians, to whom Peter was writing, that baptism was not to have its effects upon the flesh, as did many Jewish washings. He had just said, "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us;" and, fearing that his Jewish brethren might think that baptism, like the old Jewish washings, was to cleanse the flesh, he puts in the parenthesis, "(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer [seeking] of a good conscience toward God), by the resur- rection of Jesus Christ." It has no reference to sin. Sin is never called the filth of the flesh. Hence the passage does not mean, as some suppose, that baptism is not for the remission of sins, but it is only an explanation that he thought necessary to throw in to his Jewish brethren, lest they should think it a mere fleshly ordinance. To say that the expression means that baptism has nothing to do with the remission of sins would be to make Peter contradict himself in what he had just said regarding baptism now saving us; for while he does not mean that baptism alone saves us, he does as certainly mean that baptism is con- nected with our salvation now as that water was connected with the salvation of Noah and his family. E. G. S. Brother Lipscomb : I wish to know when the Spirit said unto Philip, "Go near, and join thyself to this chariot" (Acts 8: 29), if the Spirit when he said go spoke in an audible voice or did he articulate words. "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils." (1 Tim. 4: 1.) Now, should we conclude the Spirit spake here in an audible voice? If not, how did he guide the apostles into all truth? Or did he speak at all? Or did he move them by impressions? You will please give us some light on this sub- ject. I am of the opinion that the Spirit spake in an audible voice, as man speaks, in order that they might understand ; for it is evident that the Spirit could speak without having the organs of speech as man has them, for God has all power and could give the Spirit that power. There are two kinds of revelations made by the Spirit as presented in the Bible. One was a revelation to an individ- ual for his obedience ; the other, a revelation by inspiration to enable those inspired to work miracles and teach others. The prophets and apostles were subjects of this latter in- 632 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, spiration, or revelation. It was given them to enable them to instruct or teach others. Connected with the knowledge to be revealed, always accompanying it, was the ability to work miracles to confirm the message as from God. This species of inspiration, miraculous in character, was confined to the primitive age of the church, and continued in force only until the full revelation of God to man was made and confirmed by testimonies which could not be gainsaid. This inspiration was effected by God's Spirit taking posses- sion of the human body, using the human tongue and through it speaking to the world. God's Spirit on Pente- cost took possession of the tongues of the apostles and gave the very words there spoken. The Spirit used the apostles' organs of speech through which to make known to the world his revelations. Sometimes the Spirit spoke without the intervention of man's tongue. The Spirit spoke in an audible voice on such occasions, as at the baptism of Christ, the calling of Samuel, and on divers other occasions. The Spirit, so far as we have been able to learn, never made a revelation or impression upon uninspired man, save through words articulated by the Spirit himself or by the tongue of another whom he used. • The Spirit always addressed man through his senses, and, in so doing, spoke words that could be understood. If there is an exception to this in the Bible, we would be glad to have it pointed out. D. L. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Much has been said pro and con by Methodist and Christian ministers concerning the "Holy Ghost," until I must say I do not understand it at all. May I ask you to set forth the teaching of the Bible on the subject? I know of several who would be glad to see an article on the subject, being in doubt as to which is right, and not having the ability to satisfy themselves at once from Holy Writ. Please do not do me as some one complained to Beecher a short time ago. He said he asked the editors of a Christian journal to satisfy him that the Bible was true, and they paid no attention to him. Beecher told him he might as well expect some scientific paper to devote its columns to prove the old theory of the world's motion. Please tell us what is the "Holy Ghost" — how he operates and when. Of course you will say he is "one of the God- head," but I do not understand that even. As to what the Spirit of God is, the Holy Spirit, we can- not undertake to tell. When we speak the words Holy Spirit, that is about as far as we go. But as to what the Holy Spirit has done for men and is doing, we can speak a little more definitely, because the Bible tells us something about that. The first mention we have of the Spirit of God is found in Gen. 1. After the statements that God had created heaven and earth, and that the earth was without form and BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 633 void, and that darkness was upon the face of the deep, we are told: "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." As to what the Spirit of God did when the word says he "moved upon the face of the waters," we are not definitely told, though we are satisfied it gave order and definite arrangement to the work of creation which God had made; for Job (26: 13) says: "By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens." The word garnish, according to Webster, means "to adorn, to decorate with appendages ;" and this decorating with appendages, setting in order, is what we understand the Spirit did on earth when he "moved upon the face of the waters." The earth was with- out form and void — that is, desolate and empty, and needed to be set in order, decorated with appendages, as were the heavens. The Spirit did not create, but set in order that which was created, as we learn from these passages. The next mention we have of the Spirit is in Gen. 6, when God was foretelling the flood. He there said: "My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh : yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." Now, we understand from this that the Spirit would strive with man during that hundred and twenty years ; and if it be asked how it strove with men, we get information from Peter on that subject. He says of Jesus that he was "put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit : by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison ; which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a pre- paring, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by wa- ter," etc. Christ went by his Spirit, or, rather, the Spirit of Christ went and preached to the spirits in prison, in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing. We are also told by Peter (2 Pet. 2:5) that Noah was a preacher of righteousness. We are also told by Peter (1 Pet. 1: 11) that the Spirit of Christ was in the old prophets. From these we understand that the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, was in Noah ; that it inspired him, preached through him, and thereby strove with the people by his teaching through Noah for one hundred and twenty years. Thus we learn that one of the offices or works of the Holy Spirit is to inspire men, or, rather, to speak through them, in the language of men, and in that way give the will of God to man. This is the manner in which the Spirit of God has always taught men — that is, by inspiring some men and enabling them to teach others ; and if the Spirit ever taught a single human being anything by a secret or abstract op- eration upon his heart, we have no account of it. Unless 634 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, we could find it so stated in the Bible, we have no right to teach it ; for Peter says : "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God." Upon this principle, unless the word of God distinctly says that the Spirit of God operates secretly, abstractly, separate and apart from the word, no man has any right to say so. Men's teaching that the Spirit operates independently of the word is what has pro- duced most of the trouble on the subject. The oracles of God say not one word about the Spirit's operating secretly upon men ; and if men would speak as the oracles of God on this subject, all jargon and discord would soon cease. We are told in Num. 24: 2 that the Spirit of God came upon Balaam, and by the inspiration of that Spirit he ut- tered many prophecies, or, rather, the Spirit of God uttered them through him. Notwithstanding the Spirit spoke through Balaam, he was himself a wicked man, and died in rebellion against God, which shows that the miraculous en- dowment of the Spirit was not for the personal benefit merely of those that received it, but to do a work through them for others, which they could not have done without such inspiration. Moses was the leader and lawgiver to the children of Is- rael, and the Spirit of God was given to him miraculously to enable him to do the work enjoined upon him; and when he complained that the work was too heavy for him, God told him to select seventy elders of Israel to assist him, and he would take of the Spirit that was upon him and put the Spirit upon them, that they might aid him in governing the people. When some of the Spirit that was upon Moses was put upon them, they were miraculously endowed and prophesied. By this means they were enabled to teach the people and thus aid Moses in governing them. So, then, the Spirit of God in that day was in a few men only, and through these few taught the masses the will of God. Nehemiah (9: 30) said of the Jews: "Yet many years didst thou forbear them, and testifiedst against them by thy spirit in thy prophets." David said in his last words : "The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue." (2 Sam. 23: 2.) These passages show that among the Jews the Spirit of God inspired, spoke through a few, and thereby gave the will of God to the people in their own language wherein they were born, and guided them thus by words, and not by secret influences. The Spirit of God gave in words the Old Testament, for holy men spoke in old times as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The Spirit of God is the author of the Old Testa- ment, and through his words directed such as would be con- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 635 trolled by the word of God. Those who refused the words of the Spirit were never guided by him at all. Just pre- cisely the same thing is true in the New Testament — the Christian dispensation. John the Baptist was inspired with the Spirit, filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his birth ; and all that the people knew in his time was what he preached to them regarding the coming of Christ and their duties and responsibilities to him. Not a single thing was revealed to the people in the days of John by any se- cret or direct operation upon them ; but, instead of that, the Spirit spoke to them in plain words through John and told them the kingdom of heaven was at hand — was near by. When Christ began his personal ministry, the Spirit was given to him without measure. He was anointed with the Spirit to "preach the gospel to the poor," to "preach the acceptable year of the Lord ;" and during the entire minis- try of Jesus the people were taught in words by him and his apostles, and not by abstract power of the Spirit. When the time drew near that Jesus was to die, he told the apos- tles that he would soon be taken from them, but that when he went he would send them another Comforter, the Spirit of truth, that should guide them into all truth and bring to their remembrance all that he had said to them, and that this Spirit would speak. (See John 14-16.) When Jesus promised the Spirit to the apostles, he said of him : "Whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him : but ye know him ; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." (John 14: 17.) The Spirit was to come to the apostles and be in them and speak through them to the world ; but the world was not to receive him to guide them by some secret power, but he was to inspire the apos- tles, lead them into all the truth, and thus enable them to teach the way of salvation in all its fullness to the world — to sinners. Here is just where the difficulty arises regard- ing the word of the Spirit of God. Almost the whole reli- gious world, outside of our brethren, teaches that the Spirit of God is given to the world, to the sinner, to convert him, although Jesus said the world could not receive the Spirit. The people have thus been taught to wait and expect the Spirit of God to come and convict and convert them; and thousands of them are thus waiting for that Spirit of God to come in his secret power into their hearts, and are pay- ing no attention to what the Spirit says in the word of truth. This promise of the Savior to the apostles that the Holy Spirit should be given them to guide them into all the truth was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, an account of which 636 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, is given in Acts 2. When he came, "they were all filled, with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." On that very day three thousand were converted by the Spirit's preach- ing to them through the apostles and telling them exactly what to do. They gladly received the words of the Spirit through Peter, obeyed the words, and were thereby con- verted and saved by the word of God as dictated by the Spirit through the apostles. There is not one hint or inti- mation of the Spirit's entering the heart of a single sinner to convert him; but upon their obedience to the word they were promised the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit was promised to dwell with Christians in the temple of God, which is the church of God, the body of Christ. Paul said to the Ephesians, when speaking of Christ: "In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." The Holy Spirit, therefore, in- spired the apostles and enabled them to preach the gospel, and enabled them also to write it down, and they have written it, and we have it on record in the New Testa- ment; and, therefore, in this divine volume we have the same words of the Spirit that were spoken by the apostles. It is sufficient for the conversion of the world to the end of time, and is just the same to us as if the apostles were still here in person speaking as the Spirit gave them utter- ance. If preachers would cease to talk about the abstract work of the Spirit of God and would present to the world the words of the Spirit as preached by the apostles of the Son of God and written in the New Testament, the troubles on that subject would soon be at an end. Just what is writ- ten in the word of God is plain, if that, and that alone, were preached. It is what men preach that is not in the Bible that gives ninety-nine-hundredths of the troubles that now exist regarding the work of the Spirit of God and every other subject concerning religion. These things that we have written are plainly revealed in the New Testament, and many more, concerning the work of the Holy Spirit. But beyond what the word of God says we know nothing on the subject. The Holy Spirit, there- fore, reveals the will of God to man in the word of truth, and will thereby lead us all to a home in heaven, if we will but follow his divine directions. E. G. S. Brothei' Sewell: Kindly answer the following questions through the Gospel Advocate: 1. What is the Holy Spirit? Does the Bible tell us what it is? If so, please give me chapter and verse. 2. We have been studying in the Acts of Paul's trials. In chapter 21 Paul said he was a Jew, and in chapter 22 he said he was a Ro- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 637 man. The trouble with me is in reference to Paul's claiming to be a Jew and a Roman, too. 1. The Scriptures nowhere define what the Holy Spirit is, and it would be folly for any uninspired man to under- take to define it. A much more practical question would be: What does the Holy Spirit do for man, and how does it perform its work? We read of the Spirit of God all through the Bible, from the beginning to the end, and read of much that has been done by it from the first chapter of Genesis to the end. But in no place are we told what it is. It is a divine power that has been used in all the ages and in every dispensation of God's dealings with men. But in no instance are we told what it is. It is divine, and has done, and is still doing, wonders for the human race. How much do we know about the human spirit and its make-up ? Simply nothing. How can we tell, therefore, about the Spirit of God, which is so far beyond our own spirits? But we can learn much about the Spirit's work in the different dispensations. In the Old Testament men were inspired by it to foretell the coming of Christ and very many other events that were yet in the future. Among the inspired men were Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and many others inspired by its divine power, who gave us the Old Testament, with all the wonders that were performed during the existence of that long and wonderful period. But still grander things were done by the Holy Spirit during the New Testament age. John the Baptist was inspired by it to do his great work, while Christ was wonderfully endowed by it and did the most remarkable work that had ever been done on this earth. The apostles also were very largely endowed by it, and they and a few others gave us the New Testament, the most remarkable volume ever presented to the people of this world. Then a large number of men received spiritual gifts to enable them to help the churches till the New Testament should be given. When this was done, the miraculous powers of the Spirit ceased and have been known on earth no more. But from the time the New Testament was completed the Holy Spirit has been doing his work through that. All we know about salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord is what we learn by his teaching through the inspired authors of the New Testament. But it is wonderful that we have such a flood of spiritual light shining out continually, as if it were just being handed down from the eternal world, teaching so plainly and minutely everything we need to know about our soul's salvation. A sinner can read Acts 2 and learn just as well what to do to be saved as if Peter 638 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, were here now, baptized, as he was on that day, in the Holy Spirit. A Christian can learn just as well how to live the Christian life by reading the New Testament as if the apos- tles were here among us. We can also be assured all the time that this is the teaching of the Holy Spirit, as cer- tainly as if Peter, Paul, and James were here with us. These are the practical matters to us about the Holy Spirit, and surely this is enough. 2. There need be no trouble about Paul's being a Jew and a Roman. He was a Jew by blood; but at the same time, and by some special privileges granted the people of certain localities, those born there were born with the priv- ilege of being recognized as freeborn Roman citizens, and were to be treated as such wherever found. Paul chanced to be one of these fortunate ones, which was very fortunate for him on the occasion referred to. There are full-blooded Germans and Irishmen to-day who are also American citi- zens by having become subjects of the government of the United States. SPIRIT, BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY. Brother Sewell: (1) What is the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? (2) Did the Pharisees blaspheme the Holy Spirit when they said he had a devil and cast out demons by the prince of demons? Do you think this sin can be committed now, or was it confined to the days of miracles? (1) To blaspheme is to speak impiously or reproachfully of God or of the Holy Spirit. To speak irreverently of the Spirit or his work would be blasphemy against him. To attribute the revelations of the Spirit to demoniacal power, or to place these revelations of the Spirit upon a level with the mutterings of departed spirits in spiritualism, or de- mons, would be to treat the Spirit of God with impiety — would be blasphemy. Hence those who regard modern spiritualism and set the teaching of God aside for that, if not guilty of blasphemy, are next-door neighbor to it. I presume there is not a spiritualist on earth that believes in modern spirit revelations (so called) that places a particle of sacred regard upon the revelations of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. (2) The scribes and Pharisees who accused the Savior of casting out devils by the prince of the devils certainly did blaspheme, did sin against the Holy Spirit, as denned by the Savior in Mark 3. (3) I have no doubt but that it may be committed now. Men may as easily blaspheme the Spirit in his revelations to-day through the word of truth as they did his develop- ments in the days of the Savior. The Spirit of God in the BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 639 New Testament brings the last message from God to sinful men, and the only message whereby sinners can be saved ; and the man that attributes any other origin to the New Testament than to the Spirit of God is guilty of the blas- phemy against the Spirit of God. But there is something else more widely dangerous to Christians than this, and that is the fact that any sin will- fully persisted in to the end of life becomes unpardonable. I do not suppose that any who believe the Bible and are humbly trying to serve God will ever commit the sin of blasphemy against the Spirit of God ; but I fear that very many so-called "Christians" will be lost in eternity for not- obeying the words of the Spirit in the New Testament. I think the danger here much greater than blasphemy. "If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." E. G. S. SPIRIT, THE GIFT OF THE. Brother Sewell: Please explain (1) the gift of the Holy Spirit promised in Acts 2: 38; (2) 1 Cor. 7: 36. (1) The promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit is likely of general character, and refers to all spiritual blessings pertaining to the Christian religion. The occurrences of the day of Pentecost were the full establishment of the church of God on earth, and what was promised then was likely to extend to the end of time to all that obey the gos- pel as then required. In the first place, we think it meant that the Spirit of God itself was to dwell in Christians in an important sense. Paul said to the Corinthians : "Know ye not that ye are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" (1 Cor. 3: 16.) This shows plainly that the Spirit of God dwells in Christians. Again, Paul says to Christians individually: "Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own." (1 Cor. 6: 19.) This shows that the body of each Christian is a tem- ple of God and a dwelling place for the Spirit of God. In obeying the gospel, the whole man — body, soul, and spirit — is dedicated, consecrated, to God ; and it is also true that this consecration, this sanctification, must be continued through life. This can only be done by continued obedience to the word of God, the teaching of the Holy Spirit. People are made Christians by the Holy Spirit, by his teaching, and must continue to follow the teaching of the Spirit so long as life lasts. Hence, Paul says: "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly." (Col. 3 : 16.) "The word of Christ" means the words of the Spirit given to us in the New Tes- 640 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, tament. These words dwell in us when we learn them and continually live by their directions. Christians are also commanded to "be filled with the Spirit." (Eph. 5: 18.) Christians, therefore, are made continually responsible for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In becoming Christians, people enter upon a spiritual life, and that must be kept up until death. The words of the New Testament are the words of the Spirit ; and when these words dwell in us and become the ruling principle of our lives, controlling all our purposes, words, thoughts, and actions, then certainly the Spirit of God and of Christ is dwelling in us ; but if we do not keep up all these things, I know of no principle upon which we can claim that the Spirit of Christ and of God dwells in us. Closely connected with these things are the spiritual blessings and promises to faithful Christians — that the eyes of the Lord are over them and his ears open to their prayer; that they may sit and worship together in heavenly places in Christ, with all the blessings of Chris- tian association. In the first age of the church, before the New Testament was completed, there were spiritual gifts, miraculous spiritual endowments, given by the laying on of the hands of others possessing miraculous endowments. These are called "spiritual gifts." We do not understand that all the early Christians possessed these, nor do we un- derstand that those who received them were specially and personally benefited and helped in living the Christian be- yond those who heard the teachings of those who were mi- raculously endowed. Those who have the New Testament to-day have even greater blessings than those who then received miraculous endowment. (2) This passage has reference, as is generally under- stood, to fathers in regard to the marriage of their daugh- ters. It says : "But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter, if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do what he will ; he sinneth not ; let them marry." It is un- derstood that in that Eastern country fathers had almost absolute control of the marriage of their daughters, and a father, if he chose, could decide his daughter to a life of celibacy. But Paul decides that in a case like he describes, and the father decides it would be an injustice to his daugh- ter to force her into continued celibacy, he may let them marry without sin, although he may have decided other- wise. Paul in this connection was advising against mar- riage on account of the then existing troubles of that coun- try ; not that it was wrong to marry as a principle, but, as he said, because of the distress that was then upon them. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 641 But, as a rule, he advised marriage as all right both in the sight of God and men, provided their selections were all right — that is, for Christians to marry Christians under proper limitations. SPIRIT, WHO "THE POOR IN." Brother Seivell: Please explain Matt. 5: 3-11. Who are the poor in spirit and they that mourn? What is meant by the meek inheriting the earth? The poor in spirit, they that mourn, they that hunger and thirst after righteousness, and the meek, all were in- tended to represent characters that would certainly obey the word of God and trust his promises for salvation. They represent people that realize that they need salvation, and that they are entirely dependent upon God for it. They do not represent people that are self-reliant, overwise, so as to think there is some better way than the Lord's way. They represent people that will be certain to obey the word of the Lord as soon as they hear it and have the opportu- nity. They do not represent those that turn away from the plain word of the Lord and turn and rely upon the doc- trines and commandments of men, as millions are doing to-day. Jesus knew that the class of men he was illustrat- ing would be certain to obey when they should hear the gos- pel. Hence he could say, "For theirs is the kingdom of heaven," and such like. What a grand thing it would be if all possessed the sort of faith and characters of which the Savior spoke in that passage ! Then all that hear the sim- ple gospel of Christ would obey it and be saved, as surely as the Bible is true. SPIRIT, PRAYING FOR THE HOLY. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Is it right for Christians to pray for the Holy Spirit to assist in impressing the truth of scripture upon the hearts of sinners? We can give no scripture where no scripture is given. We know of none on the subject, so can give none. The word of God is the seed of the kingdom; it is God's instru- mentality through which he imparts spiritual life to man. The word received into the heart is itself or contains the germ of spiritual life to man. It is not only the seed of the kingdom, but it is an incorruptible seed that liveth and abideth forever. The life-giving power of God's word cannot be separated from it. It is incorruptible — a life- giving seed that abideth forever. God gave the word as his power to salvation. When a man receives the word of God, he receives God's power to save in his heart — just as 642 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, when a man puts a grain of wheat into the soil, he puts the germ of wheat life into the soil. The grain of wheat in the soil is the embodiment of God's power for producing wheat. When the proper condition of soil is found for the grain of wheat, it takes no extra or outward power to cause it to put forth all its germinative energies for the production of wheat. It is just so with the word of God. That word is imbued with God's power for converting man. It needs no outside, extraneous, or assisting power from without to make it efficacious to the end to which it was sent. It only needs to find the true condition of heart for development of the seed into the tender plant of life. The work to be done in both the material and spiritual world is to get the conditions of soil favorable to the germination of the seed. The heart needs preparation. The work needed to be done to make the word effectual for saving the soul is to get the heart in condition to accept that word. The Spirit through Paul, in Christ's stead, prayed the Corinthians that they would be reconciled to God. Our work should be with men, to get them willing to accept of God's word, to obey him. We must pray to God to be merciful to us, to bless us in the work, to open the way for his word to be preached that it may run and be glorified. We do not think there is any need of any extraneous blessing of the word. D. L. SPIRIT, BAPTISM AND GIFT OF. What is the difference between the gift and baptism of the Holy Ghost? The gift of the Holy Ghost is used in two different senses in the Bible. The Holy Spirit himself is given, as at Pen- tecost and on the conversion of Cornelius. "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 10: 45.) This gift of the Holy Ghost was the Holy Spirit bestowed on them as a gift. Peter said : "And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?" (Acts 11: 15-17.) Peter definitely fixes the gift of the Holy Ghost that came to those who believed on Pentecost and those who believed at the house of Cornelius as a baptism of the Spirit. The baptism of the Spirit was the pouring out of the Spirit until they were overwhelmed with it and BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 643 fully endowed with spiritual powers. The result of this pouring out and endowment was, the different individuals were endued with powers, or gifts, which enabled them to work miracles of various kinds. These were gifts bestowed by the Spirit and distributed to each member as he had ca- pacity and was worthy to use it. I would define, then, the baptism of the Holy Spirit to be the overwhelming of the subjects by the Spirit that in- spired them; and the Holy Spirit thus bestowed enabled one to prophesy; one, to heal diseases; another, to speak with tongues. These were gifts bestowed by the Spirit and were the results of the bestowal of the Spirit. Read 1 Cor. 12 on these. "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. . . . For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom ; ... to another the working of mir- acles ; to another prophecy ; to another discerning of spirits ; to another divers kinds of tongues ; to another the interpre- tation of tongues: but all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally [sepa- rately] as he will." The gift of the Spirit itself as outpoured from heaven, overpowering and overwhelming the believers, was the bap- tism of the Spirit. The miraculous powers bestowed by the Spirit of God upon the disciples were the gifts of the Spirit. We believe that the bestowal of the Spirit on the Sa- maritans and on the twelve at Ephesus was a baptism of the Spirit. At Samaria it is said: "As yet he was fallen upon none of them : only they were baptized- in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost." Here, as the outpour- ing at Pentecost and at the house of Cornelius, the recip- ients prophesied, and to each was distributed gifts such as were adapted to his talent. This bestowal of the Holy Spirit, then, was the gift of the Holy Spirit to the individ- ual or the baptism. It is a figurative use of the word bap- tism, just as the overpowering degree of suffering is called baptism, showing the overwhelming fullness of the Spirit. The gifts were the miraculous powers bestowed by the Holy Spirit on the individuals for their own preaching and confirming the gospel. When the perfect will of God was revealed, these gifts were all to vanish. "Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail ; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge [miraculous], it shall vanish away." The Spirit abides with us. These manifestations of it, given to reveal and confirm the will of God, have vanished away. D. L. 644 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, SPIRIT, BIRTH OF THE. Brother Lipscomb: In John 3: 5, does the birth of the Spirit oc- cur before entrance into the church of Christ? Is the birth of the Spirit identical with "the gift of the Holy Ghost?" (Acts 2: 38.) If the Spirit dwells in the body, how can a person receive him before entering that body? The same act that completes the work of the Spirit puts him into the church of Christ. To be baptized is the birth or the bringing forth of the person begotten of the Spirit. He is begotten of the Spirit when he believes in Jesus as the Christ on the testimonies the Spirit gives in the word of God. He is born when he that is begotten is brought forth of the water. He is baptized into Christ, into his body, which is the church. The life or spirit of the father dwells in his child. It dwells in him because he is a child, but it is imparted to him in the begetting, and a child can- not exist without receiving life from the father. The life of the father does not dwell in one not his child. The Spirit of God dwells in the church by dwelling in the mem- bers composing that church. There is no such thing as a church separate or apart from the members that compose that church. The members compose the church of God. The Spirit, which is the life and gives life to the church, does it by giving it to the members that compose that church or body. No one can be a child of God save as he receives the life or Spirit from God, the Father. He is first begotten of the Spirit by the word. To be begotten of God is to receive the principle of life into the heart. Then he is born into the kingdom, or church, of God by be- ing baptized into Christ. The Spirit of God, impregnating his heart, makes him a child of God. The Spirit of his Fa- ther dwells in him when he becomes a child of God. The Spirit of God is imparted to him when he believes or is be- gotten of God, just as the spirit of the father is imparted to the child when he is begotten by his father. Jesus uses this begettal and birth in the natural world to illustrate the birth of the Spirit. The gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2: 38) is the bestowal of the Spirit, possibly in his miracu- lous manifestations. But if it means the Spirit that is be- stowed in the begettal, it gives no difficulty if we consider that the natural begetting and birth are involuntary on the part of the child, but in the spiritual world they are volun- tary — that is, the spiritual begetting is dependent upon the will and action of the person begotten. So he is promised, if he will believe and be baptized, he shall receive the Holy Spirit as an abiding presence in his heart, to promote the further growth of spiritual life, but that Spirit would be received in the begetting or in believing. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 645 The Spirit of God dwells in a man because he is a child of God. He receives the Spirit in becoming a child of God, for the Spirit is imparted to him in the begettal ; so he can- not receive the Spirit of God, save as he becomes a child of God. The church is composed of individual Christians. The Spirit dwells in the church by dwelling in the members that compose the church. But the Spirit dwells in no man, save as he takes the word of God into his heart and treas- ures it there and molds his thoughts, feelings, life by that word. Here are two expressions that mean exactly the same thing: "Be filled with the Spirit; speaking to your- selves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord." (Eph. 5: 18, 19.) "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." (Col. 3: 16.) To be "filled with the Spirit" and to "let the word of Christ dwell in you richly" mean precisely the same thing. Persons receive the Spirit of God in the heart by receiving and believing the word of God. The Spirit dwells in the heart by treasuring the word of God in the heart, and the Spirit dwells in the church by dwelling in the persons who compose the church. The idea that the Spirit enters the heart otherwise than through re- ceiving the word into the heart opens the door for attrib- uting all kinds of dreams, visions, and hallucinations to the Spirit. The idea that the Spirit dwells in the person or the church, save through and in the word cherished in the heart, is the fruitful mother of many hurtful errors — that decisions of the church are infallible, that the church un- der the guidance of the Spirit may change the appointments of God, that all the societies and institutions of men are prompted by the Spirit, that all results of labor not directed by God are approvals of the Spirit of God. The Catholic claims that the presence of the Spirit in the church ren- ders the decisions of the pope infallible; the Mormon claims that he gives revelations to their priests; the Methodist, that the Spirit in the church justifies the mourner s'-bench system of conversion; and those who introduce societies and innovations of every class and character claim they are results of the Spirit in the church separate from the word of God. The church does not exist separate from the word of God. The word of God furnishes the arteries and veins through which all influences of the Spirit and the life of God flow to all parts of the body. Where the word does not go, no spiritual truth or blessings flow. 646 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, SPIRIT, WHEN IS ONE BORN OF? Brother Lipscomb: Please harmonize John 3: 3-5. When do you understand the birth of the Spirit to take place — at baptism or at death? I do not see what is to be harmonized in the passage. A man is born of the Spirit when he becomes a child of God. The only way to become a child of God is to be born of the Spirit. To be born of the Spirit and to be born of God mean exactly the same thing. The Spirit is the representa- tive of the Godhead here on earth. Since Jesus ascended to heaven and the Spirit descended to the earth, we cannot be- come the spiritual children of God without being born of God. All Christians are born of God, so children of God. Paul says : "Though ye have ten thousand [many] instruc- tors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers : for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel/' (1 Cor. 4: 15.) This means the Spirit of God in Paul begot them through the gospel, and they were born children of God. "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby." (1 Pet. 2: 2.) These were spiritual children, begotten and born of the Spirit. "Be- hold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God: and such we are." (1 John 3: 1, R. V.) "Every one also that doeth righteousness is begotten of God." (1 John 2: 29, R. V.) "Every one that loveth is begotten of God." (1 John 4: 7, R. V.) "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God." (1 John 5: 1, R. V.) Every passage that says we are children of God says we have been born of the Spirit of God. I have quoted the Revised Version, which translates the word begotten instead of born of God. But every one that is begotten of God or the Spirit is born of God or the Spirit, or there has been a miscarriage or an abortion. Nicodemus was told that he must be born again to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Nicodemus was one of the most faithful of the children of Israel. But under the law of Moses they were servants ; under Christ they be- came sons or children. No servant could become a child of God without being begotten of the Spirit. He is begotten of a higher measure of the Spirit than a servant posseses to make him a son. "Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, whereby ye cry, Abba, Father." If a faithful Jew had to be born of the Spirit to become a child of God, much more must an unbe- liever be born of the Spirit to become a child of God. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 647 SPIRIT, THE HOLY, IN CHRISTIANS. Brother Seivell: (1) How does the Holy Spirit dwell in Chris- tians? (2) How does Christ manifest himself to us? The first question was asked me in our Sunday school, and I would like for you to answer it for me. (1) We may not be able to answer this question to the satisfaction of all, but will answer it as nearly according to the word of the Lord as we can. Jesus said : "It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life." (John 6 : 63.) The spirit is not something we can describe as we could physical or material things that come in direct contact with our five senses. Corporeal things we can measure and weigh and describe in a way for others to see, understand, and appreciate; but not so much so in things purely spiritual. When Jesus says, "The words that I have spoken . . . are spirit, and are life," that is something we cannot measure and weigh and comprehend so easily. Yet we may approximately reach the idea. He did not mean that his words as written or spoken are pure spirit in the sense that we understand spirit ; but that his words were spoken by the Spirit, which was given to him without measure, and that the ideas they conveyed were spiritual ideas and produced spiritual life when received into the hearts and lives of people. The words that Peter preached on the day of Pentecost were uttered by the Holy Spirit through Peter; and when received and obeyed by the peo- ple on that day, they produced spiritual life in them. And if those people continued to hear and appropriate the practi- cal, teaching of the Holy Spirit and faithfully lived the Christian life, which some of them certainly did, then the Holy Spirit, through its divine teaching, dwelt in them and controlled their lives. You sometimes see numbers of peo- ple apparently obey the gospel at the same time, and some of them go right on learning and living out the very things the Holy Spirit teaches, and continue to fill their hearts and lives with it day by day; while others soon lose interest in the teaching of the Spirit and are as worldly as before, or even more so. The Holy Spirit is not in them at all. But those that continue in the teaching have spiritual life, and it may be safely said that the Spirit of God dwells in them. It dwells in them through the truth as taught by the Spirit, while those that do not follow the teaching of the Spirit lose all the spiritual life they received when they obeyed the gospel. Finally, since the spirit of infidelity dwells in those that disbelieve the truth, why not the Spirit of God dwell in those that continue to receive and walk in 648 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, the truth as taught by the Spirit, and which truth produces spiritual life? There is one passage that commands Chris- tians to be filled with the Spirit. Paul says: "Be not drunken with wine, wherein is riot, but be filled with the Spirit." (Eph. 5: 18.) Hence, Christians are responsible in the matter of having the Spirit to dwell in them. Paul says again: "But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." (Rom. 8: 9.) This passage again shows that Christians are responsible for the Spirit of God dwelling in them, and that if the Spirit of Christ does not dwell in us we are none of his, and all our fault. But what sort of a spirit did Christ have? He explains: "And he that sent me is with me ; he hath not left me alone ; for I do always the things that are pleasing to him." (John 8: 29.) The spirit that was in Jesus was to always do the things that were pleas- ing to his Father — that is, he always did the will of his Father. Now, if Christians will always strive to do that, they need have no uneasiness about the Spirit of God and of Christ dwelling in them. They will then be in full har- mony with God and with Christ. (2) Jesus says: "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him." (John 14: 21.) This shows, in the first place, that the man that has and keeps the commandments of Christ is the man to whom Christ will manifest himself. And evidently he means that he will manifest himself to these through the promised bless- ings he guarantees to the faithful till they are safely housed in heaven, which is the final promise to all the faithful. It does not mean any sort of visible, personal, or miraculous manifestations, but that all of his promises of love, good- ness, and mercy will be fulfilled to all the faithful through time and into eternity. SPIRIT, WATER, AND BLOOD. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain 1 John 5: 7, 8. A part of both of these verses, according to critics, is an interpolation. The verses, when relieved of the interpo- lation, read thus : "For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood ; and these three agree in one." This much of the two verses is understood by all critics to be genuine. The testimony given by the Spirit, the water, and the blood is given in behalf of the Son of God. The Spirit of God testifies through the apostles of BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 649 Christ. The Spirit spoke through them, and his testimony has been written down and stands on record in the New Testament. The water, in baptism, testifies Christ was buried and rose again. Penitent believers are buried with him in baptism and raised up to walk in newness of life. The fact that such an institution exists and is adminis- tered in the name of Christ is evidence that he was once on earth, as such an ordinance could never have gained a footing among men if the facts it represents had never occurred. So also the blood of Christ, through its emblem, the wine, in the Lord's Supper, is continually testifying in behalf of Jesus, as such a practice could never have been established had not the fact it represents taken place. E. G. S. SPIRIT, WITNESS OF THE. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I would be pleased to have your explanation of Rom. 8: 16 through the Gospel Advocate. The sects use it as a strong point in favor of the direct operation of the Spirit. Was the Holy Spirit given as a Comforter to any excepting the apos- tles? The verse above mentioned says : "The Spirit itself bear- eth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." The Spirit of God always gives its testimony through words, never otherwise. In this verse there are two witnesses. The Spirit of God is one witness, and our spirits the other. Both bear testimony to the fact that we are the children of God. The Holy Spirit tells us what to do to be saved, to become the children of God; and our spirits know and testify when we have done this, and thus by these witnesses any one can tell when his sins are par- doned. And upon the same principle any one can tell whether God continues to own him as a child or not. The Spirit of God tells us how to live the Christian, and our spirits can always testify whether we are doing those things or not and whether we may continually enjoy the promises of God to his children or not. The Holy Spirit bears his testimony through the works of the apostles, and no man has a spiritual idea regarding salvation that has not come through apostles as found in the New Testament; and when men look for spiritual influences outside of the words of the Spirit, they will be forever subject to all kinds of extravagances or delusions that their leaders may have a mind to impose upon them. The Spirit made thousands of Christians in the days of the apostles by speaking through them and telling sinners what to do ; but not one was made a Christian otherwise. We have these same 650 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, words now, and all may be Christians by them if they will. We understand that all who obey the gospel and come into the temple of God receive the Spirit to dwell with them. We would not, however, pretend to say that the Spirit that is promised to dwell in the Christian is a Comforter in the sense that he was to the apostles. The Spirit comforts Christians through his words upon the same principle that he makes Christians through his words. But we are abun- dantly assured that the Spirit dwells in Christians. SPRINKLING IN EZEK. 36: 25. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain Ezek. 36: 25, by- request of a friend of mine. The verse alluded to in Ezekiel has no reference to bap- tism or the Christian institution in any sense. The lan- guage was addressed to the Jews in the time of their cap- tivity and in immediate connection with a promise of their return to their own land. The sprinkling of clean water is an allusion to the water of separation required in the law of Moses. For an explanation of this water, read Num. 19. The Jews had been a good while in captivity among the heathen, and had, doubtless, acquired many impurities of heart and life by their continual contact with strangers. Verse 36 is a promise that God would cleanse them from all filthiness and from their idols. The clean water of the law of Moses was to separate the Jews from uncleanness. God, and not men, was to do the sprinkling mentioned here. He had in the preceding verse promised to take them from among the heathen and gather them into their own land, and the sprinkling of clean water and the cleansing was to take place among them. The Jews returned from cap- tivity five hundred years before baptism was ever insti- tuted. This passage, therefore, could have no reference to it in any way. It was only a promise to the Jews of some- thing to be done for them at their return from Babylon. E. G. S. SPRINKLING, IS IT EVER CALLED "BAPTISM" IN THE BIBLE? Brother Sewell: Is sprinkling ever called baptism anywhere in the Old or New Testament? A Methodist preacher has just closed a meeting in this place, denying that any case in the New Testament Scriptures means immersion, basing his arguments on the passage in Isa. 52: 15. Most assuredly not. These two words do not mean the same thing in any sense, and, therefore, could not be indif- ferently applied to the same act. If John the Baptist had BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 651 only sprinkled a little water on the people, he would never have been called the Baptist, which means the baptizer, and baptize means literally to immerse. The words im- merse and sprinkle cannot both be applied to the same act, because one means one specific act and the other means another specific act, so widely different from each other that no man that knows what he is talking about will ever apply these words to the same act. If a woman sprinkles a little water upon a garment to prepare it for ironing, it would be utterly false to say she immersed it. The Greek word baptidzo means precisely the same in that language that immerse does in English, while the word rantidzo means the same in Greek that sprinkle does in English ; and these two words are never applied to the same act either in Greek or English. The word baptidzo is always used to express the ordinance of baptism in the Greek Testament, while the word rantidzo is always used to express sprin- kling. To this rule there are no exceptions in the original Greek, nor in their corresponding word in the English New Testament. Every time a preacher, when about to perform the act of baptism, says, "I baptize you/' and then sprinkles a few drops of water upon him, he misrepresents truth, either in the word he uses or in the act that he performs. If I say, "I immerse you," and sprinkle a few drops of wa- ter upon the candidate, do I not express or enact a false- hood? It is certain that I say one thing in word and in act say another that utterly falsifies what I say in word. But the word of God never misses the truth that way. It never says immerse where sprinkle is meant. As to the passage named in Isa. 52 : 15, it is in a proph- ecy uttered seven hundred years before baptism was ever heard of, and in a general prophecy concerning Christ, in which there is not an intimation of any ordinance at all. It says of him: "So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider." The American Revised Version renders it sprinkle in the passage, but in the mar- gin puts the word startle. The whole connection indicates that it means to startle, to astonish ; that the mission and work of the Son of God would startle, astonish, the whole world in his wonderful mission and work among men. The Greek version of the Old Testament, called the Septua- gint, renders the Hebrew word into Greek by the word thaumadzo, which means literally to astonish, to marvel, to wonder at. The wonders accomplished through Christ for the redemption of man will never cease to amaze the whole 652 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, world. But the very idea of going back seven hundred years before the ordinance of baptism was ever heard of, instead of looking to the introduction of that ordinance and studying the meaning of the word used by divine authority to express it, to settle that question, is amazing. If a word had been used to express that ordinance that was ever de- fined to express or to in any way mean sprinkle, then there might be a little showing for sprinkling as well as immer- sion ; but the word that John, Christ, and his inspired apos- tles used all the time to express that ordinance means strictly to immerse, to place the whole body under water, thus burying the whole man with Christ in this ordinance. To make the word sprinkle refer to the action of baptism under the new covenant makes Isaiah contradict John the Baptist, Christ, the apostles, and the Holy Spirit in regard to the action of the ordinance called baptism, and makes him contradict every standard Greek and English lexicon upon the face of the earth on the meaning of the word bap- tidzo, every one of which renders that word to mean inir merse. But to allow Isaiah to say startle, or astonish, makes perfect harmony with the New Testament on that subject. "STAR IN THE EAST," WHAT WAS? I wish you to answer the following question: Was the star in Matt. 2: 2, 7, 9 a literal guide or a figurative expression? We find it has reference to a great many places in the Old and New Testaments. The star spoken of was evidently a literal, real appear- ance to the men who are mentioned in the passage. We need not suppose that it was a literal, actual star — one of those we behold at night ; but a literal light, appearing to them like a star, that went and stood over where Jesus was, and thus pointed out to them the place that they might find him. STORMS, DOES GOD SEND? Brother Sewell: Does God send the storms, or was it so arranged in creation that they come? There are some things people can say about the wind with a good deal of certainty, and some things about which they cannot speak so confidently. In the first place, it is certain that God has something to do with winds and storms, as the following passages show: "They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters ; these see the works of Jehovah, and his wonders in the deep. For he commandeth, and raiseth the stormy wind, which lifteth up the waves thereof." (Ps. 107 : 23-25.) It BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 653 is said that he "walketh upon the wings of the wind" and that he "maketh winds his messengers" and "flames of fire his ministers." (Ps. 104: 3, 4.) He used a strong east wind to open a channel in the Red Sea for the children of Israel to pass over. Again, when they murmured, it is said: "And there went forth a wind from Jehovah, and brought quails from the sea, and let them fall by the camp, about a day's journey on this side, and a day's journey on the other side, round about the camp, and about two cubits above the face of the earth." (Num. 11: 31.) Thus the winds were used to bring them a great abundance of food. But in attempting to eat the quails they were smitten with a great plague. So while the wind seemed a great blessing, it was turned into a great scourge. (See verses 32, 33.) Other passages might be cited where the Lord used the wind for the accomplishment of ends, but these may suffice. That the Lord to-day may use winds both as a blessing and as scourges may be true, but we may not always be able to tell with certainty what is the purpose to be ac- complished in every particular storm. It is also evident that winds blow from God's laws, call them natural or what we may ; but we may be left in uncertainty as to what was intended to be accomplished. But there is one thing about winds and storms: we may always be admonished by all such scourges to get closer to the Lord in our own lives and to strive more earnestly to do the will of God in all things. These great and destructive storms ought to be a most solemn warning to all men of the shortness and uncer- tainty of our earthly lives. They show us how quickly we may be snatched away without one moment's time for even an effort to make preparation. They should impress aliens with the great importance of becoming Christians, and should impress all Christians with the great importance of being always ready for the summons to come. All people become careless and indifferent about their responsibilities to God, about the importance of doing good, and of being pure and holy and good, and helping to bring about the day when all shall be sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty. When everything goes on smoothly, the tendency is for peo- ple to cultivate a feeling of security and of forgetfulness of future destiny. We are told that "all things work together for good to them that love God." So Christians ought to receive good from warning, as well as from every blessing ; and all the people ought to be awakened to a more sober sense of a preparation for usefulness here and a better home hereafter. Hence, whether we can tell what partic- ular end may have been intended by such calamities as 654 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, these great storms or not, all people should stop and con- sider their attitude before God and try to better their con- dition. These great chastisements, these terrible calam- ities, do not occur for naught ; and if we are not made bet- ter by them, it will be because we refuse or willingly neg- lect the warning. SUNDAY SCHOOL, THE. I want you to tell me through your paper the difference, if any, between the church and Sunday school as organized bodies. Should they be run separately, or should the church control the school — I mean literally? It is the privilege and duty of every Christian to use ev- ery opportunity that offers to teach the word of God to oth- ers. This teaching may be done to one alone, to a class, or to a promiscuous audience, as the qualifications of the teacher and the surroundings may suggest is best. This is all to be done in accordance with the laws of Christ, in violation of no law laid down. It is to be done in the name of Christ, as a member of his body. We cannot do a thing in the name of Christ when it is done as a member of a body not authorized by him. Christ never ordained any organization except his churches. In these, as members of his body, his children must work. No Sunday school or missionary or charitable organization outside of his church has ever been authorized. No Christian has a right to work in any of these human organizations. He must do what he does as a member of the body of Christ. Acting as a member of that body, he must do it with a proper re- gard for the members of that body. The elders are made the rulers to see God's laws carried out. Work ought to be done in harmony with this position of the elders. This does not mean that they should never work save as the elders direct or that they should wait for the elders to tell them before they work. Unfortunately, some get in as elders who never direct or advise work. In the church the elders should see all work is done as the Bi- ble directs, teach the Bible, do all in the name of Christ. But when men are away from the church and opportunity offers, they should teach — teach individuals and classes — as opportunity offers. They should do it as members of the church and not as members of some human organization. Paul and Barnabas preached thus, and then reported their work to the church. It is a good example to follow. These inspired men of God honored God's church; and, notwith- standing their inspiration, they honored the elders of the churches. We would do well to follow their examples, and BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 655 in all things honor the church of God, and do all that we do as members of that church, and all in the name of Christ Jesus. Then no one should work as a member of any as- sociation save the church of Christ. All should be under the direction or oversight of the elders. A Sunday school should be nothing more than the church through its mem- bers teaching the word of God. SUNDAY SCHOOLS, AUTHORITY FOR. Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: I see a great deal said in the pa- pers about Sunday schools, Sunday-school associations, superintend- ents, Sunday-school officers generally. Now, as the disciples have been such sticklers for the Bible, and Bible alone, condemning all plans and human institutions, please give us an article on the sub- ject. As I have never found any Sunday school in the Bible, it seems to me a little like Beecher's ox yoke. If there is any authority for it in the Bible, I want to see it. s>/ There is just the same authority for teaching old and young the Bible in classes or in a school on Sunday at church as there is for preaching sermons. God requires the Bible to be taught to the old and the young. He has not ordained any specific mode of teaching, but has set the example of teaching in the public sermons by questions and answers, by reading the Scriptures to one or more or letting them read it and question them in reference to its meaning, or by simple verbal statement to one or more. It is the duty of the church to teach children and old people who can be induced to attend the meeting. It is right to teach them in the way it can be most effectually done. We have not had a doubt for years that the most effective way of teaching people the word of God, if they will study, is to take them in classes and read and study the word of God. It is more pleasant to hear a good talker embellish and illustrate and talk about some subject than it is to study it ourselves. So it would be greatly more pleasant for a child to hear a teacher give an entertaining talk than to make him study out his lessons at school. But while it would be more pleasant, it certainly would not teach them so well or thoroughly. If our object is enter- tainment, the preaching of an accomplished speaker is the better ; if to give the knowledge of the Scriptures, the class for old and young is the better. Remember, one is just as divine as the other. - ' We become habituated to certain modes of procedure and unconsciously come to think them divine, and others to which we are not accustomed we think human innovations. We conclude this without examination. This arises from an unconscious self-sufficiency — satisfaction with self and 656 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, our ways. This feeling is a great hindrance to the truth. Then Sunday schools under the direction and control of the churches are right and have just as much of divine war- rant as preaching. Preaching is right. Every human being in the world ought to be preached to or taught the word of God, but both the preaching and teaching ought to be done through God's appointed agencies. His church, through its operations, unamended by man, ought to do this work^/ It is treason against God to say his appointments insufficient. It is an exaltation of man above God to say the arrangements and inventions of man are more ef- fective than God's, or that God's appointments and insti- tutions may be improved and rendered more efficient by human additions to them. Human organizations for preaching the word of God al- ways subvert their object or end. They corrupt that word, nullify that word, and destroy their own ability to preach the word by depreciating it and exalting men's reason above the word of God. They, in their operations, make neces- sary twice the amount of money needed under divine ap- pointments; they incite men ambitious of worldly honors and high salaries to scheme for places, position, and control in these associations. In their operations they make men stingy, illiberal, and unreliable in their contributions. They do this by substituting wrong motives for the divine ones and displacing a disposition for God's sacrifices with a love to be seen of men in their gifts. But this is just as true of human associations to teach the Bible through Sunday schools as it is of human associ- ations to preach the gospel by public speaking. Sunday- school societies, separate and distinct from the church of God, are open to every objection that missionary societies are. It is strange to see men oppose one and approve the other. Men can be found who oppose one, and then, when they can be leaders or occupy places of honor and emolu- ment in the other, earnestly support it. The besetting sin of the world, of the religious world, in all ages has been to forget that God is wiser than man. Yet the experience of the world teaches that human inventions and devices inva- riably thwart their own end, overreach their own design, and destroy that which they were builded to sustain. Hu- man Sunday-school associations are no exceptions to this rule. They are built up to teach the word of God and to build up the churches. That they destroy men's respect for the one and weaken the other I have never had a doubt. The difference in principle between the missionary soci- eties which many in your State oppose and the Sunday- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 657 school associations, in which they labor, in which they hold office, and from which they receive support, it takes one wiser than I am to see. Preaching is right; teaching the children the Bible at meeting on Sunday is right. The church, through its eldership, ought to see that both are done, and done in accordance with the provisions of the word of God. God's church, as he gave it, is fully compe- tent to do all God's work on earth. A work that it cannot do, and do better and more effectually than any and all other institutions of earth can do, is not of God. Teach the chil- dren, by all means, the word of God, and do not destroy their respect for that word by showing you think men's in- stitutions more effective for good than God's as set forth in his word. D. L. SUNDAY SCHOOLS, LITERATURE IN. Brother Lipscomb: Is it right to use literature in the Sunday school ? Webster defines literature as learning. Anything learned is literature. It more especially refers to what is learned from books or things written. To spell and read is to use literature. Anything learned from the Bible is literature. /We usually call that which is learned from the Bible sacred literature; that learned from other things, secular, com- mon, or profane literature. The Bible is literature in the strictest sense. It is written. When one speaks or hears what is taught in the Bible or other books or things, he uses literature just as much as he does who writes or reads what is taught. Every one who studies and teaches or ears the Bible uses literature. Every thought and word God has given to the world was first spoken, then written by God's Spirit. God has just as much authorized us to teach and learn by reading as he has by hearing. A truth that goes into the heart through the eye will save just as surely as a truth that goes through the ear. All objection to literature by persons who talk or hear, write or read, to teach or learn, is self-stultification. My observation has been that those who object to printed or written literature are those who think they are very wise and know every- thing themselves, and the use of the printed literature pre- vents their explaining their literature orally. In other words, it cuts them out of the opportunity of speechmak- ing. Their talking may be a good thing if they know what to say and how and when to say it. A thoughtful and studious teacher can often apply what he learns to the spe- cial condition of those he is teaching in a way that no writer or speaker to a general audience can do. On the other 658 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, hand, to refuse all outside literature is to cut them off from much helpful teaching. The thing to do is to follow God's example. Use both speaking and writing as a means of teaching — that is, let the teacher study the lessons for him- self and add all thoughts and suggestions he can, and ap- ply the teaching to the conditions of the pupils. The great evil is, neither teacher nor pupils study the lessons. I think the old way of having the young especially memorize portions of scripture the better way. It will then stay with a child through life. Though he may not then understand it, it will often come up to him in life and cause him to think of it. It seems to me it would not be a heavy task for the pupils to memorize and repeat the scripture lesson. Then use the literature, written and oral, in explaining it. How many will undertake to memorize during the week the scripture lesson ? SUNDAY-SCHOOL WORK, SHALL SINNERS LEAD IN? Brother Lipscomb: I hate to trouble you, but we have members in our church here that think it is right for sinners to lead in the song service in Sunday-school and church services. Is it right for a sinner to teach a class of Christians in Sunday school? Please let us hear from you through the Gospel Advocate. I have never known times or persons or places in which it is wrong to study the Bible. Once I knew a sister with some children to move out to the back parts of Texas — when it had back parts. There was no church or members of the church there, but a saloon keeper. This sister wanted to study the Bible, to study it herself and teach it to her children and the people. She talked of a school to study the Bible. The saloon keeper was the only man willing to take the lead, make the appointments, and do the work of a su- perintendent. She wrote me about it, and I wrote her to study the Bible with the saloon man as superintendent. I was in, a community where there were no brethren. I went home with a man and found him a saloon man. The peo- ple wanted preaching. He offered his saloon as a place. I preached in it. I only regret I have not preached from more saloons. I more fear that God will condemn me for keeping away from such places to preach and teach the best I can than that he will condemn me for using the op- portunities granted me to preach in them. "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." The saloons are in the world, the places of shame and sin are in the world, and it is not right to ignore them. The Master, when he was here, went and ate with the sinners and in- vited them to become his followers. Many of them did. I BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 659 apprehend many of us will be condemned for our overmuch righteousness in keeping away from the sinners. This is not encouraging any to affiliate with them in their sinful ways. Then there are some hymns written for sinners to sing, to encourage them to good and holy lives. They ought to sing those songs. Christians ought to learn to sing themselves and not to depend on sinners to worship for them. But to draw lines and make impassable barriers over which the sinner cannot come when he desires to draw near to God is frequently overdone, and we Christians with an abundance of self -righteousness are more exclusive than God. Our zeal for God ought to lead us in all our service. But sinners cannot worship for Christians. SUNDAY-SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS. Brother Sewell: Is it scriptural to have Sunday-school superin- tendents? If so, where do we get our scripture for them? Is it scriptural to have more than one teacher teaching in the same house at one time? Does it not cause confusion in the church? And does not Paul say in 1 Cor. 14 that we are to speak one at a time, so we will not make confusion? "For," says he, "God is not the author of confusion." We do not think it best to give the name Sunday school to the work of teaching the word of God to the young on the first day of the week, since there have been and still are some things done in Sunday schools, so called, that are un- scriptural; and this causes misunderstandings and preju- dice against the work of teaching the word of God to the young and others on that day. Christians can meet and do this work without organizing themselves into any sort of official body, and need not give it any official name. The yC teaching work is not done at the hour of public worship that Paul speaks of in 1 Cor. 14, and should not be confused with it. In this teaching service the learners should cer- tainly be divided into classes and taught according to their advancement in Bible study, and there need be no confusion by having different classes in the same room. The trouble is, people mix the teaching of classes in their minds with the regular worshiping assembly when the whole church is together for congregational worship. Let the teaching of classes be done at one hour and the regular congregational worship at another, and there will be no trouble. There is nothing unscriptural in having some competent brother to lead or preside in the teaching service, that all things may "be done decently and in order." 660 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, SUPPER, THE LORD'S, AND THE PASSOVER. Brother Sewell: Explain the difference between the Lord's Sup- per and passover, as we have a brother who thinks it is the same and should be taken on the same day of the month and at night, in pre- cisely the same manner the Jews did the passover. How any one can reach the conclusion that the Lord's Supper of the New Testament and the Jewish passover of the Old Testament are one and the same thing is very strange. There is nothing about the two that makes them at all resemble each other. The Jewish passover was a feast to be eaten once a year. Each family was to take a lamb without blemish and slay it in the evening, and take the blood and sprinkle of it upon the lintel and posts of the door, to be a sign to the destroying angel, so that he was to pass by the houses of the Israelites and not destroy any of their firstborn. Then the flesh of the lamb was to be roasted by the fire and eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, and they were to eat it with their loins girded and their staves in their hands ready to start out in haste. The design of this passover was expressed in these words : "It is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians and delivered our houses." (Ex. 12: 27.) But the Lord's Supper consists of bread and wine, to be taken by the disciples of Christ on the first day of the week in memory of the broken body and shed blood of the Savior. No two things can be more unlike, both in the things composing them, the manner of eating, and the de- sign. The trouble in all these matters is that men will go by what they think, and not by what the word of God says. E. G. S. SUPPER, WHO SHOULD EAT THE LORD'S? Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: There is a question which I deem of great importance to Christians, concerning which I wish to call your attention — that is, who are scripturally authorized to partake of the Lord's Supper? Some of our brethren are in favor of what is called close communion, while others are opposed to this course, and speak in favor of at least permitting, if not inviting, professors of the denominations to partake with themselves, justifying themselves by saying we have not the privilege or right to invite or debar, and that we are not to judge others. "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup." Those who are in favor of what is called close communion contend that the plan of salvation is certainly plain. They understand the conditions which, when complied with, constitute one a member of the body of Christ, and they understand also that no one is scripturally a member of that body until he has complied with those conditions. They also understand that the New Testament teaches just as unmistakably that the Supper was instituted to be observed by Christians — not Christians merely in profession or in feeling, but those who have be- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 661 come so by obeying the truth. In the face of these facts, what good reason can there be urged why a man who has lived from his spiritual cradle up by "faith only" in declared disobedience to what is termed the nonessentials of the gospel should be encouraged to come forward and partake of the emblems of the Lord's broken body and shed blood ? We have repeatedly stated our conviction that no one save obedient children of our Father has any rights in the Lord's house. God has told us who are his children, and has instituted his Supper for their participation. It is destroying the significance of the ordinance, as well as usurping authority not granted to us, to invite or encourage others to participate. Besides, it destroys the strength of our protest against those who set aside God's appointments. D. L. SUPPER, WHEN TO EAT THE LORD'S. Brother Lipscomb : In all the meetings of the apostles we find that they met together for the purpose of breaking bread, to remember the sacrifice of their Lord and Master. That was the essential thing that brought them together; and when they were brought together, it was a means of spiritual growth to them. And in all our meetings on Lord's-day morning and night, and also at the midweek prayer meet- ing, is it not necessary that we should partake of the emblems at all times when we meet together to worship him? Is it not just as neces- sary to break bread at all those meetings as it is to teach, to sing, and to pray? I have not found that the apostles and early Christians broke bread at all their meetings. Nor have I found it was the essential thing above other acts of service for the meet- ing. They were steadfast "in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers." (Acts 2: 42.) I do not see why one of these acts of wor- ship should be made chief above the others. They are all ordained of God and all important. It is the work of man to exalt one above the others. In Acts 20 : 7 it is said that on the first day of the week, when the disciples were come together to break bread, Paul preached to them. This speaks as though it was customary to meet on the first day of the week. There are accounts of other meetings for other purposes at which no allusion to the breaking of bread is made. I am sure the breaking of bread was attended to only on the first day of the week, and I could attend to it at no other time. The worship of the Lord's day cannot be acceptably observed without breaking of bread, and it can be attended to only on the Lord's day. Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: I see in the Gospel Advocate some excellent things on the time of taking the Supper. I have two ques- tions relative to this which I will be pleased to have you answer. 1. Does Sunday night, from dark to midnight, properly belong to the first day of the week? And is it proper to take the Supper dur- 662 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, ing that time? If the Jews in Christ's time counted the day begin- ning at sunset and closing at sunset, it seems that the period called the first day closes at sunset on Sunday evening. I have frequently taken the Supper after preaching on Sunday night. Was this wrong or not? 2. Is it right to take the Lord's Supper twice during the same day? In preaching to two congregations the same day, this question comes up. I have always refused to take it the second time. Some brethren say I did wrong; that the expression as oft, etc., proves that we should let no opportunity for taking it pass. This, to me, would prove too much. Who is right? There is nothing in the New Testament that definitely settles at what particular time the Lord's day begins nor at what particular hour it ends. The Jewish custom of be- ginning at sunset one evening and closing the same time the next evening has nothing to do in settling this question. About the nearest approach we have to the matter is when Matthew, speaking of the resurrection, says : "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week." This passage shows that, in the estimation of Mat- thew, the Sabbath only ended about the dawning of the morning, and that with the dawning the first day of the week began. And with that before us, we might say that the first day of the week begins with the dawning of the morning of that day, and the twenty-four hours would then last till the dawning of the next morning. With that count, any time from the dawning on Sunday morning till the dawning of Monday morning would be the Lord's day. But we are inclined to think that Matthew had more particular reference to that part of the twenty-four hours that is light, and is called day proper, when he said the first day of the week, and that just the same is meant in Acts 20 : 7. We would, therefore, prefer always to take the Supper in the first or leading part of day proper, in the forenoon, when the mind and body are most active and vigorous; but we would be willing if circumstances required to take it any time of the afternoon or any part of the night up to mid- night, but would always prefer the forenoon. I do not know of any better method or anything more scriptural than to take the modern method of beginning the twenty-four hours at midnight and end at midnight. Hence, any time between midnight Saturday night, which ends Saturday, and Sunday night to twelve, would be Lord's day. We doubt not it would be acceptable to eat the Supper on Sun- day night; but we would always prefer to take the word literally and eat in the daytime, during daytime proper. In that case we may certainly know that we are following Bible language. As to whether we may partake more than once on the BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 663 same day, we know of nothing on the subject in the word of God. When we meet and take the Supper once, the require- ment is filled. We do not know that it would be wrong to take it more than once. We have a few times done so with sick members in the afternoon, after having partaken with the congregation in the morning; but we do not pretend to claim Bible authority for it as such. We are inclined to think, however, that a second participation would not be beyond the bounds of the Scripture requirement of break- ing bread on the first day of the week, but we are not going to argue for it. We have never understood the expression as oft, etc., to have any reference to partaking more than once the same day, and do not think it can be properly so applied. The apostle only meant to teach that when we take the Supper we should always take it in remembrance of Jesus. As oft as only means every time, and, therefore, means that every time we take the Supper (which should be every Lord's day, as shown by other passages) we must take it in memory of Christ, and that also every time we partake of it we "do show the Lord's death till he come." We only understand the passage to refer to taking the Sup- per every Lord's day, but not to more times than one on the same day. E. G. S. SUPPER, QUESTIONS ON THE LORD'S. Brother Sewell: (1) Is it scriptural for a Christian to break bread alone? (2) I am thinking seriously over instruments of music in the home. If we worship God in singing hymns at home, would it not be wrong to sing with the instruments in the home, as well as in the public assembly? (3) Did God ever command any one to make an instrument of music, and on whose side did the instruments originate — with the children of God or with the children of men? (4) If it be a sin for a Christian to marry a sinner, what must be done in order to get forgiveness of that sin, as we believe all sins must be pardoned to obtain eternal life? (5) When does the Christian become perfect, and when did Jesus become perfect? (1) If a Christian should be so situated that he cannot meet with others, we can see no reason why he could not take it alone ; but if there be others he can meet with, then the requirement is not to forsake "the assembling of ourselves together." (Heb. 10: 25.) (2) It would be about as objectionable to worship God with an instrument at home as at the meetinghouse, so far as we can tell. We see no wrong in having instruments at home as an entertainment; but when we worship in the home, let the instrument be silent. (3) God never commanded any man to make a musical instrument to worship him with. The first that we read about instruments of music was in the family of Cain, and 664 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, they likely were the first to invent them. It was said of Jubal, a great-grandson of Cain, that "he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ." (Gen. 4: 21.) David was the first to introduce instrumental music into the worship of God, but he was not so commanded. God never ordained instruments of music as part of man's wor- ship to him. He permitted it among the Jews, but did not ordain it. Instrumental music was never in the church of God till uninspired men put it there. So it has no divine authority to be there. (4) We do not understand that it is an unpardonabe sin for a Christian to marry a sinner. So he could obtain par- don in the same way as for other sins. One good way is to convert the sinner, and then both live the Christian life. If he cannot be converted, let the Christian be faithful to the Lord, and not be led away from Christian integrity. But, to be perfectly sure, the better way is not to marry a sinner. That is certainly safe. (5) The Christian is perfect, in a scriptural sense, when he is giving his heart and life to the service of God as re- quired in his word. If at any time he finds he has in any wise failed in this, let him seek pardon through repentance, confession, and prayer. Christ was always perfect in this sense, since he did always the things that were pleasing to his Father. (John 8: 29.) It is said of him that he was made perfect through suffering. This was when he com- pleted the suffering his Father appointed for him. He is also said to have been made perfect by obedience. This was when he had finished the obedience his Father ap- pointed for him to do. (See Heb. 2 : 10 ; 5 : 8, 9.) SUPPER, WHICH IS MEANT? Brother Lipscomb: (1) Is the supper mentioned in John 13: 2-4 the same supper mentioned in John 12: 2? Did Christ wash his dis- ciples' feet in connection with the Lord's Supper or at the eating of a common meal? Did Jesus institute the Lord's Supper at the eating of the passover? (2) Please explain Matt. 26: 29. What kingdom did Jesus have reference to, and how would he "drink it?" (1) They were not the same. One was eaten six days before the passover, the other was at the passover supper. Take the statement of John, and it plainly teaches that this supper (John 13: 2) was eaten, the service continued with- out intermission until the speeches were made. Jesus and the disciples went out from this meeting to the garden, where he was arrested and carried to the courts. The foot washing was at the beginning of the supper, and I feel sure it was done to purify themselves for the supper. "Now the passover of the Jews was at hand : and many went up BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 665 to Jerusalem out of the country before the passover, to pu- rify themseves." (John 11: 55.) After purifying them- selves, they were liable to have the feet made unclean by touching unclean things, and needed to have the feet washed, but only the feet. "He that is bathed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all." (John 13: 10.) After being bathed for cleansing, they only needed to bathe the feet. Luke (22: 24) tells: "There arose also a contention among them, which of them was accounted to be greatest." It is likely Jesus washed their feet from this quarrel, which may have occurred over who should wash the feet. Some of the translators throw a little more light on the passage than the Common Version. The American Revised Version translates John 13: 2: "And during supper, the devil hav- ing already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him." I copy from Hovey's "Commentary on John:" "Noyes translates it: 'And supper being served.' Alford: 'And when supper was begun.' Davidson: 'And when supper was ready.' Meyer : 'And whilst it is becom- ing supper time.' Watkins : 'And it now becoming supper time.' Bible Union: 'And supper being served.' English Revision: 'And during supper.' Common Version: 'And supper being ended.' " I submit that they refer to the purification to partake of the passover supper. The feet were washed preparatory to the passover. Jesus washed the feet of Judas, let it be known he would betray him, sent him to do his work ; then instituted after the passover the Lord's Supper, partook of it, made the speeches contained in John 13-17, went out to the garden of Gethsemane, was betrayed by Judas, was carried before the high priest and Pilate, and was crucified the next day. There will be no occasion to wash the feet to follow this example until the passover is observed. (2) Matt. 26: 29 is of doubtful meaning. Most com- mentators regard it as figurative, and that something pre- figured by it will occur in the future state. Some think it refers to the establishment of the kingdom and that he would observe it with them in the kingdom. I have been inclined to the former of the positions. SUPPER, EATING THE LORD'S, TWICE ON THE LORD'S DAY. Brother Sewell: Is it wrong for the children of God to meet twice on Lord's day and partake of the Lord's Supper with different congre- gations — one meeting in the morning, the other in the evening? Please answer through the Gospel Advocate for the benefit of the brethren here and elsewhere. 666 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, There is nothing said directly on this matter in the New Testament. But when Christians meet together and take the Supper one time, they have certainly filled the require- ments of that institution for that day ; and to be certainly safe, and not go beyond in any matter pertaining to it, it might be best, and would certainly be safe, not to attend to it any more till the next Lord's day. In some things we see in the word of God it is as dangerous to go beyond the word of God as it is to fall short of doing what is required, and it is always safe to do just what is commanded — no more, no less. SUPPER, IS THERE AUTHORITY FOR THE LORD'S, ON SATURDAY? Brother Sewell: Is it right to take the Lord's Supper on any day but the first day of the week? Last Saturday the Methodists had a meeting and took something they called the Lord's Supper. It was bread and wine. Whether this be the Lord's Supper or not I would like to know. There was one of our brethren and one of our sisters who took it with them. Is there any command or example in the New Testament for taking the Supper any other day but the first day of the week? It is quite certain that the first day of the week is the time the early Christians partook of the Lord's Supper, and this they did under the teachings of the inspired apostles of the Son of God, which shows that the first day of the week is the time the Lord ordained for his people to meet and take the Supper; and if they meet and partake of it some other day, they do so without authority from the Lord, and nothing done by man can honor the Lord unless it be done by his authority. The silence of the Bible should in all things be regarded, and we should just do what the Lord says do, and then all may be one in practice. There is no example in all the New Testament for taking the Sup- per on any but the first day of the week by the early Chris- tians. Neither is there any authority in the word of God for taking the Supper once a quarter or once a month, as Methodists and others do. So far as we know, there is as much authority in the word of God to take the bread and wine on Saturday as there is to take it once a quarter ; but there is not one word of authority for either one of them in the word of God. E. G. S. SUPPER, DID JESUS PARTAKE OF THE LORD'S? Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In the account of the Lord's Sup- per given by Matt. 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and by Paul' in 1 Cor. 9, is it taught that Jesus partook of the bread and wine together with his apostles? Or did he only present it to them as his body and blood, BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 667 an institution for his disciples to keep in memory of him, and, there- fore, did not partake of it, but only gave it to them? There is no positive information on the subject. There is an implication in Mark, as well as in Matthew, that he did partake. In Mark 14: 25 Jesus says: "Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God." Matthew has it: "I will not drink henceforth," etc. Henceforth means from this time forward. In both these passages the implication is that Jesus did eat that time, but would not any more do so. But we will not argue it, for there is noth- ing practical in the matter, no matter which way we take it. He established the Supper, and we have it from his author- ity, and that is enough. E. G. S. SUPPER, INTOXICATING WINE IN THE LORD'S. 1. Was the wine used in the last supper by the Savior intoxicating or nonintoxicating? 2. If intoxicating, could the supper be now observed properly by the substitution of a nonintoxicant? 3. Was it an accident that the bread used on the occasion of the institution of the supper was unleavened? If not an accident, do you think a proper observance can be had now with leavened bread? 1. I think beyond doubt it was intoxicating. I think so because the wine spoken of as generally used was in- toxicating. The new wine supposed to have been used on the day of Pentecost would make drunk, and that used in the Lord's Supper by the Corinthians made drunk. No reproof was given for using the wine that does intoxicate. Then, again, Timothy clearly, as a matter of conscience, refused to use wine because of its evil influences. Paul told him to take a little for his frequent sickness. The theory that says unfermented juice of the grape was used says this is harmless in general use. Timothy did not think the wine of that day was harmless ; neither did Paul. It was intox- icating, else it could not lead the brother into sin. Good, clever people spend time and much research and ingenuity in striving to fix up a theory that will banish fermented wine from the Lord's table. A few will take the position under stress of the evil of intemperance ; but the consensus of the learned and the common sense of those who study the Bible hold to the idea that it was fermented wine, for only fermented wine is free from the leaven or ferment. The fermentation works out the ferment. 2. While I am sure that the fermented juice of the grape was used, I am not sure that the presence of the intoxicat- ing property is an essential element of the wine to be used. It is never called wine in connection with the Supper. The 668 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, juice of the grape was the thing used, the fruit of the vine in the cup. The only practical way of then obtaining it free from the presence of leaven or ferment was in the fer- mented state. We doubt if there is any other form in which it can be obtained yet. We have several times thought we had found it; but when tested, it has failed. Inasmuch as the fruit of the vine, and not wine, is spoken of as the element in the service, if it could be obtained free from ferment, I see no objection to its use. But in all forms in which it is preserved by exclusion of the air, the element of ferment is merely rendered inactive; and the moment it is exposed to the air the ferment becomes ac- tive, and it must be used hurriedly before the ferment shows itself; but the ferment — the leaven — is there and active, none the less. So while I could use the unfermented juice of the grape could the element of ferment be removed or destroyed without passing through the process of fermen- tation, still it is impractical, so far as I have been able to learn ; and to use it just as Christ and the apostles used it is safe. 3. The new dispensation grew out of the old, as a new constitution grows out of a preceding one, and must be in- terpreted in the light of the laws of the old. There is no doubt but the first supper was served with the unleavened bread of the passover. It grew out of the passover. It was no more of an accident than it was an accident that the first supper was observed at the passover. It is safe to fol- low the example given in all things possible. I cannot ap- preciate the feeling that would turn from the example when it is possible to follow it. Then when leavened bread is used, it, I think, universally grows out of a neg- lect to prepare any for the supper, and such is used as hap- pens to be on hand. We never knew of any one preparing leavened bread for the supper. The use of the leavened bread grows out of the indifference that neglects to pre- pare for the observance of the supper. Let us prepare for it, and prepare that concerning which there can be no doubt. It is important in all service to God to be on the safe side — that about which there can be no doubt. If a man will start to always act on this principle, he will never wander from God, and all who act on this principle will walk together in harmony and peace. Let us all resolve to be on the safe side in all religious service. D. L. SWEARING. A brother asks us for information on the sentence: "Swear not at all." We know of no better service toward determining this question than to present the use of the BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 669 word translated oath and swear in the New Testament. The Greek word horkos is translated oath; omnumi is translated swear. They are used in the following sen- tences: "Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: but I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: nor by the earth ; for it is his footstool : neither by Jerusalem ; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea ; Nay, nay : for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." (Matt. 5: 33-37.) Herod "promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask." (Matt. 14: 7; see also Mark 6: 23.) "Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Who- soever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but who- soever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor ! . . . Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. . . . Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon." (Matt. 23: 16-22.) "Then began he [Peter] to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man." (Matt. 26: 74; see also Mark 6: 23.) "To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy cove- nant; the oath which he sware to our father Abraham." (Luke 1: 72, 73.) "Therefore being a prophet, and know- ing that God had sworn with an oath to him [David] , that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne." (Acts 2: 30.) Ste- phen speaks of the oath "which God had sworn to Abraham." (Acts 7: 17.) "So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest!" (Heb. 3: 11; see also verse 18; Heb. 4: 3.) "When God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself." (Heb. 6 : 13.) "For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife." (Heb. 6: 16.) "For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent." (Heb. 7: 21.) "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, nei- ther by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea ; and your nay, nay ; lest ye fall into condemna- tion." (James 5: 12.) "The angel which I saw stand 670 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, and sware by him that liveth forever and ever, . . . that there should be time no more." (Rev. 10: 5, 6.) These are the instances in which the terms translated oath and swear are used. The same terms apply to the oath God took, the oath of the angels, the judicial oath, the oath of confirmation, the wicked oath of Herod, the pro- fane swearing of Peter, the oath or vow made to the Al- mighty. Yet the Savior in the most unlimited way pro- hibits his servants from using any oath represented by these terms. "I say unto you, Swear not at all." At all indicates there is no exception to the prohibition. To con- firm it he says: "Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." If this does not prohibit every form and character of oath or swearing represented by the words here used in these different senses, I do not understand the force of language. Swear not at all means to swear not in any sense represented by the word sivear. James only reiter- ates the Savior's prohibition. "The high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said." (Matt. 26 : 63, 64.) It is claimed that in this the Savior took an oath. That God or the Savior swore does not carry the right to his servants to swear, especially as he has so clearly forbid- den it to them and limited their statements to the "yea," "nay," in contrast with the swearing. But if a judge were to say to a witness, "I adjure you, or swear you, to state if this or that is true," and he were to plainly alter the style of the judge by responding, "I say, judge, your state- ment is correct," it would be certainly understood by his answering with, "I say," instead of, "I swear," that he did not answer under the adjuration or proposed oath; but, instead, he would decline the oath and make the state- ment simply, "It is true." This is just what the Savior did. D. L. TABERNACLE, WHAT BECAME OF THE? Brother Sewell: Where was the tabernacle last used by the chil- dren of Israel, and what became of it? The tabernacle and the ark of the covenant were sep- arated at the battle of Shiloh, when the ark was carried out into the battle between the Jews and Philistines, where it was captured by the Philistines. (See 1 Sam. 4.) It re- mained among the Philistines for seven months ; but those BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 671 people were so afflicted on account of its presence that they sent it back to the Jewish people again. It was then placed in the house of Abinadab, where a priest was placed over it, where it remained until David attempted to carry it to Je- rusalem on a new cart ; but this effort failed because he did not have it carried as God had directed it should be. He then placed it in the house of Obed-edom, where it remained till David saw and corrected his mistake, and had the chil- dren of the Levites to carry it upon their shoulders, as God had ordained it should be carried, into the city of Jerusa- lem, where it was placed in a tent David had prepared for it. Here it remained till Solomon placed it in the temple he had built in Jerusalem, where it remained until the Jew- ish captivity, when it disappeared from history, possibly being carried to Babylon. So it was never returned to its old place in the original tabernacle. As to the old taberna- cle, history fails to tell what became of it. It was spoken of at different places — at Nob and at Gibeon — and finally dropped out of sight, and no one knows certainly what be- came of it. The Jewish people went so far into sin and so far corrupted the worship of God that he abandoned the tabernacle, and the ark ceased to defend them, and they finally disappeared, and no one knows certainly how. It is an awful thing for men to disregard the service of God and turn it into something else. Christianity is being ter- ribly corrupted that same way. TALENTS, PARABLE OF THE. Brother Sewell: Kindly explain the parable of the talents found in Matt. 25. Most people think that the talents referred to are our ability, but the language is: "He gave to every one according to his ability." "The kingdom of heaven is as a man traveling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods." (Matt. 25: 14.) The parable itself is a man who had servants of his own, had money, and was arranging for a trip into a far country, and arranged for his servants to take charge of his money and to so use it as to keep the servants busy and keep his money growing in his absence. The word talent relates to money, and means a certain weight or amount of money. The man gave it to the servants according to their ability to manage it and keep it growing. The ability of men to manage money and make money out of money differs very widely. Hence the man in the parable gave five talents to one serv- ant ; to another, two ; and to another, one. This difference was not a matter of partiality on the part of the master that led him to give more to one than another, but his 672 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, knowledge of their ability, their capacity to work. Hence, one proved to have more than double the capacity of an- other, and more than five times that of the one that re- ceived one talent. The master did not give ability, but gave money according to the ability they had, and simply required them to exercise the ability which he knew they already had. The man that was going away into a far country is intended to represent Christ, who was going to leave the earth and return to his Father till the time for him to return to judge the world. The talents of money that the man gave to his servants to manage till his return represent Christ as leaving the whole matter of the king- dom of heaven, the gospel plan of salvation, in the hands of his disciples, for them to propagate to the ends of the earth, to spread or increase that kingdom, with all its de- mands and responsibilities, till time should end. This means that every disciple of Christ is to do what he can in the work and worship of the church, do all that he can in living the Christian life and all that he can to aid in the sal- vation of others, as the gospel directs. As it was with the servants and the talents, so it is with the disciples of Christ in the work of salvation. Some members can do much, while others can do but little. But it is the duty of all to do all they can. Some preachers can evangelize success- fully and lead many into the church, but cannot very suc- cessfully edify those that are already in; others can very successfully edify the church ; while still others are not a success at either one. Some members that could not make a success in preaching can make good overseers, good lead- ers both in the work and worship of the church. There is always something all can do that have responsibility enough to be Christians. The great virtue in the whole matter is for each one to do what he can in the Lord's cause, and his joy in eternity will be complete. The trouble with the man with one talent was not because he did not make two or five talents, but because he hid his lord's money and did nothing. He did nothing in the world to extend his lord's interests. TARES, THE. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain who the tares rep- resent in the parable. (Matt. 13: 24-30.) Do they represent char- acters in the church or that ever were in it? The tares are the wicked people of this world. We would not undertake to say dogmatically whether they rep- resent wicked people who claim to be in the church or out of it. We think both. Wicked people who from some worldly motive go through the form of coming into the BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 673 church are no more in the kingdom of God than other wicked people who make no such pretensions; and even those who come in, and then live wickedly, will share the same fate with other wicked people in the end. Wicked people are led by the devil even when they go through the form of coming into the church or when they live wickedly after coming in. Therefore we think it matters but little whether we refer the tares to the wicked nominally in the church or out of it, so far as that one point is concerned. We know as an argument in favor of the tares representing the wicked in the church the part of the Savior's explana- tion of the parable which says, "The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire : there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth," is quoted. The meaning, however, depends very much upon the meaning we attach to the word kingdom. • If it means necessarily the church, then those who make such claim are doubtless correct — that is, if it means the church as an organized body. But is this neces- sarily so ? The word kingdom may mean dominion, and the dominion of Christ in a general sense extends over all the earth, whether people serve him or not ; and in the last day all the wicked in all the dominion of Christ and of God will be cast into the furnace of fire, where will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, whether in the church or out, nominally. Again, the church of God is composed of his people, and his people are scattered about over the world generally ; and to send the angels and gather the wicked from among these would be virtually to gather them out of the kingdom. But, again, the Savior says the field in which both the good and the bad seed is sown, both the righteous and the wicked, is the world, which we understand to be the territory of the earth, in which all, the righteous and the wicked, live to- gether in this life, and will to the end of the world. We do not so understand the Scriptures as to think they teach that there will ever come a time when all the people of the world will be Christians; but there will be some righteous and some wicked when the end comes, and all the wicked will be cast out. And, therefore, when the Master is rep- resented as saying to the servants not to try to take up the tares, lest they root up also the wheat, we understand the Savior to teach his people that it is no part of their busi- ness to try to blot out the wicked from the face of the earth, but to let them alone and live among them on the earth till the end, so that they may have a chance to influ- 674 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, ence them for good, and that the Lord at the last day will do the destroying. Still further, if we make the field mean the church only, then the parable would forbid any discipline or any sepa- rating the wicked members from the church in this world, as some have contended. But that interpretation would contradict many plain directions given by Paul to the churches, in which he required them to withdraw from every unruly or disorderly member. The word of God must not be so interpreted as to make any one passage con- tradict another. So we conclude that the tares in this par- able means all the wicked, rebellious people of this world, whether nominally in the church or out of it, who reject God and follow Satan, all of whom will be cast into outer darkness at the last day ; and this interpretation, so far as we can see, harmonizes with all other passages in the Bible on the same subject. We, therefore, regard it safe. E. G. S. TEACHING IN CLASSES. Brother Lipscomb: A goodly number of the members of our con- gregation worshiping here say it is contrary to divine teaching to teach the children at church, as in classes. Please give me some light on this subject. God says: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations." (Matt. 28: 19.) "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 16: 15.) "They that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word." (Acts 8: 4.) "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season ; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long- suffering and doctrine [teaching]." (2 Tim. 4:2.) In all these God gives the command to preach and teach the word, in all places, at all times, in all manners, to every creature capable of being taught. God gives the positive command to go anywhere, to teach at all times, to everybody willing to be taught. A Christian that refuses to teach anywhere, anybody, in any way it is possible to teach, refuses to obey God and sets his authority at defiance. It is not only the privilege, but the duty, of every Christian to teach the chil- dren and every one else on Sunday in classes, and every other time, place, or way it is possible to teach the word of God. None can refuse to teach anybody anywhere with- out disobeying a clear command of God. In all this the Christian rules regulating the proprieties of men and women, the young and the old, should be observed. Ask those who oppose to point out what scripture is set aside by thus teaching the word of God. Every one who refuses BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 675 to teach the word of God at any time, in any place, to any- body willing to be taught, does disobey the plain and posi- tive command of God. Let us look this command squarely in the face and not shirk our duty. TEACHING AND THE SUPPER, WHICH FIRST? Brother Lipscomb: Some congregations of the church of Christ at- tend to the communion service before preaching, and refer to Acts 20 : 7 to support their practice; while others have the service after the sermon, and point to Matt. 26 : 30 to prove their position. Which is right? I do not think either scripture referred to has any bear- ing on the point at issue. Acts 20: 7 says the disciples came together on the first day of the week to break bread. This would indicate that a leading purpose in coming to- gether was to break bread ; but it gives no intimation whether it was the first service attended to when they came together or the last. Matt. 26 : 30, after the institution or observance of the Supper has been told, says : "And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives." Reading the succeeding , verses shows that this was the night of the betrayal. They went to Gethsemane, and Jesus told them to remain while "I go yonder and pray." He went and prayed three times, and then returned to his disciples and told them his time was at hand. "While he yet spake," Judas, with his band, came and arrested him. Mark (14: 22-26) gives the account. And they came to Gethsemane, and straightway cometh Judas and his band, and arrested him. In Luke 22: 14-23 the cup is partaken of, and while at the table a contention arose among them which should be greatest. (Verse 24.) He talked to them of the kings of the Gentiles, of who is greatest, of his ap- pointing them a kingdom (verses 28-30), told Peter that he would deny him (verses 31-33), and that henceforth they should each carry his wallet and purse and should buy a sword ; two swords were brought to him ; and after this he went out to the mount of Olives, where he was betrayed (verse 39). John 13 tells of the Supper, or, if you wish to so call it, of a supper. At this supper the feet were washed, the traitor was pointed out. Verse 30 : "Having received the sop went immediately out." After he had gone, Jesus talked to those who remained. Nothing is told by John of the Lord's Supper, but he spoke to them through chapters 13, 14, 15, 16. In chapter 17 he prayed for his disciples, and the first verses of chapter 18 tell of his going over the brook Kidron and of his arrest by Judas and his band. The supper told of by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John ended with his arrest by Judas. It must, then, have been 676 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, one and the same supper; and taking all the accounts to- gether, they show that all that is recorded by Luke and by John in chapters 14, 15, 16, and 17 was spoken after the supper and before they went out. This proves there is no command of a special order in the observance of the Supper. I think any one who at- tempts to enforce a special order adds to the order of God. When God wishes a special order observed, he does not leave any doubt as to it. He does not leave it to human infer- ence and human reasoning. If there is an order, Acts 2: 42 would indicate it was first teaching, fellowship, break- ing of bread, and after this prayers. But the whole facts indicate the order of doing the things that constitute the worship is not a matter of divine legislation. While this is true, I prefer the Supper should come after the preach- ing, possibly because I have been accustomed to it, and the brethren generally have, and it is not wise to break up es- tablished customs unless there is good to come of it. In attending to the Supper we are commanded to ' 'tarry one for another/' That means to wait until all are present. I have never seen it attended to in the beginning of the service without some coming late, and so necessitate carry- ing the memorials to them after the others had partaken, or they would go without. While I think there is no di- vinely established order, it is better, with the habits of our people, to observe the Supper after the preaching, when teaching is regularly done. D. L. TEACHING THE BIBLE, NUMEROUS QUESTIONS ON. Brother Sewell: If you were affiliating with a congregation whose order of worship was as here given — (1) assemble at 10 A.M. on Lord's day; (2) all join in singing a song; (3) some brother reads the Scripture lesson; (4) kneeling, some brother leads in prayer; (5) all join in singing another song; (6) the audience is then divided into classes agreeable to age and ability to recite a lesson, using the liter- ature published by the McQuiddy Printing Company; (7) at 11 o'clock the lesson ceases; (8) all then join in singing one or more songs;- (9) some brother reads a second lesson; (10) kneeling, some brother leads in prayer; (11) all join in another song; (12) one or more talks by the elders; (13) partaking of the communion; (14) attending to the contribution; (15) another song; (16) pronouncing the benediction — and if a part of the congregation should file objec- tions to the first seven items, or, to be more specific, should demand (1) that all literature, except the sacred text, be discarded; (2) that there be no separate classes for the study of the lessons; (3) that no sister be allowed to teach a class of children; and (4) that the church teach no children on Lord's day at all, declaring that they would leave the church unless their demands were granted — under such condi- tions, what course would you take, and why would you take that course? BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 677 Why people should object to any method of teaching the word of God that is orderly and decent, I am unable to see. There is no specific method of teaching laid down in the word of God. Jesus was the greatest teacher ever on this earth, and we are told that we must follow his steps. In doing this we must follow his manner of teaching. He taught in the synagogues, in the temple, in the home, at the seaside, on the mountain, in the plain, by the wayside ; anywhere and at any time he met with people that would listen, he taught them. Thus he fully utilized all opportu- nities that opened up before him. Christians that walk in his steps will do likewise. Paul taught ''publicly, and from house to house." He commanded Timothy to preach the word and to be "urgent in season, out of season." To preach the word of God is to teach it, to be urgent in it. (2 Tim. 4:2.) This means that he should embrace every opportunity. Christians are not tied down to fixed methods or places in their work of teaching, but should utilize all opportuni- ties. The first day of the week, before or after the regular worship of the church, affords splendid opportunities for teaching the word of God both to children and to young people, or to anybody, young or old, that will attend and learn. To follow the example of Jesus would compel Chris- tians to utilize such precious opportunities for that purpose. To refuse such opportunities is to refuse to walk in the steps of Jesus and to refuse to obey the above command of Paul. To refuse the teaching of the word of God in such favorable opportunities is to stand in the way of sinners, to hinder teaching and learning the word, the will of God. It would be difficult to picture out a greater wrong than to hinder, to prevent, teaching the word of God to children and others on the first day of the week. To any way pre- vent the doing of what the word of God requires to be done is to openly rebel against God by refusing to do as he re- quires. It is true that God requires parents to bring up their children "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." This means that they shall teach them at home and also utilize all other opportunities to teach them and to have them taught the word of God on the first day of the week. To forbid the teaching of children on the first day of the week would be to forbid preaching on that day, or else keep the children away on that day; for preaching is teaching, and to prevent children being taught in connection with the Lord's-day service would either prevent preaching that day or would keep the children away. So to prevent the teach- ing of children on the first day of the week will leave them 678 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, to run wild, go their own way, by leaving them at home. To knock out the preaching on that day would be to kill an example of the inspired apostle Paul, who preached at Troas in connection with breaking bread on the first day of the week. To forbid the use of literature in which the Scripture lesson to be taught and learned is given, and the lesson ex- plained by some one that understands and that can rightly divide and apply the word of God, is precisely the same as to forbid preaching or in any way teaching the word of God on that day. People do not realize what they are doing when they forbid teaching the word of God to children or any one else on the Lord's day. Who can show any differ- ence in principle between teaching the word of God through literature and teaching or proclaiming it by word of mouth from the pulpit? Such objectors are like the scribes and Pharisees, who shut up the kingdom of heaven in the days of the Savior and would neither go in themselves nor per- mit others to go in. (Matt. 23 : 13.) ' "Do all things with- out murmuring and disputings." (Phil. 2: 14.) Those who object to doing what God says do on all opportunities that are open before them are opposing and destroying the work of God instead of carrying it out, are placing them- selves against God, are pulling down his work instead of building it up. Children that attend and are taught the word of the Lord on the first day of the week are much more likely to come into the church as they grow up than those who do not. So by hindering this work the salvation of souls is hindered, which is an exceedingly dangerous work. Objectors to such are heavy weights on the wheels of Ziom Men had just as well object to reading and ex- plaining the Bible itself as to object to reading a lesson at a time and the explanations as given, showing the meaning of the lesson and its relations to other passages. Paul's letter to the Colossians was but a tiny part of the New Tes- tament, but in it he said to them: "And when this epistle hath been read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans ; and that ye also read the epistle from Laodicea." (Col. 4: 16.) Since it was right in the days of. Paul to send the Bible round in parts and have it read in parts, why is it not right to have it in lessons, one at a time, now ? As to what I would do in such cases would depend in part upon the character, advancement, and standing of the ob- jectors. But I would advise that in any case due patience and forbearance be exercised toward them, and that they be patiently taught and admonished not to enact laws by their BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 679 opinions that set aside plain passages and examples of the word of God. If they will not yield to take any part in or to be present when such lessons are taught and studied, it would certainly be better for them not to go on Lord's day till the lessons are through and the time for the worship has come, and all worship together, than that they should create disturbance in the church. This is often done and no open rupture made. Every reasonable and scriptural effort should be made to settle all such differences rather than cause separation. The objectors would not be harmed by so doing, and the church might worship together in peace. If anything beyond this should ever be necessary, then conditions and conduct and the light of God's word will indicate to the church what else should be done. As to women teaching in classes, each class to itself, that is about as private as when Priscilla and Aquila taught Apollos the right way. To teach thus in classes is not the sort of teaching Paul forbids women to do. "TEACHING IN SONGS," HOW? Brother Lipscomb: In Col. 3: 16 Paul speaks of teaching, etc., in songs. Is the teaching indicated to be the expression or pronunci- ation of the words in the song in such a way as to be understood by the listener (not himself engaged in the singing) before singing is acceptable worship? From what Greek words are the terms teach and admonish? Do they signify that teaching can be done without words heard and understood, or that melody inspires and elevates us, thus teaching us? The word translated teaching is didaskontes, active par- ticiple from didabco — to teach. The word is used in Matt. 4 : 23 : " Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their syn- agogues." Matt. 5:2: "He opened his mouth, and taught them." Matt. 5 : 19 : "Whosoever shall do and teach them." Matt. 7 : 29 : "He taught them as one having authority/' Matt. 11: 1: "To teach and to preach in their cities." There are many such passages, possibly a hundred, in which the teacher teaches others by speaking to them. The word translated admonish is nouthetountes , parti- ciple from noutheteo, and is used in such passages as Acts 20: 31: "I ceased not to warn every one." Rom. 15: 14: "Able also to admonish one another." 1 Cor. 4: 14: "But as my beloved sons I warn you," etc. It means that others are to be admonished by the words spoken in song, so must be heard and understood that this may be done. More music than the song carrying the words hinders the end of singing, teaching, and admonishing. 680 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, TEMPTING CHRIST. In 1 Cor. 10: 9 we have this language from Paul: "Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents." Please explain how Paul and his Corinthian brethren could tempt Christ. When the New Testament speaks of men tempting Christ, it does not mean that they lay inducements before him to do wrong, as in cases when men are tempted to sin, be- cause men cannot tempt him to do wrong; but when used with reference to Christ, to God, it means to try, to "put to the proof," to see how far he will suffer us to disregard his authority and not cast us off forever. We can tempt men to sin, to do wrong, but not Christ. The word tempt, therefore, in the above passage is almost in the sense of provoke, by setting aside his divine commands, by turning aside from them little by little, till his anger is kindled against us forever. This is truly a dangerous experiment for Christians. There is danger that we may so tempt, or provoke, the Lord that he may cast us off forever. This is just what the Jewish people did. They sinned little by lit- tle until the Lord numbered ten sins against them and shut them out of the promised land. Let us as Christians be careful that we do not put him to the proof, provoke him by disregarding his will, lest we be condemned eternally. TEMPTATION, MEANING OF "LEAD US NOT INTO." Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please inform me through your interesting and instructive paper why it was necessary to put in the Lord's prayer, "Lead us not into temptation," when in James 1: 13 it says: "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." We understand from the prayer that Jesus taught his disciples to use that the true meaning is that God would en- able them to avoid temptation, though the form of words is not such as to convey exactly that idea, except as modified by other passages on the same subject. We think the fol- lowing is an explanation of it: "Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." (Matt. 26: 41.) Here the language is, 'Tray, that ye enter not into temptation ;" and this we understand to be an explanation of the other. From this passage in James, where it says God does not tempt any man, we understand that God never lays any temptation or inducement before any man with the design to induce him to do evil. The devil is the one that tempts us to do evil. God suffers us to be tried, that by the trial we may be strengthened ; and hence he says : "Knowing this, that the BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 681 trying of your faith worketh patience." (James 1: 3.) God tried Abraham, and the trial worked patience, devel- oped his strength, his faith, his trust in God. So Peter says : 'Think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you." (1 Pet. 4: 12.) God suffers his children to be tried for their good, but never tempts them to evil. E. G. S. "TENTH," ONE, TO THE LORD. Brother Lipscomb : I see that you dwell considerably on giving the tenth that we make to the Lord in your article on "Offerings to the Lord," and cite to us a number of passages of scripture in the Old Testament to prove it. Now, do you believe under the Christian dis- pensation that we are required to give the tenth that we make to the cause of Christ? And, again, do you believe that any part of the Old Scriptures are binding on persons of the present day? Where do you get authority for giving the tenth of our income to the Lord, outside of the Old Bible? Please answer. When we dissever and dissociate the teachings of the New Testament and those of the Old, we disjoin what God has joined. He has given the two as successive and united developments to man. No man from the Old Testament can ever learn the full and perfect lesson that God has con- veyed to man. Neither if he takes the New Testament alone can he ever fully appreciate the will of God as re- vealed to man and his dealings with man. They are com- plements one of the other, and as necessary to each other as the two blades of a pair of shears. We believe that there is not an example nor a circum- stance nor a principle related in the Old Testament but that it is intended to bear a lesson of instruction and wisdom to us. Many things were done by God in his dealings with the Jews that are not recorded, even as the Savior did many things not recorded ; but those recorded are ensamples to us. They are for our instruction, our guidance, to teach us how we should walk before God acceptably and well pleasing to him. The specific commands of the Old Testa- ment are not binding on us, save as reiterated in the New ; but the lessons are for our instruction, the principles are for our guidance. If it were not so, Christ and the apos- tles would not have so constantly appealed to the Old Tes- tament Scriptures, to the lessons that they taught, to the promises made. They continually refer to the promises made under the Old Testament as grounds for our hoping for blessings — temporal blessings, too, under the new dis- pensation. We are taught in the Old Testament how God applies his laws; in the New Testament the perfect laws are given. 682 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, We stated clearly that no specific amount was defined by- statute in the New Testament, but the tithe of the Old Tes- tament is continually referred to as the example for Chris- tians under the New. We do not see how this could be un- less it had some degree of application to us. Again, we are told that we must lay up treasures in heaven. We must so use the unrighteous mammon that we may make friends that will receive us into their everlasting habitations. We are to give, hoping for nothing in return. Christians are told to lay by them in store as God has prospered them. Take these commands, and does not every one see an in- definiteness in reference to them ? What part of our earn- ings shall we give? "For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not accord- ing to that he hath not." "He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully." Now, God is to be the judge as to whether our sowing is sparing or bountiful. We would like to know how he regards it that we may conform to his will. How shall we do it? There is but one way known to us. Go to the Old Testament and see what he expected of the Jews when less blessed than we are. He cannot require of us less than he did of them. Indeed, the Scripture abounds with clear intimations that he expects much more of us than he did of them. He demands of us our all if his honor or the good of man requires it. The young man was required to give up all; the widow with two mites that gave her all was especially commended of God. Now, what constitutes bountiful giving in the Lord's es- teem? We cannot leave any one to determine for himself what is liberal ; at least, we cannot expect God to adopt each man's standard as his rule by which to judge us. The stingiest man feels that he is remarkably liberal. The liberal-hearted man, after doing all he can, feels he has done but little. He does not feel that he has been liberal. God has a standard by which he will judge us. Where can we learn that standard? We go to the Old Testament and find what he required of the Jews. We ought to do im- measurably more ; we dare not hope for divine favor while doing less. If they escaped not who refused to hear him who spoke on earth, much more shall not we escape if we refuse to hear him who spoke from heaven. When we wish to hear what obedience to God is and what are our obliga- tions to follow his law, we go to Abraham's offering Isaac, to Saul's sparing the sheep and the oxen when he was com- manded to slay, and other examples from the Old Testa- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 683 ment, to learn it. When we wish to learn what God es- teems liberal among his children, we go to see what he re- quired of Abraham and Isaac and of the Jewish nation, and we learn that he has done more for us and requires us to do more for him. Certainly the legitimacy of this conclusion is clear to all. We think much more than one-tenth of the income is demanded of the Christian to be devoted to the interest of God and the good of man. We think one-tenth the least a man ought to allow himself to think of. God has certainly given us good reason to know he will not be pleased with less. D. L. THANKS BEFORE EATING. Is it not the duty of all Christians to return thanks before eating? The Savior gave thanks before eating. "And he com- manded the people to sit down on the ground : and he took the seven loaves, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples to set before them." (Mark 8:6; see also Matt. 15: 36.) "They did eat bread, after that the Lord had given thanks." (See John 6: 11, 23.) Paul, during the shipwreck voyage, "took bread, and gave thanks to God in the presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat." (Acts 27: 35.) Paul, speaking of eat- ing meat or not eating, says : "He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks ; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." (Rom. 14: 6.) This shows that thanksgiving was connected with eating as a custom among Christians. Paul, speaking of some who forbid the use of meats, says: "Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving." (1 Tim. 4: 4.) From these scrip- tures and others that might be given we certainly think every Christian ought to give thanks before eating. THEATERS, GOING TO. Do you think it right for Christians to go to the theater? My father, who is quite an old man now, as you know, thinks it is not any harm to go occasionally and to the best plays. I hope you will an- swer fully. I know the subject has been handled; but a father has influence over a child, and what he thinks right the child is very sure to think right. I want you to write exactly what you believe, as I would like to go to see some of Shakespeare's plays. We have no doubt there are plays and occasions when a wise and discriminating individual might be benefited by attending certain performances at a theater. The acting itself might suggest things that would greatly help a preacher in his work. A preacher once asked an actor 684 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, why people were deeply interested in his acting, when they knew it was fiction and all feigned, and were so little inter- ested in his preaching, when they knew he was sincere and his statements true. The response was : "I speak fiction as though I believe it true; you tell the truth as though you believe it fiction." There is a great deal in this. If preach- ers would study to tell the truth in an earnest and impres- sive way, showing they realized and felt the importance and power of the truth, it would add greatly to its effect. An observing man would catch many helpful suggestions from a good actor. Then in some plays there are truths that have a beneficial influence. It would be a sad and terrible institution that has no good in it. No man is wholly good or bad ; none of his work is wholly evil or good. No human institutions are unmixed good or unmixed evil. No books are so but the Bible. Yet because a thing has some good in.it, it does not justify a man in using it. A saloon has some good about it. It is a good place to study human nature. Many practical lessons that would help a preacher could be learned there as nowhere else. Sometimes, too, a preacher or a Christian might be helped by a glass of wine from a saloon ; but the case ought to be very extreme that would justify a Christian man to go into a saloon. But the general character of the theater is evil, and has been for three thousand years. Its appeal is to the lower and fleshly element of man's nature. Every man has a higher and a lower element, a spiritual and a fleshly ele- ment. The theater, in its best, is an appeal to and an ex- citement of the lower, the fleshly element. When a man finds a grain of good, much evil influence abounds. The best man, with his mind brought under the baser elements, is to that extent injured spiritually. But it is possible that as Paul could eat meat offered to an idol without conscience of the idol, and so without sin, so it is possible for a Chris- tian well established in the faith and his flesh well kept under to attend a theater without being himself defiled ; yet as Paul could not eat the flesh offered to the idol without danger of leading his weak brethren into influences that might lead them into idolatry, so defile their consciences, so this strong Christian could not attend the theater without leading weaker Christians who could not discriminate be- tween the good and bad into that which would demoralize and corrupt them, defile their consciences, and lead them into sin. When we so sin against our weak brethren and wound their consciences, we sin against God. To wound their consciences is not to hurt their feelings, but to lead BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 685 them by our example to lower the standard for their con- sciences, to violate their consciences and be led into sin. The theater has been in its influences for three thousand years on the side of vice, an excitement and feeder of the fleshly lusts, and has dragged men down. Its tendency is in the same direction yet. An occasional good play has an influence to commend it, give it influence, bring a respecta- ble class of people under its influence that the evil influ- ences may work their ruin. Then a strong Christian may go to the theater on occasions when good actors and plays are presented. A weak Christian fails to discriminate be- tween the good and the evil, and is encouraged by the exam- ple of the strong Christian to attend the theater, and falls under its evil influence. You may ask : "Is my liberty to be restrained and measured by the weak conscience of an- other ?" That is just what Paul decided must be done. Christ suffered and died that we might live. We must be willing to deny ourselves privileges and gratifications that our weak fellow men may be blessed. "Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died." (Rom. 14: 15.) "For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols ; and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died ? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend." (1 Cor. 8 : 10-13.) Any practice the general results of which are evil should be avoided. Any. action or practice that leads others not strong or discriminating into influences that injure, demor- alize, and ruin them should be carefully avoided. The ac- tor, Booth, has said that he would be unwilling for his wife and children to attend a theater unless he knew both the actor and the plays to be performed. The elder Booth un- dertook to establish a moral theater in New York. It com- pletely failed. The theater has always had an immoral ten- dency. We never knew a habitual theatergoer a zealous, earnest church worker. A Christian should not counte- nance it by even an occasional visit to the better perform- ances. It encourages others to go habitually to the lower ones. We lead them to sin and ruin. "Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak." (1 Cor. 8: 9.) D. L. 686 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, THIEF ON THE CROSS AND PARADISE, THE. Will you please give your views concerning the salvation of the thief on the cross? Do you think after Christ had begun a good work on the thief he would not finish it? Also please give the meaning of the word paradise. Does it mean heaven or a place of rest after death until the judgment? I know very little about the salvation of the thief. It is a matter of uncertainty, at best, as to what the thief asked for. His language was: "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. " Now, what kingdom did the thief have in his mind when he asked this question? Did he mean the spiritual kingdom of Christ? If he did, how did he get his information? The disciples themselves, who were with the Savior from the beginning of his public min- istry, did not understand what sort of a kingdom Christ had come to establish until after he had ascended to heaven ; for just before his ascension they said to him, "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" showing that up to this time they thought he had come to establish an earthly kingdom, like that of David. If, there- fore, the thief understood that Christ would establish a spiritual kingdom, involving salvation through his blood, then the thief, though a wild marauder, who had perhaps never heard one discourse from the Savior in his life, un- derstood more about his mission than his own disciples, who had heard his teaching regularly for three years and a half. This, to my mind, is most unreasonable. If he did understand it, it must have been specially revealed to him by miraculous power; and there is no hint or intimation of such a thing in the New Testament. In fact, God has never made such revelation to any man for his personal salvation. It will be very difficult, therefore, for any one to show that the thief knew anything of salvation from sin through Christ ; and if he did not know anything about such salva- tion, how would he know how to ask for it? But, on the other hand, if he only had the idea that even the disciples had at that time, then he thought Christ would yet come down from the cross and by mighty power enter upon his personal reign — enter into his earthly kingdom. In that case he doubtless thought the Savior might save him from death ; and who knows but that this is what he asked for ? If so, and the Savior answered according to his question, then the answer only meant that the thief would certainly die. The Greek word rendered paradise (or, rather, trans- ferred) originally meant a garden or park, and may have BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 687 had its original meaning here. Later, however, the word came to signify a place of joy in the unseen world; and this is what most people suppose is meant in the above pas- sage, and that it means the thief would be saved in heaven. I do not think proper to argue either side of this matter. If the thief was saved from sin that day, the whole thing was miraculous, and none can be saved that way now. This took place before the gospel dispensation was estab- lished, and we cannot go back to that order of things and be saved that way now. We have to be saved by the last commission that says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;" and no soul of man can be saved like the thief was, if saved at all ; and so it is no use to bother about the thief. Our interest is to learn how we can be saved through Christ, since he died and rose again. But the question is also asked : "Do you think after Christ had begun a good work on the thief he would not finish it?" If the Savior had begun any good work on the thief, I do not know what it was. The word of the Lord says noth- ing about his ever having begun a good work on the thief ; and if he never began such a work, how could he finish what he never began? Perhaps the idea of the inquirer is that Christ had been working on the thief by some direct or immediate work of the Holy Spirit. But, then, the word of God does not give one instance of such a work as that, upon the thief or any one else ; hence, I cannot tell anything about that matter. E. G. S. THIEF'S LANGUAGE A QUESTION, IS THE? Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Is it a question asked or a prom- ise given in Luke 23: 43: "To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise?" According to the Greek, the passage is a plain, positive statement, with no indication of being a question. Whether it amounts to a promise of happiness to the thief, or whether it is a mere statement that he should go into the unseen world that day, depends upon the meaning that may be attached to the word paradise. If the Savior meant by that word a place of rest or happiness, then it was a promise; but if the word only meant in this passage the land of the dead, the grave, as some believe, then it is not a promise in the true sense of that word, but a kind of pro- phetic statement of his certain doom — that he should die. We do not propose to decide which the Savior meant at present. 688 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, "THIRD HEAVEN," PURPOSE OF PAUL'S VISION IN. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Will you please give us a short comment in the Gospel Advocate on 2 Cor. 12: 2-5? I believe it is generally conceded that the man spoken of was the apostle himself. Now, the difficulty with me is: All the miracles performed by Christ and the apostles were, unlike the wonders of magicians and sooth- sayers, for some purpose. What purpose was effected by Paul's being caught up to the third heaven? It did not give the church or man- kind any revelation, for the words which he heard there were not lawful for a man to utter. We cannot tell with any degree of certainty what was the object of granting the vision to Paul. It was a wonderful vision, or trance. He could not tell exactly himself the condition of circumstances of the vision. He was trans- ported to the third heaven — whether in the flesh or out of it, he could not tell — and saw wonders and heard truths, some of which were not lawful to be told. While he might not reveal the secrets of that state of bliss, yet the knowledge might be of great service to him in giving him zeal, earnest- ness, and devotion in the work, knowing the glories that were in store for him in that blessed state. The fact that we do not know the object for which God does a thing is no evidence that he did not have a wise purpose in doing it. We think likely Paul at this time received increased meas- ures of the Spirit, saw Jesus, and became more completely qualified and fully endowed for the apostolic work. D. L. "THORN IN THE FLESH," PAUL'S. Please explain through the Gospel Advocate what Paul's thorn in the flesh was in 2 Cor. 12 : 7. I have sometimes thought myself I would be right glad to know what Paul's thorn in the flesh was ; but I have long since decided that I can never know, and have now de- cided that secret, unrevealed things belong to the Lord, while only revealed things belong to us. And as it has not been revealed what this was, I leave it with the Lord, being assured it would not profit me if I did know. Some say it was sore eyes; but the Bible does not say so, and I do not know, and, therefore, cannot tell. E. G. S. TIME REFERRED TO IN HEB. 8: 10, 11 AND 1 COR. 2: 9. Brother Sewell: (1) Please explain Heb. 8: 10, 11. When will the time come that we "shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord?" When shall all know the Lord, "from the least to the greatest?" (2) Also please explain 1 Cor. 2: 9. When will ear hear of "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him?" (1) That time has already come. It was ushered in when the new covenant, the gospel dispensation, was es- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 689 tablished. In the Jewish dispensation children entered that covenant by natural birth, and had to be taught a knowl- edge of God after they had entered. In the gospel dispen- sation they are taught a knowledge of God, of Christ, and of the demands of the gospel before they can enter the church. Among the Jews every baby born of Jewish par- ents was a member of the Jewish covenant as soon as born and before it was capable of being taught anything. But when the apostles were sent out to convert the world to Christ, they were to preach the gospel to all. This could only be done to those of sufficient age to understand it. These were required to believe it, to repent, and to be bap- tized. None under the age of responsibility and accounta- bility can do these things. Hence, no infants are in the church. They cannot understand and obey the gospel. The mission of the gospel is to save sinners. Infants are not sinners, and, therefore, need not the obedience that alone can save sinners. This is one of the differences be- tween the two covenants. Those, therefore, who are try- ing to put children into the church are reversing God's or- der. This man has no right to do. The children do not need it till they grow up. (2) The things spoken of in this passage that eye had not seen nor ear heard were the great blessings of salva- tion through Jesus Christ our Lord. Before Christ came no human being by human wisdom ever had any conception of what these blessings would be; but they are now re- vealed to us by the Holy Spirit through the New Testament. Hence they are no longer mysteries, but matters of plain revelation. TIME OF THE SOJOURN IN EGYPT. Brother Lipscomb : (1) How long were the Israelites in Egyptian bondage? (2) What is intended to be taught in Gen. 15: 13; Ex. 12: 40; Gal. 3: 17? (1) They were in Egypt probably not over two hundred and fifty years. Before they went to Egypt they were so- journers and wanderers in a land not theirs. From the time of the promise to Abraham until the return from Egypt was four hundred and thirty years. (2) Gal. 3 : 17 tells the giving of the law at Sinai was four hundred and thirty years after the promise was made to Abraham in the gift of Isaac; and as they were in a land not their own, pilgrims and sojourners, it is all counted as part of their bondage. Gen. 15 : 13 is a general state- ment of the same truth, only it is spoken of in general terms as four hundred years, not the exact number. Verse 14 690 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, means God would afterwards punish the Egyptians who held them in bondage. He did this in the destruction of Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea and the after evils that were brought upon them. The Israelites, notwith- standing their bondage, came out of Egypt with much sub- stance. Ex. 12 : 40 gives the exact time of the sojourn in Egypt, counting from the sojourn in Canaan as pilgrims. The Bible sometimes speaks in general terms, as people do. "TIMES OF REFRESHING." Brother Sewell: Please give me your views on Acts 3: 19: "Re- pent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." What sins did Peter have reference to? What do you un- derstand by the times of refreshing, and when are they to come from the presence of the Lord? The sins alluded to were the sins the people had com- mitted to whom he was talking. When he promised the blotting out of these sins, he meant their sins should be for- given, if they would do what he commanded them. The times of refreshing . . . from the presence of the Lord refers to blessings to be enjoyed from the Lord by the obedient. Probably in this passage it refers directly to the reception of the Holy Spirit by those who obeyed the gospel of Christ. In chapter 2 he promised the Holy Spirit to the obedient, and likely this is what is meant here. And, besides this, there are many blessings promised to those that obey the gospel and become Christians, all of which come from the Lord, and these may be included also. These general blessings of Christianity continue to come from the Lord as long as Christians remain faithful till at last the Lord will come again and take his people home. E. G. S. TIMOTHY, PAUL CIRCUMCISING. Brother Lipscomb: Please give me your views on Acts 16: 3. Why did Paul circumcise Timotheus after the law requiring that service had been taken out of the way, as he very plainly tells us in Col. 2: 14? Paul tells us that he "took and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those parts : for they all knew that his father was a Greek." The law of circumcision was not of Moses, but of Abraham. John 7: 22 says that for this cause "Moses hath given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers) ; and on the Sabbath ye circumcise a man." As a family mark, it was not re- pealed ; as an obligation to keep the law of Moses, it was. It was not wrong for a Christian Jew to circumcise his children. If a Jew had been required to give up circum- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 691 cision when he became a Christian, there could have been no question about circumcising Gentiles ; nor do I think it would be wrong for a Christian Jew to circumcise his chil- dren as a family mark now. Circumcision is nothing. Paul knew that Timothy, being uncircumcised, could not reach the Jews. Since it was lawful to circumcise Jews, he did it, that he might better reach the Jews ; but when Titus, a Gentile, was required to be circumcised that he might worship God, or to bind him to keep the law, Paul would not for a moment yield. What could be done as a family mark could not be done as a service to God. (Matt. 15: 2-10.) While it was no sin to wash the hands before eating as an act of cleanliness, it was a sin as service to God, because he had not required it. So whatever is done as worship to God that he does not require is sin. TIMOTHY, PAUL CIRCUMCISING, AND REFUSING TO CIRCUMCISE TITUS. Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Will you please give me some light on Acts 18: 3? The circumcision of Timothy is quite a remark- able event in the history of Paul, and presents a serious inquiry as to the consistency of his teaching and of his practice. He says : "Be- hold, I Paul say to you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." (Gal. 5:2.) We see him refusing to circumcise Titus (Gal. 2:5), yet we see him circumcise Timothy. In the first place, we are satisfied that when Christ died and took the law of Moses out of the way, circumcision, which was incorporated into the law and became part of the law, was also taken away and was not in any wise in force upon any one at the time Paul circumcised Timothy. But whether it was absolutely wrong for any one, under any circumstances, to be circumcised or not, or whether the wrong of it depended on the understanding and purpose for which it was done, is a question of some importance. We know that Paul taught the Galatians that if they became circumcised they were then debtors to do the whole law, and that Christ would profit them nothing, and that they were fallen from grace. But Brother McGarvey, in his "Com- mentary on Acts," argues that this passage in Galatians must have referred to Gentile Christians, who, under the influence of Judaizers, were disposed to submit to circum- cision in order to be justified by the law, and that when with that design they were circumcised they forfeited all claims to the gospel of Christ. In this there is some plau- sibility. It may be that, after circumcision was done away, those who understood this fact might submit to it to gratify the prejudices or whims of others as a matter of indiffer- ence to those who had knowledge. Paul taught this princi- 692 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, pie regarding meats offered to idols : that to a man who had proper knowledge in the truth, meat offered in sacrifice to an idol was no more than any other meat; but he taught at the same time that a man who still believed in the reality of idols might eat such meat with an understanding and in- tent that would lead him to ruin, even to the loss of his soul. Such may have been the case regarding circumci- sion. It may have been done, therefore, by Paul just to keep down the clamorings of the Jews, while he and Tim- othy had such an understanding of the matter that it could do neither of them any harm; while others of a different understanding, as in the case of the Galatians, might have brought their ruin by so doing. We think this would rec- oncile the matter without doing any violence to the word of God. But if we are to understand that it was absolutely wrong for any one to submit to that ordinance after it was done away, then we would have to understand that the case in hand was a weakness in Paul in acting on his own respon- sibility, while not under the immediate guidance of inspira- tion. We do not understand that the apostles were at all times under the influence of direct inspiration; and when they were not, they were no more than other men. Hence, many of the inspired men revealed to us in the Bible sinned as readily and as egregiously as other men. Moses and the seventy elders are examples of this, as well as Pe- ter, in the New Testament, when Paul withstood him to the face, saying he was to be blamed. Everything the apostles taught under the direction of God's Spirit is divine; but their individual actions, when left to them- selves, was just as other men's; and such was Paul's action in the above, if it was necessarily wrong for any one un- der any circumstances to be circumcised. This also may be a correct solution of the passage ; but if any one has any better solution of the matter than the above, he is at lib- erty to give it. E. G. S. TIMOTHY, WAS HE A BISHOP? Brethren Lipscomb and Sewcll: In a conversation with a Baptist minister some days ago, he said that in Paul's letters to Timothy, Paul virtually called Timothy a bishoj). He also stated that history substantiated the fact that Timothy was first bishop of Ephesus. I know there is a statement to that effect appended to what Paul wrote; but if Paul says so in his letters, it is more than I can see. Does history testify to such a thing? We know of no history on the subject, except the tradi- tion (Romish) is appended to the letter in some of our cop- ies of the New Testament. All the evidence we have shows that he was an evangelist and did the work of an evangel- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 693 ist, not that of a bishop or overseer. The bishop was char- acterized as an elderly man of experience and family. Tim- othy, when these letters were written, was a youth. "Let no man despise thy youth." (1 Tim. 4: 12.) "Youthful lusts." (2 Tim. 2: 22.) TIM. 1, 5: 24,25. Brother Seivell: I want you to give me your views of 1 Tim. 5: 24, 25. These verses are as follows: "Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after. Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand ; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid." We think there is a preface for these verses in verse 20 of the same chapter: "Them that sin rebuke be- fore all, that others also may fear." All that sin should be rebuked. But sometimes it will be difficult at least for a time to ascertain the sins of some. Some men's sins are of such an open and palpable character that they are appar- ent to all without, and such should be rebuked before all. But, then, there are other men whose sins are of a different character— that are hidden, not easily made manifest, but that finally they will become known; and when known, or ascertained, rebuke them. But in doing these things, he says, lay hands suddenly, use discipline rashly, on no man ; and yet not pass over sin and overlook it in such a way as to seem to recognize it or to justify or participate with it. These instructions should be heeded as closely as possible by the overseers of churches everywhere, so as far as pos- sible to keep down sin and keep the church pure. E. G. S. TOBACCO. Brother Lipscomb: Please answer the following question: Is it wrong to use tobacco? If it is wrong to use it, is it wrong to sell it? The Bible does not mention tobacco or its use. The con- clusion we draw about its use is inferential, not a necessary inference. Concerning things of this nature we may act on our own convictions, but cannot force them on others. To me, it would be a sin to use tobacco. I regard it as a filthy, useless habit that injures many and does few any good ; but some think there is good in the use. I cannot force my opinion on them. Extreme positions do not work good. A man who thinks its use a sin could not sell it to others without sin. Brother Lipscomb : When we take into consideration the evil ef- fects of tobacco, would one be justified in raising it if he lives where 694 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, it is one of the chief products? In other words, is it wrong to raise tobacco? I take it tobacco has some good uses. So far as it may be put to good uses it is admissible to raise it. To him that esteemeth a thing to be sin, to him it is sin. It is wrong for a man to raise tobacco or anything else he thinks harmful in its influence on men. Christians are here to lift up and help men, not to drag them down nor to throw temptations in their way to injure them. I wish to make a prophecy without claiming prophetic ken. That is, the high-handed and lawless acts of the friends of tobacco mark the beginning of a war over tobacco that will result in its destruction as a commodity of commerce and general use. A few years ago whisky was a more general and powerful article of commerce than tobacco. It controlled the poli- tics and the civil governments of all lands and nations. Its defiance of all law marked the beginning of its end. I can well remember when the most ardent opponent of the use of alcohol denied a desire to legislate against it. It was political death to a man to be suspected of a desire to legis- late against it. Now it is political death to not favor legis- lation to remove it from the land. I will not live to see it, but children now born, I believe, will live to see the use of tobacco prohibited by law. "Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad" is an old truism from the Greeks. TOMB, HOW LONG WAS JESUS IN THE? Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Will you please tell me through the columns of your paper how long it was from the death and burial of Christ to his resurrection? Jesus said to certain of the scribes and Pharisees: "As Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matt. 12: 40.) He also said to Peter and other disciples "that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again." (Mark 8: 31.) Now, it seems to me that in order for these passages of scripture to be fulfilled it would have been necessary that three full days and nights intervene between the death and resurrection. But from the best in- formation I can get from the accounts given by the same writers — Matthew and Mark — and also Luke and John, I understand that he was nailed to the cross about noon on Friday; that he expired about three hours afterwards, and was buried after sundown, perhaps after dark (John 19: 39, 40) ; and that when Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the sepulcher early on Sunday morning, at the rising of the sun, or before sunrise, he had arisen and was gone. Now, ac- cording to this idea, he could have been in the grave only two nights and one day, or about thirty-six hours. Please explain all about the matter. We insert the note from Brother McGarvey in his "Com- mentary on Matthew" as an answer to the above : BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 695 Three Days and Three Nights. — As Jesus was buried late Fri- day afternoon and arose before sunrise Sunday morning, he was in the tomb only an hour or two of Friday, all of Saturday, and between eleven and twelve hours of Sunday, counting the day, according to Jewish custom, as beginning with sunset. It was not, then, accord- ing to our mode of expression, three days and three nights, but only two nights and a part of three days. We inquire how the statement of the text can be true; and, in order to an intelligible answer, we note the following facts and considerations: 1. The time between his death and his resurrection is expressed in three different forms. Most frequently it is said that he would rise again on the third day. (16: 21; 17: 23, et al.) Once it is said that he would rise after three days (Mark 8: 31), and once, in our texts, that he would be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. 2. The Jews at all periods of Bible history used the expressions after three days and on the third day as equivalents. Thus Moses says that Joseph put his brethren into prison three days; yet in the next sentence he represents him as releasing them on the third day. (Gen. 13: 17, 18.) When the people petitioned Rehoboam to lighten their burden, he said: "Depart ye for three days, then come again to me." They departed and came again "the third day, as the king had appointed." (1 Kings 12: 5-12.) When Esther was about to ven- ture into the king's presence she instructed the Jews in Shushan to fast three days night and days; yet she went in on the third day. (Esth. 4: 16; 5: 1.) Still more in point, when the Pharisees peti- tioned Pilate for a guard, they said to him: "That deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulcher be made sure until the third day." (27: 63, 64.) Now, with us, if he were going to rise after three days, it would be necessary to guard the sepulcher until within the fourth day; and so the fast for Esther should have run into the fourth day, the people should have returned to Rehoboam on the fourth day, and Joseph should have released his brethren on the fourth day. It is the peculiar and inaccurate usage of the Jews which makes the dif- ference; and that the New Testament writers continued this estab- lished usage is proved by the fact that when Matthew and Mark re- port the same words of Jesus, one of the expressions is "on the third day" and the other "after three days." (16: 21; Mark 8: 31.) 3. In reality, "after three days" and "after three days and three nights" are equivalent expressions; for if you count, for example, from Friday at sunset, "after three days" would be after sunset on Monday, the three days being Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. But in this period would be included three nights — viz., Friday night, Sat- urday night, and Sunday night. Now, it is not always true in the use of words, as it is in mathematics, that things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other ; but seeing that the expression after three days means the same with a Jew as on the third day, and that the expression after three days covers the same length of time as the expression three days and three nights, the last expression would most naturally be used as an equivalent for the first. That it is so used by Jesus is clear from the fact that, in speaking of the same lapse of time, he sometimes says on the third day and at least once he says three days and three nights. The only escape from this con- clusion is to suppose that on the occasion of our text he deliberately and without reason contradicted himself in the presence of his ene- mies; but those enemies themselves, as we have seen, understood and employed the usage as he did, and it appears that all parties among the Jews understood these expressions as equivalents. There is no 696 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, contradiction, then, between this and other passages on the subject; but the appearance of contradiction arises entirely from a peculiar Jewish usage. It may be well to remark at this point that the above-mentioned facts refute the hypothesis of some that Jesus was buried on the afternoon of Thursday. If he had been buried on Thursday and had risen Sunday morning, he would have been in the grave three nights; but he would have also been there parts of four days, and the Jewish expression would have been that he will arise the fourth day or after four days. As proof of this, if we count the time from the appear- ance of the angel to Cornelius (Acts 10) till the arrival of Peter at the house of Cornelius, we find that it is precisely three days, accord- ing to our mode of counting; but it includes three nights and parts of four days, and hence Cornelius says to Peter: "Four days ago I was fasting until this hour," etc. (Acts 10: 30.) "TONGUES FOR A SIGN," ETC. In 1 Cor. 14: 22 we are told that tongues are a sign to unbelievers and that prophesying is for the believers, but in verse 24 we are told that the unbeliever is convinced by prophesying. How is the unbe- liever convinced by what is not for him? Speaking with tongues is speaking in languages unknown by the speaker, but understood by the hearers; and when one man heard another speaking in his own language, knowing that the speaker had never learned the language he speaks, then he was convinced that the speaker was en- dowed with some power beyond human wisdom, and was willing to admit it divine, and in this way the unbeliever was convinced of the truth. The word prophesy not only means the power to foretell future events, but also means the faculty of forcibly setting forth or of plainly teaching the truth in the language of the hearers — that is, to teach to Christians plainly God's truth in its practical bearing upon them. This work of teaching to Christians the prac- tical religion of Christ when unbelievers were present who understood the language in which it was presented had the tendency also to convince them of the truth, though not directly intended for that purpose; and even now, since the days of miraculous endowments are all past, the plain presentation of the practical truths of Christianity often reaches the world as readily as the preaching of first prin- ciples direct to them. "THE ELECT LADY," WHO IS? Who is the lady referred to in the Second Epistle of John? Are we to understand that she was an individual woman, or does he mean the church, the bride, the Lamb's wife? The lady addressed is evidently an individual Christian woman, to whom John wrote this letter. The third epistle was written to an individual man called Gains. The lady BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 697 is spoken of all the way through as an individual woman. He speaks of finding certain of her children devoted to the truth, and in the last verse of the letter he sends the salu- tation of her elect sister's children. This lady to whom John wrote had a sister, whose children were then living and who sent their regards to her. Could the church, the Lamb's wife, have a sister? If so, who could she have been, and who could have been her children? This is conclusive evidence that this lady was an individual Christian woman. All who are Christians are elect according to the foreknowl- edge of God. TRANSLATION OF ACTS 2: 38. Brother Lipscomb: For the benefit of myself and brethren at An- tioch church, we wish to hear from you concerning Acts 2: 38. A Baptist here charges that the translation in the Common Version is imperfect. We do not know the point on which he charges the error of translation; so it is difficult to respond to the charge. The point of controversy usually is that the baptism is not a condition of forgiveness of sins. No translator has ever been able to give us a translation that did not involve this idea. We dare say none ever will. The Bible Union trans- lated it awkwardly, but still the true idea is maintained: "Be immersed every one of you upon the name of Jesus unto the remission of your sins." But this does not alter the sense. The baptism is "unto remission of sins." They could not come unto remission without passing through baptism, if they are baptized unto remission. Mr. Graves says it ought to be: "Be baptized every one of you in the name of Christ unto the remission of sins." This in no wise changes or modifies the meaning. If a man is bap- tized into remission of sins, baptism is the act that passes him into remission. He cannot possess or enjoy remission until he is put into remission. Since baptism puts him into remission, he cannot possess or enjoy remission without baptism. No translation has ever been made that does not necessarily carry the idea with it. One who would trans- late it so as not to contain the idea of remission being con- ditioned upon baptism would not be tolerated as a scholar for a moment. We recently gave the voice of several schol- ars not of us on the translation of the passage. In that list is Professor Harkness, of Brown University, who is a Bap- tist. Brown University is the oldest and most thorough of the Baptist schools, and for a long time Dr. H. B. Hackett was a professor in the institution. D. L. 698 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, "TROUBLED WATERS," HEALING BY THE. Brother Sewell: Please explain through your paper John 5: 3-7. Verses 3, 4 read as follows: "In these lay a great multitude of impo- tent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and trou- bled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had." Do we understand from the reading of the two verses that there was only one man made whole between the time of the troubling of the water, or was the virtue in the water, or was there any command given to those people to comply with in order to cure them? If so, where will I find it recorded? We have no means of knowing anything about the healing qualities of this pool beyond what is said in the above pas- sage. Just what the passage says will have to settle the matter. There must have been some miraculous power connected with that pool at that time, from what John says about it. He states it as a fact that at a certain season an angel went down and troubled the waters, and that the first one who entered afterwards was made whole. As to how or why the healing was done in that way, we are not told. There was no virtue naturally in that pool, we presume, more than any other water. The whole thing, we suppose, is to be attributed to miraculous power. And as to com- mands, we are not informed that there was any command about it, but only a privilege to step in at a certain season and be healed. Any one, no matter who, that could get in first after the troubling of the waters was healed. Beyond this we know nothing. E. G. S. UNBAPTIZED, SHALL THE, LEAD IN PRAYER? Brother Lipscomb: What right have I to call upon an unbaptized person to lead the prayer for the congregation — in other words, to ask such a one to pray? If it is right, I want to know it; if it is not right, I want to know it. It is easy to say, in general terms, that it is wrong to en- courage in any way persons who set aside the word of God ; but when we come to apply this principle to the practical questions as they come up, we find difficulties. Another principle is : We ought not to drive off and excite the bit- terness of people who are striving to know and do the will of God, even though they fall short of understanding the truth. How to so draw the line as to harmonize these two principles is the difficult question. As baptism is the act in which the believer declares his faith in God and God ac- cepts him as his child, it seems reasonable we would be safe in drawing the line there; but when persons who have been baptized into Christ turn from the commandments of the Lord, deliberately refuse to be governed by his laws, BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 699 add to or take from his commandments, are they better than the unbaptized? Where no specific directions are given, some liberty of judgment must be allowed ; and where this is allowed, some difference in action must be tolerated. I do not know whether a Methodist or Presbyterian is less a Christian than a Baptist, or even a disciple, who lets his love for his party, or for one practice or another not required by God, cause him to depart from the things taught in the Scriptures. It is true, baptism is the initial act of entrance into Christ, and, as such, stands as the dividing line between the children of God and those not children; but it is better not to have known the truth than, after hav- ing known it, to turn from it. I would like to be able to give a clear and definite answer to such questions, if I could find it laid down in the Scrip- tures; but in the absence of it I can only say we ought to be careful to do nothing that will encourage those not fol- lowing the law of God to think they are on safe ground ; and, under this, each will have to use his judgment in ap- plying the rule. These invitations to lead the prayers are given, oftentimes, as mere matters of courtesy, regardless of the real fitness of the one asked or the desire of the other that he should lead the prayers. This asking to take part in God's service as a courtesy to men, without regard to one's fitness, is all wrong, no matter who is invited, whether in or out of the church. To ask a Methodist or Presbyte- rian or Baptist to lead the prayers of a congregation, when he is not in perfect sympathy with the work and purposes of the congregation, is to make mockery of prayer. The person who is most in sympathy with the objects of the meeting is the one to give expression to and lead in their prayers. If we look to these things, study the end and pur- pose of the meeting, see the object of prayer, and then lay aside all thought of courtesy and favor of men, we will not get far wrong. UNBELIEVER, WHO THE, IN 1 COR. 7: 12-14. Brother Sewell: Will you please explain 1 Cor. 7: 12-14? Is the unbelieving here spoken of the alien or erring Christian? Here are the verses: "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath a husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband : else were your children unclean ; but now are they holy." The unbe- 700 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, lieving^ here spoken of are evidently aliens, not erring Christians. The sanctifying here spoken of I do not un- derstand to have reference to the moral standing of the unbelieving husband or wife, but simply to the marriage relation. Among the Jews, if a man married a strange wife, he must put her away; but under Christianity, if a husband or wife should embrace the gospel and the other not, the believing husband or wife is not to separate from the unbelieving husband or wife. In other words, a hus- hand refusing to obey the gospel with his wife, or vice versa, does not break the marriage tie. If it did, their children born under this sort of relation would be unclean, illegitimate. But as the marriage is not broken in such case, their children born in such relation are legitimate and are to be recognized and treated as such. If every time a husband or wife obeys the gospel and the other does not breaks the marriage tie between them, and the believer does not immediately depart, but continues to live with the unbeliever, such a one would be living in adultery, and their children would be illegitimate children ; but the one becom- ing a Christian and the other not does not break the mar- riage tie, and so they can still live together as husband and wife and their children be legitimate. This is about all I understand from the words sanctify, clean, etc., used in the connection. These things I understand to apply to those that were married before either one was a Christian. I do not understand that the passage in any sense encour- ages a Christian to marry an unbeliever. In the latter part of the same chapter the apostle says: "The wife is bound by the law [the law of marriage] as long as her hus- band liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord." So it is certain that no Christian widow has the right to marry one out of the Lord, an unbeliever ; and I can see no reason why the same principle does not apply to any Christian man or woman that has not been married. So it is utterly un- scriptural, as I understand it, for Christians to marry those who are not Christians, as indicated by this passage. Hence, I think Christians should be thoroughly on their guard in this matter, and not put themselves out of har- mony with the word of God nor put themselves into trouble. UNION MEETINGS. Brother Sew ell: Will you please give us your views on the church of Christ uniting with the Methodists, Cumberland Presbyterians, and Baptists in having a union prayer meeting? All but a few of the brethren at Dawson are in favor of it, and we cannot conscien- tiously do so, as we claim that they are not in Christ. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 701 The above is generally regarded as a delicate question either to talk about or to write about. Yet every question involving truth and duty ought to be freely and calmly dis- cussed. If the denominations named above are all right as such, then the disciples of Christ are in many things wrong; but if the disciples of Christ are right in their claim and practice, then these denominations are in many things wrong. The disciples of Christ cannot afford to en- ter into any sort of compact or connection with denomina- tions that will recognize them as being all right in their names, their claims and practices, without imposing upon and dishonoring in some measure the word of God, which does not name or recognize any of them as such. That they all teach and practice some things that are in the Bible, we presume no one will deny ; but that they all teach and prac- tice some things that are not in the Bible is equally certain. This being true, disciples of Christ cannot make an indis- criminate compact with them in anything that will recog- nize them as all right when they do not believe they are. In this sense, then, we say to the above question, "No." But if disciples of Christ will frankly say to these denomi- nations, "We think that in some things you are radically wrong, but we are willing to engage with you in prayer meetings with this understanding : that we will prayerfully read and investigate the word of God in these meetings re- garding our differences and see if we cannot harmonize upon the teaching of that word, and all of us become one people in the sight of the Lord and in the light of God's truth," such a union prayer meeting as this might result in great good. But we cannot see how good can result from a union prayer meeting that ignores all differences, and thus blots out the line between truth and error. Christians must be frank and conscientious before God in all things ; and when they really think others are wrong in any matter involving the plain word of the Lord, they ought to say so, and enter into no compact that will silently ignore errors and act as if they were not errors, and thus involve them- selves in the errors of others by publicly recognizing them as right in the sight of God and men; but let them, with- out hatred or bitterness or prejudice, name the errors of others and agree to prayerfully investigate the word of God regarding them, with the understanding also upon the part of disciples that if in these investigations they find that they hold any errors they will give them up. If all would do this in such unions, great good might result; otherwise we think harm, and not good, to the cause of truth would result. But we suppose it would be difficult to get up such 702 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, a? union prayer meeting as this. We have never known such a one, and yet would be willing to enter no other kind. E. G. S. UNPARDONABLE SIN, CAN THE, BE COMMITTED NOW? Brother Sewell: I have been a reader of the Gospel Advocate for several years, and have never bothered you with any question. Now I kindly ask you to answer this: Can a person commit the unpar- donable sin now? What is meant in 1 John 5: 16? What is the sin unto death? Is that the unpardonable sin? In Matt. 12, when Jesus had cast out a demon and had restored sight and hearing to a man, the Pharisees accused him of casting out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of the demons. In reference to this charge Jesus said: "There- fore I say unto you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be for- given unto men ; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven." (Verse 31.) This matter of accusing Jesus of casting out demons by Satanic power is the un- pardonable sin. This also is generally understood to be the sin unto death spoken of in 1 John 5 : 16. But a more se- rious matter is that any sin persisted in will become a sin unto death. Yes, it is sadly true that any man can com- mit the unpardonable sin by attributing anything that was done by the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit to the power of Satan. But the danger is that many souls will be lost in eternity by continually leading lives out of har- mony with the will of God. It is, therefore, well for Chris- tians to guard against every character of sin, as there are very few that are likely to become so awfully corrupt as to say that the miracles claimed to have been done in New Testament times by the power of the Holy Spirit were done by Satanic power. None but an out-and-out infidel could say such a thing. But many so-called Christians are daily following things which, if continued in, will land them in perdition. All should strive to avoid these. UNREGENERATE, CAN THE, BELIEVE? Brother Seivell: Can a man believe in any sense what a preacher says when he preaches the gospel and still be an unregenerated sin- ner? Please answer fairly and squarely. I do not know what sense or meaning you would attach to the word regeneration, but suppose you would use it in the sense in which it is used in the 'Theological Compend," a little book published and used by the Methodist Church. That book defines regeneration thus : "Regeneration and Adoption. — These are the leading blessings concomitant with justification. Whenever they are mentioned in BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 703 scripture, they involve and imply each other. This thought may pre- serve us from errors. (Tit. 3: 7; 2 Pet. 1:3; Rom. 8: 17.) Al- though we must distinguish these blessings from each other and from justification, yet they are not to be separated. They occur at the same time, and they all enter into the experience of the same person; so that no man is justified without being regenerated and adopted, and no man is regenerated and adopted who is not justified. Regen- eration is the work of the Holy Spirit by which we experience a change of heart — the recovery upon the heart of the moral image of God." (Pages 80, 81.) Such is regeneration as presented in the "Compend." It is a little mixed as presented here, but enough is said to show that regeneration and adoption are so connected to- gether that the one implies the other, and are not to be separated, and that when a man is regenerated and adopted he is justified, and that this regeneration is a work of the Spirit, changing the heart and restoring the moral image of God. Supposing that you would use regeneration in this sense and that you use unregenerate as the opposite of that, we must unhesitatingly and unequivocally answer that there is a sense, and a very important sense, in which a man may believe the gospel and yet be an unregenerate sinner. Certainly that is fair and square. But we will give some reasons for our conclusions. When Christ was personally on earth, there were many who believed in him, and never were justified, so far as the Bible informs us. In John 12: 42, 43 we have the following: "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him ; but be- cause of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God." Here were persons that did believe on Christ and were still unregen- erate, not adopted, not justified, in the sense of your the- ology. And as these persons did believe on the Son of God and were still unregenerate, certainly a man might believe the gospel now and still be unregenerate. A man must per- fect his faith by obedience before he can be justified. A man must have faith before he can do anything else accep- tably to God, but faith fills its own place only. It does not fill the place of repentance or baptism. Those chief rulers did not repent ; for if they had, they would have been will- ing to confess Jesus. They did not love him, for Jesus says : "If a man love me, he will keep my words." Again, John says : "If any man love the world, the love of the Fa- ther is not in him." Those rulers loved the world, loved the praise of the world ; and, therefore, the love of the Fa- ther was not in them. Men can do the same things now, and surely you would not claim that men are regenerated who love the praise of men more than they love the praise 704 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, of God. Men have to believe the gospel before they will re- pent, or love God, or be baptized, or anything else that God commands ; and they may, like the chief rulers, believe and do nothing more. In such cases their "faith is dead/' as James expresses it, "being alone." A man may believe the truth of almost any sort of a proposition without yielding his heart and life to it. I believe that Texas is a good coun- try^ but I have not yet seen proper to exchange my own native State for that one. Upon the same principle men may believe the gospel and not be willing to give up the pleasures of the world to embrace it. Paul teaches that if people do not obey the gospel they will "be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." (2 Thess. 1: 9.) Peter also teaches the same thing. (See 1 Pet. 4.) So if by unregenerate you mean not justified, not pardoned, not born again, we say, Yes, most emphatically, to your question. But allow me to say also that the word regeneration is not used in the New Testament as it is used in your "The- ological Compend." The word of God teaches plainly enough that we must be born again, must be converted, must be pardoned ; but the word regeneration is not used in the Bible in that sense, and it is certainly better to call Bible things by Bible names. And, again, when your "Compend" speaks of regeneration being the "work of the Holy Spirit by which we experience a change of heart," if it means a direct or abstract work of the Spirit and separate and apart from the word, then we deny that the word of God teaches any such thing. The Spirit of God has always taught man and worked his influence upon man through words; and in this way we believe that the Spirit of God makes Christians, but that it never did make Christians by a direct work upon the heart. When men hear the gospel as preached by the apostles, believe it with the heart, re- pent of their sins, confess Jesus, and are baptized into him, they have the promise of pardon, and not till then. E. G. S. UNTAUGHT QUESTIONS. Brother Lipscomb: We are told in Eccles. 12: 7: "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." Now, if the spirit returns to God, does not the spirit of the wicked man return to God? If so, are not the spirits of the wicked and the righteous at the same place, or in the same state? If so, when are they separated? Some say that each goes to its final destination as soon as the body dies. This I do not believe. As I am well pleased with your answers in general, please give me all the light you have on this subject. I know Solomon says, "Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man;" but BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 705 this does not interfere with our gaining all the knowledge we can about other matters. A.lso, what are the seven pillars of wisdom spoken of in Prov. 9:1? We have not one idea or particle of light on this subject. We have found our life too crowded with practical matters to find time for speculation on impractical and untaught questions. Then we always were too lazy to work either mentally or physically where we have no hope of gaining something. In this field we could have no hope whatever of gaining anything, no matter how much time and labor we spent; so we spend our time and ability in fields of thought more promising of results. We said recently we supposed all spirits returned to God to be judged by him. The Bible says when they are judged by the King, who shall come in all his glory and sit on his throne in his glory, they will be separated — those who have done good to the poor, to sit on his right hand and inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world ; those who have not done good to the poor shall depart into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. We do not know what the seven pillars that wisdom hewed out were. A guess about it would not have much that would be profitable. D. L. Brother Lipscomb: I desire to ask a few questions. Was it the human or the divine part of Christ that died? He took upon himself humanity; and if it was only the human part, we have only a human sacrifice instead of a divine. If there be an immortal principle dwell- ing in man that never dies, what is the difference in man and Christ? If man has immortality, then why do we seek for immortality? These are questions concerning which neither Christ nor the Holy Spirit ever made revelations. The revealed things belong to us and our children ; the unrevealed, to God. We presume Christ's life, begotten of the Holy Spirit, partook in all its parts of the divine nature, just as the human life of the child partakes of the human nature of the father. We see no occasion or example for speculating concerning the divine and the human as distinct in Christ. It is an un- taught question, which is only calculated to gender strife rather than godliness. The word immortal is never used in the Bible as the equivalent of eternal existence. It means more than this ; it means eternal existence, free from suffering. Immor- tality is never affirmed of the devil or concerning hell. Both may have eternal existence, yet neither is immortal. God, who dwells in the light, inaccessible, only is immortal, because he alone is free from suffering or corruption. It is just as pertinent to ask, "What is the difference be- k 706 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, tween the nature of the devil and that of Christ ?" if both have eternal existence. Learned and lengthy articles are frequently written on immortality by persons who have never learned its simple scriptural signification. D. L. USURY. Brother Lipscomb : Will you be so kind as to tell us what the Bible defines as usury? Usury is increase for the use of money or property. The law of Moses forbade the charging any increase "to any of my people that is poor by thee." (Ex. 22 : 25 ; see also I ev. 25: 35.) It says not a word about charging usury to the well-to-do. They were not a trading, speculative people, and probably borrowed only for necessity. It forbade the taking of any increase from the poor. Nothing is said di- rectly on the subject in the New Testament, but principles are laid down that would forbid taking increase from a poor brother in Christ. Nothing is said about lending to speculate on and make money. There is no more sin in taking increase for money than for the use of other prop- erty. The law of the land fixes a rate, and Christians must submit to "the powers that be." VEILING THEIR FACES, WOMEN. Brother Lipscomb : Do you think that a woman should have her head veiled when praying? 1 Cor. 11 seems to teach that she should. Please explain verse 16: "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." I understand that long hair serves as a veil or token of her subjection to authority; and if she has not long hair, she must cover her head when she approaches God in wor- ship. I understand this to refer to her approach to God in private or in public assembly when others lead in wor- ship. Many interpret this to mean that she is to do these things when she leads in public worship, but the Scripture saying nothing of this. The point is, How shall she appear before God in worship? not, How shall she appear before men? This order is to be observed by women when they pray alone or when they join with others in social or pub- lic worship. A woman prays when she follows the lead of others in prayer as much as were she to lead in prayer. We understand verse 16 to say that the churches of God have no such custom as the women appearing in worship with uncovered or shorn heads, BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 707 VOICE, THE, HEARD BY SAUL. Can you tell what voice it was the men heard who were with Saul on his way to Damascus, when the Lord appeared to him in Acts 9: 7, which reads thus: "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man?" Also, what voice was it in Acts 22: 9, which reads thus: "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me?" Please answer through the Gospel Advocate. The voice that the men who journeyed with Paul heard was evidently the voice that spoke to Saul. But the men did not understand the words addressed to him. Hence the passage that says they heard not the voice is about the same in meaning as if it said they understood not the voice. The voice spoke to Paul in the Hebrew language, and we presume those that were with Saul did not understand it. This, we presume, is as good an explanation as can be given of it. VOTING. A brother and I were talking on prohibition. He said that if I did not vote in the coming election I would be guilty of the damnation of the drunkard's soul. I told him that I never voted. Please give us your views on the subject. We cannot now enter into a lengthened argument on the subject of voting. We believe the Scriptures furnish a man fully unto all good works. It nowhere tells or gives the example of any Christian voting or using the govern- ments of earth, which in the Bible are recognized as be- longing to the prince of this world, to accomplish good. God overrules them, as he does all the institutions of evil, to bring good to his children. We believe that God's laws, God's provisions, are sufficient for all the good a Christian can do on earth. If he will do what God requires, use the appointments God has ordained for his use, and leave the results with God, he will save more souls than he will by using any of the powers of earth through which to work. I know that God's appointments and agencies look feeble and foolish to men, while man's look wise . and efficient ; and if a man walks by his own wisdom, he will follow the inventions of men ; but if he trusts God, he will use God's appointed agencies and leave results in the hand of God. I have faith in God, so do not expect to vote on any ques- tion. If human government banishes whisky, I will re- joice ; but a man that has not moral strength to quit drink- ing when whisky is in his reach is not fit for heaven. So- ber men that refuse to obey God need salvation as much as 708 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, the drunkard, and are frequently just as unwilling to be saved. A sober man who refuses to obey God does as much harm and needs salvation as much as the drunkard. VOTING IN THE CHURCH. Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: If I understand you, you hold there should be no voting in a church of Christ. Now, I suppose a case. A brother is before the church for a positive violation of the law of the Lord, and all the members except one, two, or three are anxious to have the church withdraw fellowship from him. What is to be done in such a case? The word of the Lord, and not the wisdom or choice of the members, should be the guide in all cases of the violation of the Lord's word ; and all the members should be of one mind in all such cases. Where differences exist as to the guilt or the character of discipline that should be used, then it is better to go slow and investigate the matter till all can see what the word of the Lord requires. The word of God must be the rule in all discipline, as well as in other matters of faith and practice. The word of God tells what Christians must do and what they must not do ; and when- ever a member is found to violate any of these principles or precepts by which the Christian is to be governed, efforts should be made by the elders to reform the erring one; and if earnest, scriptural efforts fail and he persists in the error of his way, then the command of God to the church is to withdraw from such. In such case, if any of the members attempt to defend such a one in his wrongs, all such identify themselves with the wrongdoer and array themselves against the word of the Lord and in favor of wrong, and in such cases lay themselves liable to discipline. Men who try to uphold others in sin identify themselves with sinners, encourage sin, and place themselves on the side of the wicked. This is always the case where the guilt of the party is plain ; but where the guilt is not plain, where there is reasonable doubt in the premises, where the proof is not positive, then go slow and stand upon the side of for- bearance and mercy till the truth is fully ascertained. No personal or party feeling should ever be indulged in such cases. Members should not be brought under discipline except for their own good, and not to gratify animosity or personal ill will. Members that would attempt to disci- pline others through any sort of strife, ill will, or animosity are guilty of violating the word of God and need discipline themselves. The discipline of the church must be carried on in the proper spirit, and then no voting will be needed. We had just as well take the vote of the members as to whether an alien may confess the name of Jesus and be BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 709 baptized or not as to take the vote of the church to see whether one that has plainly violated the law of God and will not make amends shall be withdrawn from or not. The word of God must be our rule in discipline as well as in bringing aliens into the church of God. Last Sunday one of our brethren who had transgressed confessed and wanted the church to forgive him. A motion was made and sec- onded that we forgive the brother; but when we went to vote, one of the brethren objected and said we had no scriptural authority for voting in the church. The matter was discussed in the church, but was not settled. We want you to give us your views on the subject. If we are not allowed to vote, how are we to ever get the voice of the church on anything? If a brother asks the church to forgive him, how is he to know whether he is forgiven or not unless it is left to a vote? Please answer this, as the church is divided on this subject. Do you vote when an alien repents and complies with the law for admission? Why any more necessity for voting when a sinning brother complies with the law of restora- tion? Does one law depend upon the will of the church more than the other ? Is the obligation to receive the pen- itent more dependent upon the will of the church in one case than the other? A vote implies a right to object or accept. We deny the right to reject any one who com- plies with the lav/ of God, hence the right to vote where God has made a law. Voting is calling for division. We doubt the propriety of ever calling for divisions and settling any questions by mere numbers. There is a better way, even in matters where no specific law is given, of deferring to the wisdom of the older and more experienced and devoted members of the church, and so seeking and reaching una- nimity, which is according to the law of God. We believe this possible and much better. Some ridicule this, I know, and insist on the businesslike and worldly-wise way of vot- ing and deciding by majorities in the church. We have noticed such are more efficient in getting into difficulties, making parties, and destroying churches than they are in healing difficulties, promoting brotherly love, and building up churches of God. We learn that the penitent brother above referred to was restored without a vote by a humble prayer for his forgiveness and for strength to live a better life in the future. This was according to divine will and certainly better. Has a church of Christ a right, under any circumstances, to take a vote — that is, in a business capacity? For example, the congrega- tion at A desires me to labor in word and doctrine. Can they scrip- turally give an expression by saying Aye or by arising to their feet? Again, an unruly member is to be withdrawn from. How shall we get the mind of the church in the case? Again, Brother A wants a 710 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, letter of dismission for other parts. Have the elders a right to give that letter without the knowledge of the congregation? If not, how shall we get their mind? As to the matter of voting, Christians have no right to vote in matters of God's authority, in things God has com- manded to be done ; but there are some things we do, such as building meetinghouses and a great many other like things, that are left to our common sense. In these things voting may be as good a plan as any to find whether the brethren are of one mind or not ; but when a vote is taken, it should be with a view to find whether the brethren are of one mind or not. When the voting shows a division of sentiment, it is very seldom safe to have the majority rule. Christians are required to be of one mind ; and when they differ, they had better reason together until they be agreed and then act together. When they adopt the principle that the majority must rule, they are almost certain to get up strife and division even over the smallest matters. The rule then should be to determine whether the thing to be done is a command of God or a matter of expediency. Withdrawing from unruly members is a command of God and does not admit of voting. When a congregation pro- poses to employ a man to labor for them in word and doc- trine, they should take some steps, by voting or otherwise, to find whether they are agreed or not; and, if not, they should go to work to that end before they act. So of every other thing not commanded. VOTING MEN OUT OF THE CHURCH, ETC. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell : Please give the New Testament teaching in the following cases: 1. Suppose a member of the church mistreats a man that is not a member, to whom is confession due — to the church or the offending man? 2. Suppose he (the member of the church) persistently refuses a reconciliation with the offended man, is it the duty of the church to have anything to do in the case? 3. In cases of discipline, after the elders have investigated a case and decided that a member ought to be withdrawn from, is it their duty to submit their decision to a vote of the congregation and let a majority rule? 4. In case Brother A has a difficulty with a man (not a brother), and asks the elders of his congregation to tell him his duty, and Brother B, without seeing the elders, should advise Brother A to dis- regard the counsel of the elders, has not Brother B done violence to the peace and harmony of the congregation? 1. He ought to make confession to both. He ought to confess the wrong to the man he has wronged as a part of the reparation he must make, without which there is no repentance. He ought to make it to the church, because BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 711 God says : "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed." 2. If a brother wrongs another, it is the duty of the church to see that he repents of that wrong and rectifies it. The man who wrongs another wrongs his own soul much more than he wrongs that other. He wrongs Christ, in whose name he professes to act. It is just as much the duty of the church to see that he acts uprightly toward those without as toward those within. The duty of the church is to see that he practices the religion of the Savior ; that he does not wrong and ruin his own soul and bring shame upon the church of Christ. 3. I do not believe in minority or majority rule. The law of God must rule. To it every member must submit, and in cases of discipline every member ought to be satis- fied that God's law is complied with. 4. Any member that abuses another, does not heed the counsel of the elders, is guilty of gross violation of the law of the Lord and ought to repent of his sin. If a member thinks the counsel of the elders faulty, he ought to see them and strive to make them sensible of their wrong. Brother Lipscomb: Who controls the congregation of Christ — the voice of the majority or the elders? How would you proceed in deal- ing with a disorderly member after all means have been exhausted in trying to save him? If the elders in their wisdom have decided that a member should be withdrawn from, can they do so as long as there is one dissenting voice in the congregation? How much au- thority does the eldership have in matters of discipline? The voice of God must control a congregation if it is a church of Christ. This is the only test of fidelity to God. If the voice of God does no* control, it is not a church of Christ. Elders are the older members, familiar with the Scriptures, of good judgment, and imbued with the Spirit of God, whose duty it is to see that all obey the word of God. If any violate the law of God, it is the duty of those who know it either to see him in person or see that some one who will have influence with the sinner warn him of his evil and point out the law of God he has violated, and admonish him he should repent. The elders are the head, or overseers, of the church. If those who see the wrong fail to induce the sinner to turn from it and confess it, it is their duty to take others with them to remonstrate. If they fail (see the order, Matt. 18), tell it to the church. To do this is to report it to the elders, the head or rulers, of the church. They are to examine the case and determine what wrong, if any, he has committed, seek to show him his wrong. If he hears them, they have gained him. The eld- 712 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, ers should report the case to the church, give the facts in the case, lay before the members the charges and the evi- dence on which they are based, the scriptures violated, and the law requiring the action taken. The vote ought never to be put to the congregation as to whether they will withdraw from him or not. There is no authority for such a course, and such cases ought not to be decided by vote of the congregation, but by the law of God. This question might properly be put: Does any one know any reason why the conclusions set forth here are not true and scriptural ? If so, the elders will hear the reasons ; and if they are found just, they should have their influence. If not, the elders should seek to show the truth both as to the facts and the scripture teaching to those who do not see it, that all may act with unanimity in the decision reached. This conference between the elders and those dissatisfied will be much more free from passion and feeling if private, yet the whole congregation is entitled to know the facts. Patience and persistence should be exercised in trying to get all to see the truth, that all may heartily agree in the course. I will not say that no action should be taken while one dissents. This might be proper if all were led by the Spirit of the gospel ; but many let their family pride and fleshly feelings, rather than the word of God, control them in such matters. Some think they show love and kindness to kindred and friends when they object to the church en- forcing the law of God on their families or friends, but this is a mistake. A father or mother shows true love for a child by desiring the laws of God to be enforced when he does wrong. God's laws are for the good of all who sin. True love for the sinner, even if he be our own child, will prompt us to see the law enforced, that he may get the good that comes through the law of God. We are real enemies to our children when we object to their being dealt with ac- cording to the law of God. The parents should be as ready to report the sins of a child that they cannot correct to the church as any one else would be or as they would be to re- port any one else. True love for the child seeks the true good of the child, and that is promoted by the discipline of the law of God ; but many are not willing for the law of God to be enforced with reference to their kindred or friends, and to say the discipline shall not be enforced as long as one objects is to place it in the power of one such to veto the enforcement of the law of God. It is true that parents that object to the law of God being rigidly applied to their own child, relative, or friend are not worthy to be members in the church of God, but they are often; and BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 713 when this spirit manifests itself, such should be dealt with in patience to save them from this sinful course; but such should not be permitted to hinder the enforcement of the law of God. When the elders have labored patiently with those who are unwilling to see the law enforced and they fail to get them to do right, then the facts should be stated to the con- gregation, the Scriptures read, and the congregation should sustain the elders in their decision heartily and cheerfully. If the friends and kindred remain perverse and fractious after all patience and effort to get them right, they should be disciplined ; for no one who objects to the law of God be- ing enforced upon a child, a husband, a sister, a brother, or a parent, is a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. But all this work must be done by the elders in a spirit of Chris- tian love ; and freedom from personal or partisan feeling or partiality, the good of all, the salvation of those who sin, should be the one leading object of all true servants of God. So all must be done in kindness and love, that the sinning one may be made to feel that the elders are his true friends and seeking his good. When he is made to feel this, then their work will be almost sure to prove effective. The eld- ers, acting according to the law of God, have the full au- thority of God, just as the representative of a government, acting according to the laws of the government, carries the full authority of that government. If not acting according to the law of God, they have no authority whatever. What the proper representatives of a State do, the State does. No one would think to enforce or execute the laws of a State upon a violator of that law the people must take a popular vote on trial of every case. That would be clumsy; and, left to a popular vote, the laws would not be executed with any certainty. It would depend upon the prejudices and excited feelings of the multitude. These are notoriously unreliable. What the legally constituted representatives of a people do in accordance with the laws governing that peo- ple, the people do. The New Testament is the law of the church, and the elders the scriptural representativs of the church. The duty of the elders is to teach and enforce obe- dience to the Scriptures. D. L. "WATER AND BLOOD," HOW CHRIST "CAME BY." Brother Sewell: Please explain 1 John 5: 6-10 through the Gospel Advocate. Yerse 6 declares that Christ came by water and by blood. This means that when Christ came in his great mission to save a ruined world, water and blood were both connected 714 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, in the wonderful plan he came to provide. In the first place, when Christ was ready to enter upon his public min- istry, he was baptized by John in the river Jordan, thus submitting himself to his Father's will in this divine insti- tution. It was at his baptism that he was identified as the Son of God. The Holy Spirit came upon him in visible form, and at the same time the Father spoke out, saying: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Then, when he died upon the cross, his blood was shed "for many for the remission of sins," while on that same occa- sion water came from his side when pierced by a soldier, thus putting the blood and water in close connection. On the evening of his betrayal he established "the Lord's Sup- per," making the wine the emblem of his blood, which was to be and is now being perpetuated in the church of God. Also baptism was ordained by Christ in the divine commis- sion as one of the conditions upon which pardon, remission of sins, could be obtained. Thus in the gospel plan of sal- vation the water and the blood are so arranged and con- nected that the benefits of the blood cannot be reached by people till baptized. In submission to the ordinance of bap- tism we enter into Christ, "in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace." (Eph. 1: 7.) Verse 7 of the Com- mon Version is left out of the later versions because it is thought to be an interpolation. Verse 8 says : "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood : and these three agree in one." This shows that we have three witnesses on earth to the truth that Jesus is the anointed Son of God. The Holy Spirit bears testimony through the word of truth ; the wine in the Lord's Supper, representing the blood of Christ, is also a continued witness to the same truth; while baptism, rep- resenting the burial and resurrection of Christ, also bears testimony to him. These ordinances would not have been in existence had Christ not been on earth and ordained them. Hence we have connected with the church these three con- tinued witnesses to the great truth that Jesus is the Son of God. Verse 9 emphasizes faith in the testimony of these witnesses as we believe the testimony of men ; while verse 10 tells us that when we believe the testimony of these wit- nesses we have the assurance in ourselves, in our own hearts, that he is the Christ. Thus we have all the evi- dence in these three witnesses that could be desired to the truth of Jesus, the chief corner stone of the new and ever- lasting covenant. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 715 Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In 1 John 5: 8 we have: "And there are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." I would like to know something about how they bear witness and how they agree in one. 1. The Spirit bears witness through the word of God, which word was attested as from God by miraculous pow- ers through the apostles, who by the Spirit were enabled to perform those miracles. 2. The water bears witness through the divine institu- tion of baptism. Every time one is buried with Christ in baptism, testimony is thereby borne to the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He ordained the ordinance, it continued to be done in his name, and thereby testifies to the truth that he is the Son of God, the Savior of sinners. 3. The blood continues to bear witness through its rep- resentative, the wine, in the Lord's Supper. Every time the Lord's people set the wine upon the Lord's table on the first day of the week and partake thereof, they thereby give repeated evidence that Christ died for our sins, and, therefore, he is the Son of God. Such an ordinance as the Lord's Supper never could have arisen and been perpetu- ated if the events it commemorated had never occurred. These three witnesses, therefore, agree in that testimony to the one truth that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ;" and truly and well does their testimony establish the truth of that wonderful proposition. WATER, THE CLEAN, OF EZEK. 36: 25. Brother Lipscomb: When, wiiere, and upon whom was the clean water mentioned in Ezek. 36: 25 and Isa. 52: 15 to be sprinkled? In Num. 19 : 1-10 we have an account of the preparation of the waters of separation, or purification, or cleansing, as it is called. "And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, This is the ordinance of the law which the Lord hath commanded, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke. And ye shall give her unto Eleazar the priest, that he may bring her forth without the camp, and one shall slay her before his face: and Eleazar the priest shall take of her blood with his finger, and sprinkle of her blood directly before the tabernacle of the congregation seven times : and one shall burn the heifer in his sight; her skin, and her flesh, and her blood, with her dung, shall he burn : and the priest shall take cedar wood, and hyssop, and scarlet, and cast it into the midst of the burning of the heifer. Then the priest shall wash his clothes, arid he shall bathe his flesh in water, and afterwards he shall come into the camp, and 716 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, the priest shall be unclean until the even. And he that burneth her shall wash his clothes in water, and bathe his flesh in water, and shall be unclean until the even. And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of separation : it is a purification for sin. And he that gathereth the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even : and it shall be unto the children of Israel, and unto the stranger that sojourn- eth among them, for a statute forever/' These ashes of the heifer and the cedar and hyssop were kept, and when- ever a Jew or any vessel from any cause became unclean, he must take of water from a running stream, mix these ashes with it, and sprinkle himself or the vessel before he could be clean or come into the congregation of Israel. Verses 11-20 give an example of how it was used: "He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days. He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he purify not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean. Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the taberna- cle of the Lord ; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel : because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean ; his uncleanness is yet upon him. This is the law, when a man dieth in a tent : all that come into the tent, and all that is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days. And every open vessel, which hath no cover- ing bound upon it, is unclean. And whosoever toucheth one that is slain with a sword in the open fields, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days. And for an unclean person they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and run- ning water shall be put thereto in a vessel : and a clean per- son shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the per- sons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave : and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the sev- enth day: and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even. But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanc- tuary of the Lord: the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him ; he is unclean." BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 717 This water was called cleansing, or clean, water ; 'purify- ing, or pure, water. To speak of sprinkling pure water came to mean the person or vessel was cleansed and puri- fied, just as to bow before the Lord came to mean to pray to him, since men bowed or knelt to pray. So when it says they were sprinkled with clean water, it meant they had repented of their wicked ways and turned to the Lord and he had forgiven them. The Jews had gone into idolatry, had been carried into captivity, and were in a foreign land when Ezekiel told them : 'Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you : and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers ; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God. I will also save you from all your uncleannesses : and I will call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you." This means when they repented he would cleanse them — he calls it sprinkling clean water upon them — so purify them and bring them back to their own land and bless them with abundance. Isaiah, if we accept it as a correct translation, would mean that when Christ came, not only the Jewish na- tion, but many nations, would repent, turn to the Lord, and be cleansed. In the margin of the Revised Version it is startle instead of sprinkle. This is in accord with the con- text: "Like as many were astonished at thee, (his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men,) so shall he sprinkle [startle] many na- tions ; kings shall shut their mouths at him : for that which had not been told them shall they see ; and that which they had not heard shall they understand. " The whole context shows that wonderful afflictions of Jesus would astonish and startle the different nations of the earth. The Septua- gint, the version in use among the Jews in the days of Je- sus, and which he quoted, gives it: "Thus shall many na- tions wonder at him, and kings shall keep their mouths shut." This is the true meaning as now recognized by scholars. Paul refers to this custom of cleansing from un- cleanness by the sprinkling of the water of cleansing when he speaks of their having their hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and their bodies washed with pure water. Their hearts are purified from evil desires and they are baptized into the remission of sins. 718 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, WHEAT AND TARES, THE. Brother Lipscomb: What is the lesson taught in the parable of the wheat and tares? (Matt. 13: 24.) As we understand this parable, in the church God sowed only good seed. The devil, while God's servants are care- less and indifferent, sows evil seed. Evil springs up in the church. The wheat, which comes from the good seed, are the disciples of Christ — faithful, good, and true to his laws and appointments. Errors are taught, are introduced in the church. All error is from the devil. Some in the church act on the erroneous principle ; they are tares. The servants, who in the parable represent the heavenly mes- sengers, seeing this, ask: "Shall we not root out and de- stroy the tares?" Shall we, the heavenly messengers, the supernatural agents, interfere and purify the church? Christ answers: "Nay; lest, in gathering up the tares, ye root up the wheat also. Let them both grow together until the end of the world ; then my reapers, these same heavenly messengers, shall gather the wheat into the garner and burn the chaff with fire that is unquenchable." The parable only deals with the question : Shall the supernatural agents, the heavenly messengers, the angels, interfere to purify the church here on earth? It teaches emphatically that they shall not. This parable teaches nothing as to what the wheat — the true members — shall do. Other scriptures give us abundant instruction on this point. D. L. "WHIRLWIND," JEHOVAH IN THE. Brother Sewell: I wish you would write a piece in the Gospel Ad- vocate on Nahum 1: 3, or the teaching as set forth in that verse. The verse follows: "Jehovah is slow to anger, and great in power, and will by no means clear the guilty: Jehovah hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet." This book is supposed to have been written some seven hundred years before Christ was born. The preceding verse contains some severe warn- ings and threatenings against the enemies of the Lord, but does not in the immediate connection tell who they were; but as the whole book of three chapters was written about Nineveh, its terrible wickedness and the terrible overthrow that awaited it, we may reasonably conclude that the verse above, as well as the whole three chapters of that book, has reference, directly or indirectly, to the destruction and utter downfall of that great and very wicked city. The verse named and others like it show that God is able and would certainly bring to naught that renowned city. He BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 719 was able to bring up the whirlwind and the mighty storm, or to stir up other nations, kings, or kingdoms, and turn them against Nineveh to destroy it. The same book fore- tells that the river on which Nineveh was built would have a prominent part in its downfall; and so, sure enough, through these agencies, the city of Nineveh was completely overthrown about B.C. 606. It is said of Nineveh in the days of its prosperity that it was sixty miles in circum- ference, and that it was surrounded by a brick wall one hundred feet high, with fifteen hundred towers two hundred feet high, and many thousands of warlike people within. And they evidently felt that no power could overthrow them ; yet it was a remarkably easy matter for the Lord to arrange powers that could overthrow that great and power- ful city and bring upon it such a complete destruction that it would be difficult to trace the outlines of that once large, rich, and powerful city. But while this passage has direct reference to the destruction of Nineveh, it at the same time gives us an example of God's dealings with wicked nations as well as wicked individuals. All wicked nations and wicked people will meet their downfall sooner or later. If the ruin of wicked men does not overtake them in this life, it will be meted out to them in the world to come. Incorri- gibly wicked nations have been falling all through time, and doubtless will till time shall end. All people should take warning from such terrible calamities as have re- cently fallen upon many parts of the United States in the way of storms, floods, and fires, and try to improve their lives. Christians especially should strive to live more thor- oughly in harmony with the will of God ; and those who are not Christians should wake up, take warning, and seek an interest in the blood of the Lamb, lest some sudden destruc- tion should come and cut them off and their chance of sal- vation be ended forever. God has been sending similar chastisements through all the ages upon the wicked and negligent; and while we may not always be able to tell why or for whose sake certain calamities are sent, we may al- ways be sure that the hand of God is in such things, and Christians especially should always be made better by them. "WIND" IN JOHN 3: 8. Brother Sewell: Please give through the Gospel Advocate your views on John 3 : 8. The verse is this: "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth : so is every one that is born of the Spirit." The word rendered wind is 720 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, the word that is rendered Spirit in the latter part of the same verse and everywhere else in the New Testament, ex- cept two instances out of three hundred and eighty-five occurrences of the word in the New Testament; and we think it should be so rendered in this passage. All under- stand this verse 8 to refer to the work of the Spirit in con- version, and we need not, therefore, trouble about a new version of it. But this verse is only a figurative reference to the matter, and not a full explanation of it; and in or- der, therefore, to learn how the Spirit does this work, we only need refer to Acts 2, where the Spirit actually came and made three thousand converts in one day, and by exam- ination of that case we can find exactly how the work was done. We find there that the Spirit came upon the apos- tles, spoke through them, and taught the words addressed to their understanding — taught them in plain words how Jesus had died, been buried and raised from the dead, and had thus provided a plan of redemption for sinners. The Spirit through Peter required them to believe by saying in verse 36 : "Therefore let all the house of Israel know as- suredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." The words know assuredly give a very strong requirement for faith. And they immediately did believe, for they cried out: "What shall we do?" Then the Spirit through Peter told them in plain, unmistakable words what to do — that is: "Re- pent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." "Then they that gladly received his words [the words of the Spirit telling them what to do] were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." When these people had thus obeyed the words of the Spirit, had done what the Spirit said do, they were pardoned, were born again, were born of water and of the Spirit, and were members of the church of God. We now have on record the words of the Spirit as it spoke through the apostles; and by obeying these words now, as the people did then, we will also be born again — born of the Spirit. The Spirit never entered secretly into the heart of any one to convert him, so far as the Bible records ; but all that will obey the requirement of the Spirit through the word of truth will also be born of the Spirit now as well as then. E. G. S. WINE, WHAT KIND IN THE SUPPER. Brother Sewell: What kind of wine should be used round the Lord's table? Should it be mixed wine, blackberry, or some other kind? BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 721 When Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, he said: "But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." (Matt. 26: 29.) That expression fixes the wine that Jesus used at the institution of this feast to be grape wine. By the expression, this fruit of the vine, he meant grape wine, most assuredly; and that makes it plain that no sort of mixed wine should be used in this institution, neither blackberries nor any other sort of fruit. All should be careful that they use pure juice of the grape — pure grape wine. The Book must be the Chris- tian's guide. WINE, BLACKBERRY, IN THE SUPPER. Brother Lipscomb: I am a member of a congregation of disciples where we meet on the first day of the week to break bread. We use blackberry wine; and, according to the way I understand the Bible, the brier or thorn represents sin, and I do not think it is right to use blackberry wine. The Bible says "the fruit of the vine" — i. e., grape juice — was what was used. I do not think blackberry wine or anything else than what was ordained by God should be used. The grape is in the reach of all, and there is no kind of excuse for not using what God ordained. This ten- dency to make substitutes for the appointments of God has been the besetting sin of humanity, and should be guared against. It seems to me there was a special appointing of the fruit of the vine as the memorial of the blood of Jesus. If so, it is a sin to substitute anything in lieu of it. WINE, TIMOTHY, ELDERS, AND. Brother Lipscomb: Please give the scriptural meaning of the words rebuke and elder in 1 Tim. 5:1: "Rebuke not an elder." Also please explain verse 23, which reads thus: "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmi- ties." Elder was an older member. He was not to be con- demned or reproved roughly by a young evangelist; but if he sees him wrong, he is to entreat him with deference and courtesy as a son would a father or mother. It is simply an admonition to be gentle, kind, and courteous in inter- course and association and in teaching and instructing all. Especially the old were to be treated with respect. He shows this deference to age again when he tells him in verse 19 : "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses." God in all ages demands especial respect to the aged. To the Jews he commanded : "Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honor the 722 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the Lord." (Lev. 19: 32.) He connects respect for old age with fear of God. Timothy did not drink wine. That is clear. He re- frained from it, doubtless, because it was regarded by the Holy Spirit as incompatible with the Christian character. The curse of God was upon it and all who "look upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his color in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder." Timothy knew the evil as condemned in the Scriptures, which he had known from a child, and refrained from the use of it, confining himself to the use of water. He was often afflicted. His stomach was disordered. Yet such an evil he recognized the use of wine to be he suffered rather than countenance its use by Christians. Paul wrote to him: "Drink no longer water [alone] , but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities." Paul thought he might use it for the curing of his disordered stomach and to relieve his frequent sickness ; but, then, he was to be cautious to use only a little. It shows plainly in what esteem the inspired men held the use of wine. It could be used only in cases of sickness, and then only in small quantities. No Christian ought ever to think of touching it under other conditions. D. L. WINE, OLD AND NEW BOTTLES, ETC Please explain Matt. 9: 16, 17. What did the Savior aim to teach by the old and new cloths and the new and old wine and bottles? The leading thought before the Savior was to impress the disciples of John that he had not come into the world to make an institution like others that already existed, nor to model after the practices and customs of others, but that he was going to build an entirely new institution, with new habits, new customs — everything new. The disciple, John, had just asked: "Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?" The verses named are in reply to that question. These disciples of John and the Pharisees, doubtless, thought that there was to be no improvement to be made beyond where they stood — that they had reached perfection already, and that whatever Jesus did must be like what they did. They could not realize that their cus- toms would all be set aside; that all institutions that then existed were to be set aside. So there are many in the world now that do not believe there was ever any thorough setting aside of the Jewish law or of John's ministry as such, but that these have simply been remodeled — some things BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 723 taken away and others added on, but that the same old cov- enants still exist. But the language of Jesus on this oc- casion concerning the new wine and new bottles forever sets aside such an idea. Christ did not come to patch his insti- tution upon the old by merely remodeling, but he came to establish a better covenant upon better promises — to make a new covenant, with new laws. Hence, when he died, hav- ing fulfilled the law in his own life, he took the law out of the way, nailing it to his cross ; and when the Spirit came upon the apostles, the new and living way was established. WISE MEN, THE, AND THE SHEPHERDS. Brother Lipscomb: Please tell me whether the wise men spoken of in Matt. 1: 2 and the shepherds spoken of in Luke 2: 8 are the same or not. The shepherds and the wise men were not the same per- sons. So far from it, their visits were near two years apart. Luke gives the account of the birth of Jesus (verses 1-7) and the appearance of the heavenly hosts to the shepherds on the night of his birth and their going at once to Beth- lehem and finding the babe in the manger (verses 8-20). He was circumcised the eighth day. (Verse 21.) Forty days from the birth of the child they brought him to Jeru- salem for Mary to make an offering for her purification and to offer the child to the Lord. (Verses 22-24.) Simeon and Anna, on the occasion of presenting the child to the Lord, made their prophecies. (Verses 25-38.) "And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Naza- reth." (Verse 39.) No doubt as soon as Mary was able to travel after the birth of the child they returned to Naz- areth, and remained there we know not how long. They did not go to Egypt at this visit to Bethlehem. Luke does not tell of the second visit to Bethlehem, when they went down to Egypt. This history of Luke begins with the birth of the child and extends until it was a month or two old, when all returned to Nazareth. Matthew tells of the birth of Jesus, but says nothing about the visit of the shepherds; nor does he tell of any- thing that occurred at that visit to Bethlehem and Jerusa- lem, save the birth. He does not tell of the departure of the family to Nazareth. But he tells of another visit the family made to Bethlehem, in which the wise men came from the east and worshiped the child. At this visit Herod inquired for Jesus with desire to kill him as the heir to the throne of Israel. At this second visit God told Joseph to 724 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, carry the child into Egypt, and at this time they went from Bethlehem to Egypt instead of to Nazareth. They re- mained in Egypt until the death of Herod, and, returning from Egypt, went and dwelled at Nazareth. (Matt. 2: 1-23.) The wise men had seen his star in the east when he was born. Now, as they leave Jerusalem, the same star guided them to Bethlehem, where the child was again. They had told Herod it had been two years since this star appeared. When they failed to return to tell him where they found the child, he, to be sure he killed this child, ordered all the children from two years old and under to be slain. This shows the coming of the wise men was near two years after the birth of Jesus and the visit of the shepherds. WITCHES AND FAMILIAR SPIRITS, ARE THERE, NOW? Brother Seivell: According' to New Testament teaching, are there witches, magicians, and such like, who can call up familiar spirits and talk with them? Witches and witchcraft are spoken of in the Bible, but are represented as exceedingly wicked, and the whole thing is thoroughly condemned. It was said through Moses: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live/' (Ex. 22: 18.) Again : "There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an en- chanter, or a witch." (Deut. 18: 10.) Again, God said: "And I will cut off witchcrafts out of thine hand ; and thou shalt no more have soothsayers." (Mic. 5: 12.) These passages show that there were witches, witchcraft, and such like in the days of the Old Testament, and that witches were too wicked to be allowed to live among the Jewish people. In the New Testament witchcraft is named among the works of the flesh. (Gal. 5: 20.) So there is nothing- good said of witches or witchcraft in the Bible. There is a wonderful item of history in 1 Sam. 28 about the witch of Endor raising Samuel from the dead to talk with King- Saul. This passage shows something of what witches claimed to do in those days, but it also shows that the witch of Endor was terribly excited when Samuel appeared at her call. Evidently nothing of this sort had ever occurred with her before, and evidently this appearance of Samuel was especially permitted of God to show to King Saul his approaching end for his wicked course in life. The Lord had refused to give any sort of communication to Saul, and in his desperation he had gone to the witch of Endor to try BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 725 to get some information from the Lord ; and it was per- mitted that Samuel should appear and tell him of the death of himself and his sons, which very soon came to pass. I do not understand that witches ever had the power to do what the witch of Endor did, simply as witches. If they did, it was the power of Satan working through them. Hence the above case was a special one for a special pur- pose against King Saul on account of his wicked course. But witches, as such, have never had the power to do what this woman did. Whatever they did that made them re- nowned in those things was the work of Satan wrought through them or some sleight-of-hand deception worked by them to deceive the people and make them think they had extra powers. The whole matter of witches and witchcraft is exceedingly wicked, the whole tendency of which is to turn people away from the Bible. There is nothing in it to be desired by godly people. WITHDRAW FROM A BROTHER, HOW TO. • Brother Seivell: Do you understand that, in withdrawing from a disorderly member, the church should come together and pass resolu- tions, or should they just simply refuse to worship and company with such? Please tell us how you think the Corinthian church disposed of the fornicator mentioned in 1 Cor. 5. There is no specific form of withdrawal given in the New Testament; but when a member violates the word of God and cannot be induced to reform his life and make amends for his wrongs, it ought to be so stated before the whole church, and that the church can no longer fellowship the individual till he reforms his life. There is no need of any resolutions in the case. The word of God is plain and says to withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly, and this also requires that the individual members shall carry out this withdrawal by refusing to recognize such offender as a Christian in the daily walks and associations of life ; yet not treat him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. These things must be done, but they need no specific formalities or resolutions to do them. We must not establish fixed formalities where God has established none. Organizing things and forms as fixtures in the church are very injurious to the cause of truth. Where things are commanded and no specific form is 'given, do them in the simplest way, as the circumstances demand, but fix no formulas. WITHDRAWING FROM A BROTHER, MEANING OF. Brother Lipscomb : I want you to explain the meaning of ivith- drawing fellowship. Can it be done other than by the church with- drawing their daily associations from a disorderly brother or sister? 726 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, It seems to me our brethren make a great mistake along this line many times. Please explain this. Jesus (Matt. 18: 15-17) says: "If thy brother shall tres- pass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone : if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church : but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." That certainly means more than refusing in their daily walk to associate with him; it involves a spe- cific action of the church. In 1 Cor. 5: 1-4 Paul tells of one who was living in adultery. In verses 4, 5 he says: "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gath- ered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the de- struction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Here they were to come together and by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ deliver such a one to Satan. This was certainly a formal action of the whole church. But this withdrawal embraced a refusal to associate with the evildoers, that they might feel the shame of the course and turn from it; yet while doing this they were not to treat him as an enemy, but entreat him as a brother. See 2 Thess. 3 : 14, 15 : "If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." The with- drawal is an act of the whole church, yet the individual members are to carry it out by withdrawing their associa- tion in private life. WITNESSES, THE TWO. Brother Lipscomb : Who were the two witnesses spoken of in Rev. 11: 3-12? We do not know who the two ivitnesses were. We have no faith in speculations on the interpretation of prophecy. We think in their final meaning these prophecies are sealed books as yet. The time may come in the future when some event will transpire that will throw light upon these proph- ecies, will give a key to their interpretation. Just as be- fore the coming of Christ none could possibly appreciate the meaning of the prophecies that had gone before concerning him — not even the prophets who prophesied concerning him understood the meaning of their prognostications; but when he came, his life, mission, death, resurrection, and as- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 727 cension gave the key and explained it all. All the specula- tions in reference to these unfulfilled prophecies are vain and delusive. Some teachings in them, as was true con- cerning Christ's first coming, are plain and can be under- stood. But we have never known a man to give himself up to the interpretation and elucidation of those prophecies concerning his second coming and those to be fulfilled in the future that did not make shipwreck of his faith and subvert those who were led by him. While we know nothing concerning this scripture that would benefit any one, we do know some things concerning a number of very plain, practical passages of scripture that would greatly help all if they would believe the Lord and obey him. D. L. WOMAN, HOW "THE WEAKER VESSEL." Brother Sew ell: Please explain 1 Pet. 3: 7. How is the woman the weaker vessel? The passage is this : "Ye husbands, in like manner, dwell with your wives according to knowledge, giving honor unto the woman, as unto the weaker vessel, as being also joint heirs of the grace of life ; to the end that your prayers be not hindered." In the first place, the apostle was addressing Christian husbands, whose wives were Christians also. It is a fact that women, as a rule, are more delicately formed physically than men, and are, therefore, less able to do the heavy, rough work that men do, and we suppose that is the sense chiefly in which the apostle used the word weaker. It is also true that as women are more delicately formed, they are better looking than men. Here is what Clarke's "Commentary" says about it : " 'As the weaker vessel' — be- ing more delicately and consequently more slenderly con- structed. Roughness and strength go hand in hand; so likewise do beauty and frailty. The female has what man lacks — beauty and delicacy; the male has what the female lacks — courage and strength. The one is as good in its place as the other ; and by these things God has made an equality between the man and the woman, so that there is properly very little superiority on either side." There is nothing in the connection to indicate that the apostle had any reference to inferiority of mental ability; for if the woman lacks anything in strength and vigor of thought, she fully makes it up in tenderness, affection, and nice adaptation to the home relations of life that man would not miss for anything. The woman can surpass man in the whole matter of making home attractive and happy ; and as for caring for and training the babes and little children, 728 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, woman is out of sight ahead of man. But when it comes to the matter of the rough-and-tumble work of providing the bounties of life, man is far ahead of woman in that, be- ing better suited in his whole physical make-up for that side of life. So women need never become sensitive over the expression the weaker vessel, but ought rather to be thank- ful for the possession of so many touching and tender sen- sibilities that men would not miss for the world. Let Christian husbands and wives be happy also that they are heirs together of eternal life. WOMAN, THE, OF REV. 12. Brother Sewell: (1) Please explain Rev. 12: 1-12. Who was that ivoman, and what child was that, and when was it born? When was that war in heaven? Who were the Satan and his angels spoken of? Where did that salvation come? Did it come to the earth, or did it come to the relief in heaven? What strength and kingdom was that? Is it the kingdom John spoke of in Matt. 3: 2? (2) Explain also Rev. 14: 1-5. What Lamb was that on Mount Zion? Who were they that had their Father's name in -their foreheads, and who were they that were harping with their harps and that sung a new song? What song was that? (1) We do not propose to attempt any definite answer to these questions, as we are not certain as to what they were intended to show. Some commentators claim that the woman in chapter 12 represents the church, and that her travailing pains represent the persecutions the early church suffered in her efforts to propagate the gospel of Christ, and that the child represents converts to Christianity, and that the great red dragon represents heathen Rome in its terrible efforts to prevent the spread of the gospel and the conversion, the birth, of souls to Christ. It is true that the early church suffered immensely at the hands of pagan Rome, and it may be that that is what this passage is in- tended to teach, but we cannot in confidence say so. Oth- ers can take the claims of the commentators for just what they think they are worth. (2) As to chapter 14, the Lamb mentioned is understood to be the Son of God, which seems reasonable enough. As to the hundred and forty-four thousand that were with him, with his Father's name written upon their foreheads, the commentators claim that these were the early Jewish Chris- tians, the first to obey the gospel and to live until death upon its pure and holy principles, and that these were the hundred forty and four thousand that were sealed, as spoken of in the first part of chapter 7. This all looks nice enough, and it may be true that they were the ones that stood with the Lamb and that sung the new song. Yet most of these things may be theories of men, formed as BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 729 speculations, without sufficient foundation in fact. We have never yet claimed to fully understand these and other strange and wonderful figures in the book of Revelation. Hence we will not speak definitely as to their meaning. We are sure that if our salvation depended upon our under- standing all of them they would have been made plainer. Let us study plain matters more. WOMEN SPEAKING IN THE CHURCH. Brother Lipscomb: Please explain 1 Cor. 14: 34, 35. I do not know how to explain that language. I cannot write it in simpler words, plainer, or put it in a connection that would make it easier to be understood. "Let your women keep silence in the churches : for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be in subjection, as the law also says." I cannot make that any plainer. The next verse says : "And if they wish to learn anything, let them ask their hus- bands at home: for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church." I do not know how to add a word that can make it clearer, more direct, or more forcible. One who can explain that away can explain away anything I can write, and one who will not regard that ought not to regard what I would say. Paul gives the same admonition to Timothy to direct him as an evangelist and teacher in in- structing all churches he might plant or teach: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer [permit] not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman be- ing, deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." (1 Tim. 2: 11- 15.) This means she is to work in the sphere of childbear- ing and training, and her work in the church should be in a private and quiet manner. WOMEN SPEAKING IN SCHOOLS. Brother Seivell: What difference is there between a young lady speaking publicly at the close of school and publicly teaching or preaching the word of God in the church? There is certainly a very decided difference in principle between reading or reciting a piece at the close of school and in teaching or preaching the word of God in a public worshiping assembly of Christians. The latter is certainly condemned in the word of God. There is nothing directly said in the New Testament as to what girls should do in 730 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, schools or what they should not do ; but it is required of Christian parents to bring up their children "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," and it would certainly be safe for all schools run in harmony with the Christian religion to train all who attend them in full harmony with the requirements of the New Testament. It would not only be safe, but would be consistent and in harmony with the New Testament. This is a subject Christian teachers and man- agers of such schools would do well to think about, and not train Christian girls in any custom or habit that might lead and encourage them to do things later that are forbidden in the word of God. WOMEN PRAYING IN PUBLIC. Brother Lipscomb : Is it wrong for women who are members of the church of Christ to pray in the public assembly of the saints? I claim it is as much right for women to pray in public as it is in pri- vate. Was it a practice in apostolic times? Please answer through the Gospel Advocate. Also explain Acts 1: 14; 1 Tim. 5: 5. From the reading of these passages it seems to me that the women prayed in apostolic times in the public assembly of the saints. I cannot see why it is any more wrong for women to pray in public than it is in private. We have very frequently answered this question. Paul says to the Corinthians: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (1 Cor. 14: 34. 35.) That was commanded the church at Corinth. He told Timothy: "Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve ; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman be- ing beguiled hath fallen into transgression ; but she shall be saved through the childbearing, if thev continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety." (1 Tim. 2: 11-15.) This instruction was given to Timothy to be taught wherever he went. The reason given for the law was a general one; hence the law must be general in its character. The scripture referred to (Acts 1: 14) says: "These all [the apostles] continued with one accord in prayer and sup- plication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." Does this mean that these women led in public prayer? Do only those who lead in prayer at church pray? Do not all who kneel pray? If they do BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 731 not pray, they ought not to kneel. To kneel and not pray is to be guilty of false pretense. I have engaged in prayer a thousand times with women, but never had one to lead in prayer. A rule is, we must let one scripture interpret an- other — must interpret them in harmony. To have the women lead in public prayer can never be harmonized with the scriptures quoted above. To let them quietly engage in prayer when the apostles led in public prayer is to har- monize them. That is what was done. The other says: "The widow indeed continueth in sup- plications and prayers night and day." (1 Tim. 5: 5.) Certainly you do not think they led in public prayer night and day. They quietly and at home did it. God made woman modest and quiet. He never intended her to lead in speech or prayer in public assemblies, and she does vio- lence to her nature and the law of God when she does it. On the other hand, she is to give herself to the work of childbearing and raising. In this she can be saved if she conducts herself right. Brother Sewell: The question arose in prayer meeting the other night as to whether a woman should pray in public or not. One brother said that he thought it would be right, but all the rest fought it. I would like for you to give your opinion on the question as to whether it is right according to the book of inspiration — the Bible. This, like all vital questions, must be settled by the word of God. There is no instance on record in the New Testa- ment in which a woman was ever sent out to preach the gospel of Christ or to be in any sense a public teacher or proclaimer in the church. Men were, but women were not. In no mention of public prayer is there any mention of a woman's leading in it. There is not a word commanding a woman to lead in such prayers. This silence of the Bible on these things must of necessity be regarded, or there can be no such thing as unity in the churches. We cannot tell what the Lord wants us to do as service to him, except as he tells us in his word ; and as he has nowhere required that women shall lead in prayer in public assemblies of the church, they surely have no right to do anything of the sort. I know that many try to explain away the positive prohi- bition : "Let the women keep silence in the churches : for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church." Some explain this away in one way ; some, in another. But I do not know any way to so explain it as to ever make it right for women to speak publicly or teach or lead in the public 732 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, prayers of the church. If we could find one command or one example for women to do such things, then we would have to let all such passages modify each other ; but in the absence of such passages, we do not know how to modify such a plain prohibition. This does not mean that women are not to pray at all, nor that they shall not sing, shall not join in the song service, for the whole church is embraced in the command to sing. Women can join in solemn, silent sentiment with the prayer as expressed by the leader, as all the brethren who are present; and the prayer of the brother who leads becomes the prayer of the whole church present. Then women may at all times pray in secret, as well as men, and they certainly ought to do so. But if a very plain modification of the above passage cannot be found, it is certainly safe to let the prohibition stand. Then we are satisfied that a woman may teach a class to itself, so as to make it a private matter, like Priscilla and Aquila. Nor do we see harm for women, where there are no men to lead, to pray, as Lydia and other Jewish women at Philippi. But let us not interfere with what is plainly prohibited. Brother Seivell: We know from 1 Cor. 14: 34 that it is wrong for a woman to be a public proclaimer of the gospel; but is it wrong for women to pray in the church or anywhere else under the orders of the church? (See 1 Cor. 11: 3.) The teaching of the New Testament is always in perfect unity with itself, so that no one passage conflicts with an- other on the same subject. There is not a passage in the New Testament that presents a case in which women were charged to go out and proclaim publicly the gospel of Christ, either in connection with men or alone. Neither is there a case where women were authorized by any church or by inspired men, or in any other way directed, to lead the prayers in churches or elsewhere. Women evidently were in churches where public prayers were engaged in, but there is not an example where a woman led them. Christian women, no doubt, prayed in these assemblies, just as the brethren did who were not leading the prayers. One man led the prayers on occasions of public worship, while all the rest, brethren and sisters, heartily in senti- ment kept up continued mental response with the petitions uttered by the one leading. In this way, or something equivalent to it, did the women pray in the passage named, but not as leaders in the public prayers. In this passage the apostle was discussing the question of wearing long hair by the women as the sign of subjugation on the part of women to their husbands, and not of public prayers by BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 733 women. This passage in no wise conflicts with the passage in chapter 14 on the subject of women speaking publicly in the church. WOMEN CONDUCTING WORSHIP. Brother Lipscomb : There are two persons here who are members of the church of Christ (if there are others, I know nothing of them) — myself and my mother, Mrs. Frank McKean. Realizing our duty of bringing our children up in the way of the Lord, we con- cluded some time back to meet on the Lord's day at one of our resi- dences to worship him. We sent to you for literature which we mean to use. As women are supposed to occupy a modest position in the church, I beg of you to advise us. We would like to partake of the Lord's Supper. Would it be a mistake for us to partake of it with- out a brother to offer thanks, etc.? Now, any advice will surely be appreciated. The best we can do is to publish this and say to those in reach of them: Help those women willing and anxious to labor in the Lord. I do not believe there is anything wrong in these sisters' worshiping together and remembering the sufferings of the Lord in his appointed institution. When Paul was at Philippi, "on the Sabbath day we went forth without the gate by a riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer ; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which were come together." (Acts 16: 13.) The women had met together for prayer. I suppose they prayed. No man is mentioned as being present, save Paul and his companions. There is no more wrong in a woman's giving thanks for the bread and wine than there is leading in prayer with no man present. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Seven sisters and one brother meet regularly on the first day of the week. If it should so happen that the brother could not be present, would it be right and acceptable for the sisters to meet, sing, pray, and partake of the Lord's Supper? It certainly would be right in such a case for the sisters to take the Supper, giving thanks to God for the loaf and the wine. Their remembrance of the Lord's broken body and shed blood is certainly not conditioned upon the pres- ence of a man to lead for them. When a man is present, he certainly is the proper leader in the worship ; but when there is none, let the women worship for themselves in a humble way. E. G. S. WOMEN TEACHING MEN. Brother Seivell: (1) Is it wrong for a woman who is qualified to teach a class composed of men, women, and children? Please explain 1 Tim. 2: 12. (2) Is it wrong for a brother in Christ to lead a sec- tarian Sunday school or prayer meeting where the organ is used? 734 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, (1) I see no harm in a woman's taking a class and teach- ing it in a quiet sort of way. To teach a class off to itself is not teaching the whole church, but is very much like Priscilla helping to teach Apollos "the way of the Lord more perfectly." She and Aquila took him to one side, took him to himself, and taught him the truth, and he went on teaching it. I see very little difference in a woman's taking a class to itself and quietly teaching it. If a woman cannot teach that way, we would not know where she can teach. We think many good opportunities to teach the word of God are lost by opposing women's quietly teaching classes. (2) But for a brother to lead a sectarian Sunday school or prayer meeting, and that with an organ, is a very dif- ferent thing. If he teaches sectarianism, he has denied the faith and espoused error. If he teaches the plain truth of God's word, the bosses of that Sunday school will very quickly put him out of his job. So no permanent good can result in either case. The only way to success is to stand openly for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Nothing is gained for truth by compromising with error. Men always come out best in the end by standing openly and firmly for truth. WOMEN PREACHING. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: The apostle Paul, in his first let- ter to the church of God at Corinth, says: "Let your women keep si- lence in the churches." Are we to understand by this that women are not permitted to preach the gospel of Christ? We will suppose a case. We have a well-informed lady in our midst; she is thrown off in a community where the gospel has never been preached; she preaches the gospel, persons hear, believe, and want to obey; she im- merses them and sets them to work after the apostolic order. Would this be allowable? We have no direct account in the New Testament of women's going and preaching the gospel. God always called men for that kind of business. In Acts 8: 4 we have the expression: "Therefore they that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word." Some claim that this passage includes women. If we had accounts else- where of women going out and preaching, this would be a very reasonable conclusion ; but in the absence of plain cases where women are mentioned as preaching, we can see no evidence in this expression. We can never establish prin- ciples by supposing cases. So far as the work done in such a case as above supposed is concerned, if the persons heart- ily obeyed the gospel, it would certainly be all right to them. The validity of the gospel and of baptism does not depend BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 735 upon the administrator. But whether women, according to the New Testament, should go out to do that kind of work or not, is a very different question. As we have no exam- ple of the kind, the safe way is not to venture upon it. Building upon the silence of the Bible is a very unsafe precedent in any matter. If public preaching were the proper work for women, God certainly would have made the matter plain, would have given us both precept and ex- ample for it, so that we would have been left in no uncer- tainty in regard to the matter. Paul speaks of women helping him in the gospel, but does not say they helped him to publicly proclaim the gospel to the world. Again, in his letter to Titus he requires that the aged women be teachers of good things, but immediately gives their sphere of teac 1 - - ing by adding: "That they may teach young women to be sober, to love their husbands," etc. This has nothing in it about public speaking before the world. Woman has a wonderful work to perform in the church of God, and ex- erts a powerful influence for good in her own private sphere ; but if she is to go into the pulpit to preach publicly, the word of God has failed to make plain that part of the Lord's will. A few devoted Christian women can build up the cause of truth in almost any neighborhood or community by talk- ing privately to their neighbors and getting them ready to hear the gospel ; and by the time* they are ready to hear, some man will come along to preach the gospel to them and baptize them. The Lord will send one at the proper time. Instances have occurred in which one Christian woman liv- ing in a community for a time has opened the way for preaching the word, and men have fallen in and preached for and baptized the people until congregations have been built up. The woman was the prime mover, but did not do the public preaching. This, we think, is in accordance with the New Testament order. E. G. S. WOMEN ASKING QUESTIONS. Brother Lipscomb: May women ask questions in the Bible class and not violate the following command? "Let your women keep si- lence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home : for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." We do not think that she violates the command either asking or answering questions if she does it in a modest, becoming manner. D. L. 736 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, WOMEN ADMINISTERING THE LORD'S SUPPER. Brother Lipscomb : Is it scriptural for a sister to administer the Lord's Supper when no brother is present? All the administering the Supper is to give thanks for it, partake of it, and pass it to one another. All idea of formality and official authority connected with it is of man, not of God. Nothing is taught about women attending to it when men are not present. Men ought to be present; but my opinion is, when they are not, women alone may do it. Why should women be deprived of the blessings of service because men refuse to obey God? WOMEN TEACHING IN THE SUNDAY SCHOOL. Brother Lipscomb : I would be glad to have some information on the subject of women's speaking or teaching in the church. Do they have the right to be teachers in the Sunday school or not? If they do not, I would be glad to have all the information that you could give me. "As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches : for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church." (1 Cor. 14: 34, 35.) I could not write that in plainer, simpler language. I would be foolish to attempt it. Read also* 1 Tim. 2 : 8-15. Yet women have the right to teach those who know less than themselves. Priscilla and Aquila taught Apollos. (Acts 18: 24-26.) So I am sure that a woman may teach the Bible to old or young, male or female, at the meetinghouse, at home, at a neighbor's house, on Sunday or Monday or any other day of the week, if they know less than she does, if she will do it in a quiet, modest, womanly way. I have seen wrongs done by women in a Sunday school ; I have seen wrongs done by them at home, in the parlor, the dining room, the kitchen. This does not mean she cannot do right in all of these places. She can do right in the Sunday school. Is it right for women to teach in the Sunday school? Yes, we think so, if they teach the truth. They are often especially fitted for that work. We know of nothing that would forbid it. Aged women are commanded to be teach- ers of good things, and we think younger women may do likewise. Women worked in the churches anciently, and we can see nothing forbidding it now. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 737 WOMEN LABORING IN THE GOSPEL. Brother Lipscomb : Please explain Phil. 4: 3, 8 through the Gospel Advocate. They both mean just what they say. Some women had labored with Paul in the gospel. Priscilla had done it. Hundreds of others had. Every Christian woman must be a laborer in the gospel. She ought to be such in a modest, womanly way. We never heard of any making public speeches with Paul. I do not think any woman labors in the gospel that makes public speeches. She is working contrary to the gospel. A woman as a public speaker may create a little sensation and excitement for a time. It does harm in the long run. As evidence of this, where women speak publicly, religion has least hold on the people. Verse 8 tells plainly to follow what is good, honest, lovely, etc. But by what rule shall we judge? What is lovely and of good report to one is not to another ; so Paul in the next verse gives the rule by which we are to determine what is good and true and lovely. 'Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do." So Paul's teaching and example was the standard by which they were to judge, and no one is authorized to do anything save what Paul taught by precept or example. Governed by this rule, we will all think it a shame for a woman to speak in the public assembly. Yet every woman can be a laborer as those in the days of Paul in the gospel. She can labor with her own children first and her neighbors and neighbors' children. But our modern women think it is doing nothing to save their own and their neighbors' chil- dren. They go abroad, attend conventions, and let their children go to ruin. Paul's way is best, because his way is God's way. WOMEN, AS WELL AS MEN, MUST CONTRIBUTE. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: As woman's work in the church is being investigated, I would ask one question: Is it right for all the sisters to contribute on the first day of the week in the Lord's treas- ury? I have heard sisters say: "Husband contributes, and that ex- cuses me." Do you think it does? It is written: "Let every one of you lay by him in store." If every one, then none are left out. I want to see this part of woman's work in operation, if possible, before I die. None are too poor to remember the widow's mite. It seems to me our sister answers these questions her- self; at least refers to the scripture that fully answers them. Every one, wife as well as husband, was required to bring an offering. According to ability it was required. The little of the poor is as much for all God's purposes as the much of the rich. Every woman and child should give 24 738 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, according to ability. A woman ought not to be so swal- lowed up in her husband as to have nothing distinct from him. He cannot serve God for her ; he cannot pray for her ; he cannot fast for her; he cannot sing for her, nor com- mune for her, nor believe for her, nor repent for her ; none the more can he contribute for her. Every one must serve God for himself or herself. D. L. WOMEN, WHAT "THOSE" DID IN PHIL. 4: 3. Brother Sewell: Please tell me what those women did as spoken of by Paul in Phil. 4: 3. The passage is this : "And I entreat thee also, true yoke- fellow, help those women which labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellow labor- ers, whose names are in the book of life." The passage does not tell what they did, only that they labored with him in the gospel. It may mean they assisted him in some financial way, by furnishing him a home and his living while he preached the gospel, as Lydia certainly did for a time; or it may mean that some of those sisters at Phi- lippi became teachers of the gospel in a quiet sort of way, as thousands of devout women do now — teaching the gos- pel to their children, their neighbors, in the family and so- cial circles of life. Godly, Christian women can and do accomplish much good in this way and lead many souls to Christ. But it cannot mean that they preached publicly, as he did himself; for he forbids women to speak in the church, in public assemblies. Women are, therefore, not permitted to speak, to preach to the public assemblies of the church ; but there are many things that earnest, good women can do in a modest, quiet, social way that do im- mense good in advancing and building up the cause of truth, and in some of these ways the women of Philippi labored with Paul in the gospel. But whenever women get into the pulpit, before a public, promiscuous assembly, they violate the positive command of God through Paul. These women did not do this. WOMEN AND EXPEDIENTS. Brother Lipscomb: Please explain 1 Cor. 14: 34, 35; 1 Tim. 2: 11, 12. Does the apostle mean that women should neither speak nor ask questions in the congregations now? Was it not meant only for the time at which he spoke? Do these commands apply to unmarried women? Should not unmarried women be allowed to preach? Do you not think it allowable to use human expedients when they are harmless and we see that they work well? I know no reason why it was wrong for women to speak or pray in public in the days of the Savior and right for BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 739 them to do it now. It is true that the customs of society, to some extent, determine what is right and wrong in some cases. A woman ought not to do anything that would de- stroy her reputation for modesty and virtue, unless some plain command of God was involved ; that ought to be obeyed at all hazards. Woman's work in life is to bear and train children. No higher, holier, more sacred work has ever been committed to human beings. This is her chiefest work in life. If there were not a passage of scrip- ture on the subject except to indicate this, it would forbid her engaging in any work incompatible with this. Public speaking, engaging in any of the callings of life that de- mand a constant strain on the mind, a constant anxiety and care in reference to the public affairs of church or State, an excitement of the ambitions for place and power, not only destroy her taste for and cause her to neglect the home and family duties, the duties of wife and mother, but such a strain on the mind destroys the ability for childbearing. I have before me now a statistical article by an eminent New England physician, showing that the Puritan race, owing to the habits growing out of the aspiration of their women for public places and their consequent barrenness in childbearing. is threatened with annihilation. God intends to convert the world, to some extent, through the multiplication of those faithful to him and the dimin- ishing of those not obedient to him. This being true, among his children, women who most nearly fulfill the mission and position God intends them to hold will be the most prolific childbearers. A position or calling in life that militates against childbearing and rearing is not the one God designed for women. Unmarried women ought not to follow a course of life that unfits them for marriage and maternity. I believe it is wrong for woman to engage in any work or calling that is not in harmony with her life work, and that these passages of scripture are to be translated in har- mony with these truths.. Exceptional cases in the Jewish nation arose when some woman of strong faith was di- vinely called to a public work. I would not say no occasion could arise that would justify a woman's speaking in pub- lic. As a rule, it is wrong, hurtful to the moral, religious, and physical well-being of the human family. There is certainly no harm in using a harmless thing. But how do we know in religion when a thing is harmless and when it works well? Are we to make our judgment the standard to determine when things are harmless or when they work well ? That itself is to set aside the word 740 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, of God, to reject it as the standard of right and substitute our own judgment instead; that is to reject God's law, is to be guilty of treason against God. Saul thought it was harmless to change the law to slay the cattle and oxen in Gilgal as a sacrifice to honor God instead of in the country of the Amalekites, as God or- dered. He thought it would work well, give God much more glory and honor to have a sacrifice to God than to have them a stench on the earth; but God thought other- wise. The pedobaptists think infant sprinkling harmless and that it works well. The orthodox all think the "mourning bench" harmless and that it works well. To conclude a departure from God's law is harmless shows that the heart has lost its respect for God and his law. Nothing works well that causes man to rely on human expedients instead of divine appointments; nothing works well that weans man away from God's ways, God's ap- pointments. The idea that we can work through human expedients arises from a feeling that we are not dependent upon God. God does not work through human expedients. He may overrule them to the destruction of those using them, but he does not work through them. For man to work through them is to work without God's help. For him to substitute them for God's approved ways is to drive God from our help. To work through God's appointments is to trust God, to work with God, to declare a dependence upon God. To use human expedients is to trust man, man's wisdom, is to disown and defy God, and always comes from a lack of dependence upon God or an ignorance of his ways. The great end of religion is to make men obey, submit to, honor God. No dovetailing human expedients into the worship or work of God has a tendency to make man trust God, depend upon or obey him, but the opposite. Hence it is all wrong. Certain things may be harmless as mere means to be used. Where God has ordained no means of doing, man may use such means as are placed in his reach ; but this is not using them in the work or worship ordained by God, but as personal means for our own convenience or comfort. In the work and worship appointed by God he has pro- vided all things needful and helpful, and he who teaches to alter, change, amend, or substitute is as guilty of sacrilege as when Uzza touched the ark of God with unhallowed hands. It is bad to educate ourselves in the direction of presumptuous tinkering with God's order. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 741 WOMEN, "PLAITED HAIR," "GOLD," ETC. Brother Sewell: (1) On the first day of the week, when we meet to take the Lord's Supper, are we considered the church? If so, what does 1 Cor. 14: 34, 35 mean? How can a woman teach and be silent? They are "not permitted ... to speak [to utter words, to talk]. And if they will learn anything [anything about what?], let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak [to ut- ter words, to talk] in the church." (2) Is it a sin for women to wear plaited hair, gold rings, and pearls? If so, why do preachers' and elders' wives, and nearly all professing Christianity, wear such? (1) Yes; when a congregation of Christians meet to- gether to take the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week, it is certainly the church met together in the very sense of the passage referred to in 1 Cor. 14 : 34, 35, so far as the requirements and prohibitions of women in the mat- ter of speaking in the church are concerned. On all such occasions, when assembled for the purpose stated, women are required to keep silent. On such occasions all the church is together in one body, and whatever is said and done on such occasions is to the whole church, and in these meetings women are to keep silent. But in many of our churches they have another meeting on the first day of the week for the avowed purpose of teaching the word of God to the young and any others that will engage in these les- sons. At Tenth Street Church, in Nashville, part of the members and as many others as will meet together at ten o'clock, and after singing, the reading of the lesson, and prayer, the different classes take their places in different parts of the house, so that each class is entirely to itself as a class, and the lesson is gone over by each class and the teacher, just as if each class w T ere in a house to itself. Some of these classes are taught by sisters and some by brethren. But the sisters who teach these classes are as private in their work as if they were teaching at home. Most of one hour is spent in these lessons, and for the one purpose of teaching and studying the word of God. But even in this meeting, when all are together in one body, no woman makes a speech or public talk. They only talk in classes, when separate from all the rest, and are thus as private as was Priscilla when she and Aquila taught Apollos (Acts 18: 26) ; and we regard this work just as proper as was hers. We do not regard this sort of work the same as when all the church is together and worshiping in a body. When the hour nears its close, the class work is closed, and at eleven o'clock the church assembles in one body and the regular service begins. In this service not a woman says a word, except in singing. We think all this is in harmony with the word of God ; and we think that when brethren 742 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, oppose the teaching service till they break it up, as is some- times done, they are fanatics, laboring under a blind zeal for the establishment of human opinions and hobbies. If churches can find enough competent brethren that will teach all the classes, that is all well ; but that is seldom the case ; and when that fails and women teach classes, we think that all right alsQ. As to what women should ask their hus- bands, we suppose anything they want to learn in the way of practical duty and privilege in the matter of Christianity. (2) Regarding this matter, Paul, after expressing his desire that men pray in every place, "lifting up holy hands, without wrath and disputing," adds : "In like manner, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shame- facedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; but (which becometh women pro- fessing godliness) through good works." (1 Tim. 2: 9, 10.) This is as plain as it can be made, and comes from God ; and women ought to heed it, whether they be the wives of preachers or elders or not wives at all ; and if thev do not, they will certainly be held responsible before God. Nothing should be worn by either women or men simply as a worldly show or to make a gaudy display. Christians that want to make such displays need to take more lessons against worldly-mindedness and in humble-mindedness, and on how to be more spiritual-minded, both in the sight of God and man. WORD, HOW THE, A "DISCERNER OF THOUGHTS." Brother Lipscomb : Please give your views on Heb. 4 : 12. In what way or in what sense is the word "a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart?" Please give your views on Rom. 9: 11, 18- 23; 11: 7,26; Eph. 1: 11, 18, 19; Acts 13: 48. I think it means the word of God excites and reveals the thoughts and intents of the heart in affording a rule of right of such nature as to call out the intents and purposes of the heart to the person himself and then to others. Rom. 9: 11 means before Jacob and Esau were born God selected Jacob as the one he loved and through whom the blessing to the world would come. Verse 22 means God desired to make his power known to the world, and to do this he en- dured for a long while and with much forbearance the re- bellious Jews and Gentiles as vessels of wrath worthy of destruction. Then he brought it upon them in such a way that all could see his disposition and power to destroy those who rebelled against him. Verse 23 shows he desired to make known his forbearance and love to those who obeyed him, both Jew and Gentile, and in Christ Jesus he was do- BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 743 ing this. Rom. 11 : 7 means Israel sought the blessings of God, but did not obtain it, because they sought it not through faith in God ; but those whom God chose, both Jews and Gentiles, obtained it. God chose those who obeyed him. In verse 26 all Israel means those who believed in him as Abraham did ; they constitute the true children of Abraham, and will be saved. Those of fleshly Israel and of the Gentiles who refuse to believe in him will be hard- ened and lost. Eph. 1: 11 says: In whom (Christ) we (believing Jesus) were made heirs, having been appointed in previous ages of the world according to the purpose of God, who works out all things according to the decisions of his own will. Verses 18, 19 say he prayed that the eyes of the heart, or the spiritual understanding, might be enlight- ened to understand what hopes were involved in their being called, and they should understand the greatness of the power he exercised in behalf of those who believed, and that power in our behalf would be exercised according to the rules by which his power in accomplishing other things was used. Acts 13 : 48 means all who were of such a frame of mind to accept Christ as the Savior believed on him. Persons with a certain frame of mind or disposition of heart will accept Christ. All these passages are much bet- ter understood by reading carefully their contexts. WORDS, WHAT ARE "IDLE?" Brother Sewell: Please explain Matt. 12: 36: "Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." What does the word idle mean when used in this way? The next verse also adds: "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. " James calls the tongue an unruly member. It brings peo- ple into many difficulties, and needs to be continually con- trolled by the word of God. The word idle in this passage evidently means useless and even injurious speech, words out of harmony with the pure character the Christian reli- gion requires people to form. Paul says to Christians: "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how to answer each one." (Col. 4: 6.) This is a very expressive passage, and shows how careful Christians should be as to the character of their speech, their whole conversation, and see that they say nothing to any one out of harmony with the pure and acceptable will of God. Again, he says: "Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth, but such as is good for edifying as the need may be, that it may give grace to them that hear." (Eph. 4: 29.) These passages show that all Christians 744 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, should forever be on their guard as to the character of their conversation with their fellow men. Some Christians seem never to think or talk of anything that is noble or dignified. They seem to be fleshly-minded, and talk of fleshly things — things that are corrupting both to themselves and those to whom they talk. They mind only earthly things. All such conversation is corrupting, degrading, idle, useless, ruinous. Men love to talk about things they think most of and about. Hence the great importance of being spiritual-minded — think about the purity and dignity of things divine and things that will be edifying one to another. It is all-impor- tant that Christians should study the conversation of Christ and see if they can find anything low, fleshly, and degrading or demoralizing in his conversation at any time or under any circumstances, and then make him their exemplar and follow his steps. There are many who are recognized as Christians whose conversation will condemn them at the last day. Let all, therefore, be especially guarded and care- ful as to their speech. WORKING AND EATING. There is a man in our neighborhood who married a Christian lady, the daughter of a Christian man. They have been married about thirteen years. They have been assisted by the father of the woman ever since they first married. They have had no misfortune of any account. The woman economizes and works well, considering the means she has at hand. The man is stout, able-bodied as an ordinary man. He has no management, provides nothing. The woman does the providing as best she can. The man reads newspapers a great deal of his time, and whistles and hums, when he does not know where the next meal will come from. Now they are in absolutely destitute circumstances and want help. What would you do about the matter if you were in the place of the woman's father? I take it the man is not a member of the church. If he was, the law of the Lord is : "If a man will not work, neither shall he eat." This was a command Paul gave in person to the church at Thessalonica, and then repeated it in 2 Thess. 3 : 10. It is wrong to feed a member of the church that will not work. There is certainly no great obligation resting on us to feed a man not a Christian who will not work. Then I would try to so arrange as to feed my daugh- ter and tell the man to work or do some healthy fasting. This would be right in the sight of God. WORKS, "THE FIRST." Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In Rev. 2: 5 we have this lan- guage: "Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and re- pent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent." BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 745 What are the first works here referred to? I wish to state a case, then ask you some questions. A member of the church had a croquet party at his house yesterday. At the party was one elder and one deacon, with their children. The players were the elder, the brother at whose house the party was, and two young sisters. This brother at whose house the party was is held in high esteem. Is playing croquet a Christian duty? If so, ought not all the brethren and sis- ters to engage in it? Can they neglect it and be blameless? Ought not the elders (old men) to be examples for good to the younger mem- bers? The first ivorks spoken of mean the works from which they had fallen and for which he tells them to repent, and that was their first love. They had left that off, had neg- lected it, and he lets them know that unless they repent he will remove the candlestick out of its place — will bring to naught the church at Ephesus. No man can live the Chris- tian without true and genuine love to God and love to his brethren and even his enemies. Paul, in 1 Cor. 13, shows that without charity, which means love, all things else that a Christian may do will be in vain. As Christians, we should all heed the warning and see that we love God with all the heart and strength, and that we learn to love the work that he has required of us. Croquet parties are mere worldly amusements, and many good Christians and some people of the world think it is inconsistent with the Christian religion, and on this ac- count those who practice it wound the feelings of some of their brethren and cast a stumbling-block in the way of the world, and in these regards certainly do harm. No Chris- tian ever made himself or any one else more devoted to Christian duty nor to love the Lord more by such worldly amusements. To-day the very best that can be said is: It is of doubtful propriety so far as Christians are con- cerned. Everybody knows it is not a Christian duty ; while, on the other hand, everybody knows there is a safe side to it, and that is to let it alone. It is better to let everything alone that is even of doubtful propriety ; and it is perfectly certain that the overseers of a congregation can set a better example for their flock than by engaging in croquet parties. All Christians ought to strive to get so much of the love of God in their souls that it will crowd out such worldly amuse- ments. In things of this sort all ought to be like the preacher who said his religion gave him "no dance." God has given us enough to do to keep us busy if we will do it, and by so doing we prepare ourselves for immortality. E. G. S. 746 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, WORLD, WAS THE, CREATED OUT OF NOTHING? Do you regard that the Bible teaches that this world was created out of nothing? The primitive, proper use of the word create is to bring into being, to make something out of nothing. Its second- ary meaning is to give a new nature, character; to shape or to change one nature, or shape, into a different one. This is more correctly the use of the term mahe, or shape ; yet the distinction is not kept up in the Scriptures. The word create is frequently used to indicate a transforma- tion, a reshaping into something of a different nature, use, form, and character. Without laying any particular stress upon it, we have been accustomed to regard its use in Gen. 1 : 1 and corresponding passages as in the original and true sense. This is fully as consonant with all ideas of reason or probability as to suppose the eternity of matter existing under innumerable changes. Difficulties on this subject arise only in man's presumptuous claims that he has dis- covered laws that have limited the divine power. In other words, man assumes that he is wise enough to know what God can and cannot do where God has imposed no limita- tions on himself or has revealed none to men. The expres- sion, in the beginning, as used in the Bible, clearly refers to a period long antedating the present order of affairs as measured by men's existence. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him." (John 1: 1-3.) Here the same expression is used, and clearly refers to a period an- tedating the present cosmos, or order. As to how long that period described as chaos continued to exist before it was developed into cosmos, the Bible gives no clue, and science (so called) is a reckless guesser. We do not understand, either, that absolute chaos ruled ; but it was an order not in harmony with the present cosmos. When the language of the Bible is rightly understood, we believe it is literally true; and no fact has ever been or ever will be discovered that contradicts it. Science used to be knowledge classi- fied. It was cautious, long at investigations, painstaking, slow at reaching conclusions. These conclusions were stereotyped and unchangeable. Now science (so called) is the wild and reckless, ever-changing guesses, upon inade- quate ground, of men lacking in all the elements of charac- ter essential to true scientific research. No Bible truth has anything to fear from science, only people must be pa- tient for true Science to issue her decisions. Science is never in a hurry, nor does it court popular eclat. BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 747 WORLD, HOW LONG THE, CREATED BEFORE MAN. Brother Lipscomb: Please explain how long the world was created before man was created. Some claim that the world was created thousands of years before man was created. I have no means of knowing how long the world was cre- ated before man was created. The Bible does not tell. It only says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," and that afterwards he created the plants and the animals, and, last of all, man. But it gives no intima- tion how long the earth was created before these other things were. The same expression, in the beginning, is used in John 1 : 1-3 : "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . All things were made by him." In this passage it shows in the beginning dates back of the creation of the world ; for the Word, who became the Christ, was with God and afterwards created the world. Men claim to be able to prove it existed a great while before man was created by the strata and other formations of the earth; but I have studied these theories with some care and must say that the conclusions are unreliable. WORLD, WHAT, IN MATT. 28: 20. Please notice Eph. 4: 30: "Grieve not the holy Spirit of God." Also, Matt 28: 20: "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." What world is meant? The present order of affairs, we think, is meant. We do not understand it as implying the miraculous powers of the Spirit should be with the disciples ; but the miracles should show it of God, then he would promise to be with them to the end .of the world. After his fixed laws were made known, he acted no longer through miracles, but through the laws. The Spirit works through the law, and we grieve him by refusing to obey the law. The Spirit gave the law. The law is the teaching of the Spirit. WORLD, HOW THE, PEOPLED AFTER CAIN. Brother Lipscomb: How was the world peopled after Cain was banished? Whom did Cain marry, or of what race did Cain marry? Of what race did his brothers and sisters intermarry? Our guess would be that Adam and Eve had at least nine hundred children born to them. They were vigorous and prolific, and may have frequently been blessed with twins, and largely increased this number. Adam lived till near the time of Noah's birth. Each of these children, vigorous and prolific, probably was the parent of as many more. 748 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, The family of Adam before his death must have been a myriad of people. When Cain went into the land of Nod, they, doubtless, numbered thousands. Adam's children, of course, intermarried, as was done among the patriarchs down to the days of Abraham. Abraham and Sarah had the same father. Hence, he said to Abimelech: "Sarah is my sister." The great trouble in these matters is that people consider that all the children and descendants of Adam are men- tioned in the Bible, while only the chosen line from which the Savior sprung is mentioned. Abel was the chosen line. He was slain, and then Seth was born after the death of Abel. We presume Cain is mentioned only because he slew Abel. So of succeeding generations. Only those are men- tioned which came in contact with the line of the Savior. They were grown, and numbers of others may have been older than they. We put a construction on things of this kind and create the difficulties ourselves. We judge all things by our experience, and so form our ideas of what is common and proper and make no allowance for different surroundings. D. L. WORLD, DEALING IN INSTITUTIONS OF THE. Brother Lipscomb : Is it wrong for a Christian to be a stockholder in a banking institution which charges more than the legal rate of interest? Is it wrong for a Christian to be a bookkeeper or a cashier in a bank of this description? Is it wrong for a Christian to deposit money in a bank of this kind? Usury, as we call it, is unlawful interest. As it is used in the Bible, it means any increase or pay for the use of anything. Hire for a horse or rent for land is as much usury as pay for the use of money. The Bible prohibits taking usury only from the poor. But the Scriptures com- mand Christians to be subject to "the powers that be." The civil authorities are "the powers that be." The laws of Tennessee say you shall not charge over six per cent per annum. To violate the law of the land is to violate the law of God and is sin, and any participation in or encourage- ment of this is sin. All business with a man or an institu- tion that does wrong is not wrong. If so, you must go out of this world. In trading with them, it may profit them; but if it is not done to help it on, it is not necessarily sin- ful. If a man borrows money and pays usurious interest to pay a debt he owes, I do not think he sins, although it may profit the usurious lender. So if a man deposits with a bank for his own good, although it may profit the bank, it is not necessarily a sin on his part. So I would say it is BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 749 sinful to violate the laws by charging more than lawful in- terest. His doing it through a company or corporation does not lessen the sin. It is, sinful to any way so partici- pate in it as to encourage and partake of the wrong. It is not wrong to deal with one who does wrong for our good, even if it incidentally helps the usurious lender. I think these are correct principles, and each can apply it to him- self and his course. WORM, THE, THAT "DIES NOT." Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: What is meant in the last verse of the last chapter of Isaiah? The same occurs in Mark 9 three times. The verse in Isaiah is as follows : "And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have trans- gressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched ; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." These passages plainly have reference to the final doom of the wicked, and show beyond a peradven- ture that their punishment will be without end. The world is becoming full of infidelity in all its varied forms, from atheism down through all the varied forms of materialism, soul sleeping, spiritualism, universalism, etc. And in a large majority of instances where men disbelieve the Bi- ble, or claim to do so, it is because they are unwilling to yield themselves to its requirements and want an excuse for not doing so. In such cases you might about as well talk to the wind as to argue with them on the subject. They are infidels of choice, and infidels they will be. The use of the passage by the Savior in Mark leaves not a doubt but that it refers to the future punishment of the wicked, and that the punishment is everlasting. Materialists, soul sleepers, and other forms of unbelief have long tried to take the idea of eternal punishment of the wicked out of such passages ; but they have never yet made a respectable showing in the matter. E. G. S. "WORSHIP" AND "SERVICE." Brother Lipscomb: Will you please explain the difference between the service of God and the worship of God? Can we not consistently use such helps as Sunday-school literature, maps, and charts in our Sunday school and at the same time condemn all innovations in the worship, such as organs, etc.? Worship more specially refers to praise, prayer, adora- tion, and thanksgiving; service, to obedience to the law of God in carrying out his will in the world. It has always been difficult to draw the line between service and worship. 750 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, It is especially difficult under Christ, inasmuch as all service must spring from faith in and love to God, and so becomes an expression of praise and honor to him. The same rule governs both — that is, we must both worship and serve God in his own appointments, and not through man's inventions. What might be termed mere aids to either worship or serv- ice is allowable. A hymn book is an aid to the service of song. A printed Bible is an aid to the study of God's will. This is worship. The steamship and railroad are aids to the spread of the gospel. It is allowable to use them. An organ is the introduction of a different element into the worship, not authorized by Christ or the apostles. It really does not aid the song. The singing is just the same with it as without it. The sound of the organ may drown the discordant notes or displace the song. It does not change it. A Sunday school, as a human organization distinct from the church, is wrong. To teach the old or young by read- ing and studying the word of God, asking and answering questions, has full divine authority and sanction. It has the sanction of the word of God much more fully than the ordinary textuary sermonizing has. The lesson leaf and map are nothing but a comment upon the word of God, making explanations of words, allusions — historical, geo- graphical, and literary — and comparing scripture with scripture so as to bring out its true meaning. This is the true object of all preaching or teaching, vocal or written. A man or a teacher gets up to preach. His work is to ex- plain the terms, the allusions, the circumstances under which it is spoken, and to compare one passage with an- other so as to bring out and make clear the meaning of the scripture. This is proper preaching. This is what is done in a commentary. This is what is done in the lesson leaves. If oral comment on scripture to make it plain is right, so is written. A human addition to the worship or work is one thing, and always a wrong thing. A help to get at the work or worship is wholly a different thing, concerning which God has given no direction, and man is left to use such facilities as are offered to enable him to do the work. God has or- dained his church, with its God-ordained organs, as the ground and pillar of the truth. It is to maintain, support, vindicate the truth. When man pronounces this ineffi- cient and tries to invent a substitute for it, he is presump- tuous before God. When God ordains, we should sing and make melody in our hearts to the Lord ; and if we add life- less instruments, we are guilty of presumption before God. When the church of God's own appointment calls the BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 751 young and old together to study God's word by reading and asking and answering questions, it does God's will. When those who study and understand the word of God by voice or pen explain that word to others, they do the will of God. It seems that this distinction is plain. D. L. WORSHIP, "FAMILY." Where the father of a family refuses to have family worship after being often entreated by his wife to do so, and where the wife feels that such worship must be held in order to rear their children right and to honor God, is it wrong for the wife and mother to conduct the worship? I not only think it would not be wrong, but I believe it is the mother's duty in such circumstances to take her chil- dren quietly to a private room, to read the Bible and teach it to them, and to pray with and for them. It is the duty of both the father and the mother to teach the word of God to their children, to pray with and for them, and to bring them up "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." If one of them fails or refuses to do his or her part in the work, it lays the other under the double obligation to do it, lest the children be neglected and lost. Do it modestly and quietly, but do it faithfully and persistently. Your chil- dren are entitled to this training and instruction at your hands. WORSHIP, CALLING ON BAPTISTS AND METHODISTS TO TAKE PART IN. Brother Lipscomb : Is it in harmony with God's word to call on a Baptist or a Methodist to take a leading part in the worship? We find neither Baptists nor Methodists nor modern services in the Bible. We do find sectarians and partisans in contact with the worship of God. And while Christ and the apostles clearly and plainly taught them the will of God and the error of their way, we do not remember a sin- gle instance in which they objected to those persons unit- ing in or taking part in the worship of God. Can any one remember such an example? If so, I would be glad to hear of it. The one great leading purpose of God with reference to the human family was and is to make and keep them one — a united, harmonious band of brethren, working to- gether for the good and well-being of all. This would be a happy and joyful condition for all. It would go far to- ward changing this earth into heaven. To bring about and maintain this union among men, he required that they should be one in and with God, the unchangeable, the "I am that I am." It seems to me the Spirit of God and the 752 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, gospel ought to look after, find, and encourage the good that all have, and, with that good as a leaven of righteous- ness, to lead on to a higher and more perfect good. Chris- tians ought to stand firm for the truth they hold, and seek every possible opportunity to worship with and teach all worthy to be taught. That was the way of Jesus and the apostles. It ought to be our way. When another leads in prayer, we do not join with him in unscriptural prayer. We unite with him only in that which is scriptural. Let us pray to please God. Let us be firm for the truth and help our fellow men to a better life. If they pray for things not pleasing to God, let us kindly and plainly tell them and teach them the right way. We cannot drive men to God ; we must win them through love and kindness. Let us get closer to our fellow men and not drive them from us. WORSHIPING TOGETHER, WHITE AND COLORED. Brother Lipscomb: While I was holding a meeting at Cedar Grove, Humphreys County, Tenn., a little girl, one-eighth negro and about fourteen years of age, came forward, confessed Christ, and was baptized. Now, as there is no negro congregation in that community, where should she worship? Should the white members fellowship her, or should she be deprived of worshiping God? I have never found any sanction or authority in the Scriptures for different churches in the same community for different races of people. In the days of Jesus and the apostles the antipathy and antagonism existing between the Jews and the Gentiles were as great as that now ex- isting between the white race and the negro race. I find no intimation or suggestion of separate congregations for the two antagonistic races. On the other hand, it is distinctly stated that his mission was to make of the two races one body in Jesus. I believe that is the only correct course to follow in any and all other ages. The race antagonisms would sometimes cause difficulties in the churches. Every difficulty rightly settled helps a church; every one avoided or wrongly treated injures it. The negro should have learned modesty and deference in the church, and the whites should have learned forbearance and helpfulness to- ward the negro, and they ought to live together in one church. Whatever we do to the least disciple of Christ, we do to him. If we refuse to recognize as a brother or sister the most despised of his disciples, we refuse to own him. I doubt if one who refuses to fellowship and encour- age and help one who is his disciple because he or she is of another race can be saved. "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (Matt. 25: 40.) As we treat the lowliest and BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 753 humblest of his children, we treat him. If we refuse to fellowship Christ or to treat him as a brother or a sister, can we hope to be saved ? WORSHIPING WITH THOSE IN WHOM WE HAVE NO CONFIDENCE. Brother Lipscomb : Is it right for one who professes to be a Chris- tian to meet and worship with a man (brother) in whom he has no confidence? Is a church in the discharge of its duty when it puts men forward as congregational teachers who are not of good report? A brother frequently loses confidence in his brother when the fault is his own instead of his brother's. He frequently is influenced more by his own prejudices and bitter feelings than by the acts of others. It is harder to forgive one we have injured than one who has injured us. A brother ought to be very careful that he does not do a brother in- justice when he loses confidence in him. I would have more confidence in the unprejudiced judgment of my brethren than in my own when I was excited by bitter feelings. It is not a good indication when a man sets up his own judg- ment concerning a man against that of his whole brethren. I presume if no one ever met and worshiped save when he did it with those in whose character he had full confidence, few would ever meet and worship. The Savior worshiped with Judas. Few are worse than he, none better than the Savior. The overseer of a congregation ought to be of good re- port of those without. Still, any member of a church has the right to exhort and admonish his brethren. But few pass through the world who never excite reproach, justly or unjustly; but one who is not generally esteemed by a com- munity, not without serious reproach, should not be put forward as the teacher of the congregation. A person who is excited by personal animosity is not a competent judge always in reference to the character a man bears in the community. We ought to try to moderate our feelings by a just judgment and learn to judge others with kindness, knowing with what judgment we judge we shall be judged. We all have faults, and we must not lose confidence in a man because he has faults and sometimes does wrong. If we are limited to perfect teachers, we will have none. D. L. WRATH, HOW BY NATURE CHILDREN OF. Brother Sewell: Please explain Eph. 2: 3 — "by nature children of wrath." If you take the first three verses of that chapter together, the meaning is plain. Here are the three verses: "And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your 754 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, trespasses and sins, wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience ; among whom we also all once lived in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as the rest." (Revised Version.) The apparent trouble that comes up regarding this passage and others of like nature arises from the false theory that is propagated by theolo- gians. This is the theory of hereditary total depravity, which is that Adam's sins were transmitted to the whole human race, and that, therefore, all are born sinners. If this theory is true, then all that are born into the world are sinners and under the wrath of God till convicted and con- verted by an abstract operation of the Holy Spirit. Pedo- baptists claim that when they baptize infants, this sin of depravity is taken away, and that they can then serve God and be saved at last by faithfulness when they become re- sponsible. This class of theologians apply the expression, were by nature the children of wrath, to all who have not been relieved from this depravity that they say inheres in all till they have been regenerated. But the trouble is, this claim of total hereditary depravity is nowhere expressed or taught in the word of God. It is merely a human opinion. The word nature in this passage has no reference to any sort of inability to serve God, but to the general practice of sin on the part of those who reject the gospel. The lives of all such are sinful and exposed to the wrath of God. Hence the word nature only has reference to lives that are habitually sinful — a continual life of sin — just the sort of lives the Ephesians are said in this passage to have lived before they became Christians. They became sinners through their own trespasses, not by being born sinners. Hence, infants are not sinners and need no baptism to free them from a state of sin. The Bible nowhere says they were born sinners. It is only human theology that says so. All that will study these three verses will see that only those who commit sin are sinners. The word of the Lord says: 'The face of the Lord is against them that do evil/' (1 Pet. 3 : 12.) Infants do no evil ; hence there is no wrath against them. "YOKED UNEQUALLY." Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please give us an explanation of 2 Cor. 6: 14: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers." Does this passage have any reference to a Christian's marrying an un- believer? BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 755 To be yoked together is to be so connected as to be com- pelled to walk together in such a manner that the walk and conduct of one is necessarily influenced by the walk and conduct of the other. Wherever a relationship of this kind exists between a Christian and an unbeliever, they are un- equally yoked together. The marriage relation is certainly of this character. So also are all the associations in which a Christian is controlled by the actions of others and made responsible for the deeds of others. In the marriage relation the Christian has many duties to perform that would greatly be hindered or prevented by the conduct of the other party. Outside of this scripture, it is plainly contrary to the spirit and letter of the teachings of the Bible that Chris- tians should marry those without. Paul says of the widow : "Let her marry whom she will, only in the Lord." He here merely applies a general law to the widow. The same truth and principle are clearly taught in the prohibition of Jewish marriages with those of other nations, and the evils resulting therefrom are recorded for our warning. D. L. ZECHARIAH, A PASSAGE OF, ATTRIBUTED TO JERE- MIAH. A sister asks us to explain why a scripture is in the New Testament attributed to Jeremiah which is found only in Zechariah. There are two explanations of this. First, it was a mis- take made by some one in copying the New Testament. Some of the oldest translations have Zechariah instead of Jeremiah; others have neither name, but simply as said by the prophet, without telling which. Another explana- tion is, the Bible was divided into three parts: (1) The law, covering the books of Moses and the historic books ; (2) The Psalms, beginning with The Psalms and going down to Jeremiah; (3) the portion beginning with Jere- miah, including all the prophets, went by the name Jere- miah, and all the prophetic scriptures were quoted as a part of Jeremiah. This was quoted in this way. We think the difficulty arose from a misquotation by some of the earliest copyists, and it has been retained. Now, one word about the contradictions and mistakes found in the Bible. Many of them arise from our igno- rance. Take the two tables of the genealogy of Jesus Christ. This difference could not have been unknown to the writers and compilers of the New Testament. If they had been trying to palm off a falsehood, they never would have given the two different lists. They knew they were 756 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, easily explained by those knowing the methods of compil- ing these records, and so gave them to the world without explaining. They are comparatively unimportant matters, and are left for man to examine and reason out, or to ac- cept them on faith, not knowing how to explain them. The evidences are clear and sufficient to any heart willing to be convinced outside of these that the Bible is of God ; and when we cannot understand how certain things are, it is wise to say, "I do not understand that," and look to the testimonies elsewhere. Christians who believed the Bible discovered these discrepancies and differences, but they did not destroy faith in a single earnest statement of the Bible. The infidels learned these things through the labors and studies of Christians. After Christians tell of 'them, infi- dels point them out as wonderful. A man who honestly studies the Bible closely enough to find out these discrepan- cies learns enough of it to be compelled to believe it is of God, despite his inability to understand how it can be. There are two spirits in which the Bible is studied. One has a sense of its own weakness and a reverence for God ; the other comes in a flippant, egotistic, self-sufficient spirit, without reverence for God or his power. The spirit in which the truth is approached decides the conclusion reached. In copying the Bible through fifteen hundred years, some mistakes were made in minor and unimpor- tant particulars, as in all other books. Reverence for God leads men to seek to purge out all these mistakes. Flip- pant self-importance magnifies them to exalt self and dis- honor God. All criticism to purify the word of God is to be encouraged. Criticism for selfish ends brings no good to any being in the universe. We accept uninspired books as historically true, despite many such grosser errors and discrepancies than those found in the Bible. The Bible comes to us with a hundredfold more testimony, both inter- nal and external, as a truthful record, than does any unin- spired writing of the ancients. Why not accept it as read- ily as we do these? I do not write this as reflecting on our querist, but as showing the respect that is due the Bible and the unreason- able spirit of those who find fault with it. D. L. INDEX Abel, why accepted, and not Cain 5 Abraham, the promise to 5 Abraham, the two sons of 6 Accursed from Christ, Paul wishes himself 8 Adam, condition of, before the fall 8 Added, what "things" shall be? 9 Adding to and taking from the Bible 10 Adventists and the children of Israel 11 Agent, how is man a free? 12 "All things to all men" 13 Altar, place of the golden 13 Ambassadors, are there any now? 14 Angels, office of 15 Angels rejoicing and future recognition 17 Anointed, when was Christ? 17 Anointing with oil and prayer 18 Antichrist, the spirit of 19 Antichrist, who is he? 20 Apostles, were they baptized? 21 Apostles, when inspired 23 Ark, how long in building 23 Article, the definite, in Greek 23 Ascension, Christ's 24 Asking, seeking, knocking 25 "At hand," meaning of 25 Balaam, the case of 26 Ball playing, is it conforming to the world? 27 Band, joining a brass, etc. 29 Baptism in the name of Christ 30 Baptism, formula in 32 Baptism and pardon 32 Baptism, what for? 36 Baptism, necessity of 36 Baptism, can man be saved without? 38 Baptism in lieu of circumcision 40 Baptism, the, of 1 Cor. 12: 13 40 Baptism, is it sprinkling? 41 Baptism, because of remission 42 Baptism, Holy Ghost 42 Baptism, with Spirit and fire 43 Baptism that puts men into Christ 44 Baptism, must one know it is for remission before being baptized? 45 Baptism, why not it and the Lord's Supper nailed to the cross?__ 47 Baptism, how Baptists baptize? 49 Baptistery, is it wrong to have a? 50 Baptists, how receive them 51 Baptists, joining, to be with his wife 53 Baptize, who may 53 Baptized, not being, was he lost? . 54 Baptizing "in" the name and "into" the name 55 758 INDEX. Baptized with the Holy Spirit, were the "one hundred twenty?" 56 Believing "into" Christ 57 "Better thing," what? 58 Bible, science, and Joshua's command to the sun and moon 60 Birth, the new (John 3: 8) 61 Births, one or two, in John 3: 5? 62 Bishop, must a, be married? 63 Blasphemy, what is? 63 Blessings, conditions of God's 65 Blind, who are the? 68 Blood, how Christ's, cleanses 68 Blood, eating 69 Body of Christ, dividing the 69 Body, presenting the, a sacrifice 70 Bones, resurrection of dry 71 Born of God, when is a man? 71 Born of God and sinning not ,__ 77 Bread, the, used in the Supper 79 Break bread, what time of day should disciples? 79 Cain and Abel, how did, know what to do? 84 Cain's offering rejected, why? 85 Called to preach, who are? 86 "Calling wherein he was called," how abide in? 87 Catechism, a, answered 89 Catholics, the, and the Bible 90 "Chance," does 1 Pet. 4: 5, 6 teach another? 92 "Chariot," who commanded the, to stop? 93 Charity, what is? 93 Checkers, etc., playing 94 "Child one hundred years old" 94 Christ's birthday 95 Christ, forsaking all for 95 Christ, how do we get into? 96 Christ's eternal existence 96 Christ, who crucified? 97 Christ, what day crucified? 100 Christians should settle their differences among themselves, not in civil courts 101 Christians, providing for relatives 102 Christians, things they should not do 103 "Christian Church," the term 105 Christmas trees 107 Church, is one, as good as another? 107 Church, is one, as good as another? — again 111 Church, are all Christians members of the? 115 Church, the attending to, business on the Lord's day 115 Church, the, not civil courts 115 Church, the, and secret societies 116 Church, the, in Matt. 18: 17 117 Church, foundation of the 117 Church, the establishment of the 118 Church, withdrawing from a 119 Church, should an individual withdraw from the? 120 Churches, constitution and order of 122 Circumcision, how nothing 127 Collection, the, on the first day of the week 129 Collection, how to be taken 129 Coming, the second, of Christ 130 Commandment, breaking one 131 INDEX. 759 Commandments, are the Ten, still in force? 132 Common, all things in ■__ 132 "Conceived in sin," how 133 Confessed, when must Christ be? 133 Confession, is it essential? 135 Confession, is there a formal? 136 Confession of sin 136 Confession of sin, must it be public? 137 Conscience vs. conscience 138 Contradiction, no 141 Contribution, the Lord's-day 141 Contribution, is it binding on the first day of the week? 142 Cooperate, how churches 142 Cooperation, church 145 Cooperation, a plan of, church 147 Corinthians, fifth chapter of First 149 Cornelius and the Jews' religion 150 Covenant, when did the old, end? 151 Cup, the, at the Lord's Supper 152 Customs, Paul observing Jewish 152 Dancing, is it wrong? 153 Dancing, evil effects of 154 Dancing, the, to be condemned 156 Day, the, of the Lord * 157 Day, the, in Heb. 10: 25 157 Day, why meet every first? 158 Days, length of creation 158 Days, the "three," and "three nights" 159 Deacons, the work of 162 Deacon, office of 163 Deacons, must they be married 164 Dead, baptized for the 164 Dead, the quickened 166 Dead, gospel preached to the 167 Dead, who to "bury their dead?" 169 Death, day of, better than the day of birth 170 Death, is there but one in Rom. 5: 17? 171 Death, between, and the resurrection 171 Death, sin unto : 172 December, the twenty-fifth of 172 Degrees in heaven 173 Demons, possessed of 174 Denominations, Christians in 174 Denominations, receiving persons from 176 Denominations, "other" 178 Devil, was the, an angel? 179 Devil, condemnation of the 179 Discipline, church 180 Discipline, a case of wrong 181 Divisions, heresies, etc. 183 Divorce and marriage again 184 Divorce and separation 185 Doctrine, the form of 186 Doctrine, the principles of the, etc. 188 Door of the sheep 189 Drawing all men to him, Christ 190 Eating flesh, breaking bread, etc. 190 Eating, what meant by, in 1 Cor. 5: 11? 192 Elders 194 760 INDEX. Elders, their qualifications 196 Elders, their appointment 199 Elders, must they and deacons be married? 204 Elders, the duty of 205 Elders, evangelists, appointive 205 Elder, is the preacher of a church one? . 206 Elders, whisky, and dancing 208 Elders, their jurisdiction 209 Elect, the 210 Elect, God's 210 Election, foreordination, predestination 211 Emblems, who must prepare the? 213 End, from the beginning, does God see the? 213 Endor, was Samuel called up by the witch of? 215 Eph. 4: 13-16 215 Evangelists, authority of 216 Evil, did God create? 217 "Evil spirit," how "from God?" 218 Evil, how "resist not?" 219 Extortion 220 Ezek. 37 221 Faith, how "the substance of things hoped for?" 222 Faith, the, that healed the cripple 222 Faith, the, that purifies 223 Fallen women, duty of the church toward 224 "Falling away," meaning of 226 Fan, wheat and chaff 227 Fasting, Christians 228 Fasting and prayer 229 Fasting and agreeing with one's adversary 230 "Fellows," who "his," etc. 231 Fellowship, hand of 232 Fellowship, shall they withdraw? 233 Festivals and majority rule, etc. 234 "Filled all the house," what, on Pentecost? 234 Fire, the man saved by 235 Fire, the, of Matt. 3: 11, 12, etc. 237 Fire, the baptism of 238 First day of the week, keeping 239 First day, meeting on 241 First day, must we keep all of the? 242 First day, when does it begin? 243 "First" and "last" 244 "Flesh," in John 6: 53 244 Flesh and blood, bread and wine 246 "Fools," who therein "shall not err" 246 Foot washing 247 "Foreknew," whom God 252 Foreknowledge and predestination, God's 253 Foreknowledge and predestination, difference between 254 Foreknow, did God, that he would punish certain men? 255 Foreordination and predestination 257 Forgiving a brother 260 Forgiving without repentance 260 Forgiveness, ground of 261 Funds, raising, to support the gospel 261 Funds, distributing 262 Funeral preaching 262 Funeral sermons 263 INDEX. 761 Future, does God know all the? 264 Futures, can Christians deal in? 264 Generation of vipers, did John baptize? 266 Gentiles, how saved? 267 Ghost, the Holy 267 Ghost, the Holy, and fire baptism 268 Ghost, the sin against the Holy 268 Gift, the, given to Timothy 269 Gifts, do miraculous, still exist? 273 God, seeing, "face to face" 274 Gold, wearing ! 275 Gold, wearing, as an ornament 278 "Gold, silver, precious stones," meaning of 279 Gospels, do the, belong to the Old Testament? 280 Grace, can one fall from? 280 Grace and works 281 Grievances, adjusting 282 Guile, meaning of 283 Guile, meaning of "caught you with" 284 Hands, laying on 285 Hands, gift in Timothy by laying on 287 Hand, the offending 287 Hating father, mother, etc. 288 Healing, miraculous 289 Healing, do gifts of, continue now? 290 Heb. 6: 1-6, meaning of 291 Hebrews, chapter ten 292 Heartfelt religion 293 Law, appealing to the civil 395 Heathen, meaning of "as a heathen man and a publican" 300 Heathen, whom to regard as a 302 Heaven and hell, degrees in 303 Heirs of the land of Canaan, how? 304 Hell, gates of, prevail against what? 305 Hell fire, meaning of 306 Hell, is it a literal place? 308 Hell, and how all things worked for good 308 Heresy 310 "Higher criticism," what is it? 315 Hireling and wolves 316 Holy Spirit, indwelling 316 Holy Spirit, gift of 317 Holy Spirit, sin against 319 Honest, will God save the, whether they do just what he com- mands or not? 320 House, the Lord's 323 Husbands and wives separating 326 Ignorance, does honest, save? 327 Immersed in one day, could three thousand have been? 330 Immortality of the soul, questions on 331 Impractical questions 335 Infant regeneration 335 Iniquity, still in the bond of 336 Innovations and the reformation 337 Instruments in the home and in the school 339 Instruments, teaching with 340 Insurance, life 341 Interest and usury 342 Interest taken on loans 342 762 INDEX. Isa. 28: 20 342 Ishmael 343 Israel, how all, saved? 344 Jacob served Laban, how long? 345 Jailer, was the, baptized in the jail? 345 Jerusalem, destruction of, and the end of the world 346 Jesus, the father of 347 Jesus and the Father, how one? 347 Jews, the 348 "Jew," the, "Hebrew," and "Israel" 349 Jews, God's dealing with, and Gentiles 350 Jews, salvation of the, etc. ' 350 Jewish worship, instruments in 351 Job was afflicted, how long? 353 John 1: 13 explained 354 John 3: 5 355 John 3: 8 356 John First Epistle 1: 8 and 3: 9 reconciled 357 Jonah, the preaching of, etc. 357 Judas, the fate of 359 Judas, was he the victim of prophecy? 359 Judas, was he compelled to betray Christ? 361 Judas, how the devil influenced 363 Judas, was he at the Supper? 364 Judge the world, Christ coming to ! 364 Judging, the scriptures on 364 King James translators, were they immersionsts? 365 King, is Christ a, now? 367 Kingdom of Christ, when and where set up, and its present ex- istence on earth 368 Kingdom, when the, established 373 Kingdom of God — shall we pray for it to come? 373 Kingdom, the, and "foolish and divisive" discussion 375 Kingdom, the, now exists 376 Kingdom, what meant by? 376 Kingdom of God and the thief 377 Kingdom, the keys of the, etc. 379 Kiss, the holy 380 Kissing, the organ, etc. - 381 Knowing man would sin, yet God made him — did not this make it impossible for man to avoid sin? 383 Knowing the Lord in the new covenant 385 Knowing in part and prophesying in part 385 "Last days," the, and other things 386 Law, Christ's, the old, etc. 387 Law, Paul keeping the 389 Law the alien is under, what? 390 Law, was there forgiveness under the? 390 Law, no — no transgression 391 Law, what are "works" of? 394 Law, appealing to the civil 395 Lawsuits among brethren 396 Lawful things and things expedient 397 Lazarus, is the story of, and the rich man a parable? 398 Letters, church 398 Life, eating of the tree of 400 Life-insurance policies 401 Life eternal, do we have, now? 403 Life, the, hid with Christ 404 INDEX. 763 Life, what the book of 404 Light, the, which lighteth, etc. 405 Liquor traffic, assisting in the , 406 Lives, laying down our, for brethren 407 Loaves, how many in the Supper? etc. 408 Lord's day, the 410 Lord's day, teaching children on 410 Lord's Supper, query about taking 412 Lord's Supper, may we eat where the organ is? 415 Lord's Supper, carrying the, to- the sick 416 Lord's table, or with whom "not to eat," etc. 416 Lot's choice 417 Lot, how was the, cast? 419 "Louisville Plan," the 420 "Lovest thou me more than these?" 421 Lying, is all, deception? 421 Majorities, deciding things by 422 Malice against God 423 Mammon of unrighteousness, the 424 Mammon, making friends of 425 Marriage and other things 425 Marriage, divorce, etc. 427 Marriage, are Jesus and Paul in harmony on? 430 Married to Christ, are Christians already? 431 Married, was Paul? 431 Marrying, a Christian, one not a Christian 432 Marrying relatives 434 Marrying after separation 434 Matt. 18: 18 explained 434 Melchisedec 435 Members of the church, how persons become 436 Memorial, Mary's 438 "Messengers," church "apostles," or 439 Millennial reign, when the? 440 Miscellaneous questions 441 Money changers, what were they doing? 444 "Moon," the, and "twelve stars" 444 Mormon, Book of, and Isa. 29 444 Mormons on Mark 16: 17, 18 445 Moses, the law of 448 Mothers, shall they teach in the home? 450 Music, David, and instrumental 451 Music, controversy over instrumental, in 1878 453 Name, was the "new," "Baptist?" 458 Nationalities, differences over religion 459 Natural man, the 459 "New and old" things 461 Offending hand or foot, the 461 "Office," meaning of the word in the New Testament 462 Office of tax receiver, can a Christian fill the? 466 Old Testament, teaching the 467 Olives, his feet on the mount of 469 "Ordained to eternal life," who? 470 "Ordained," baptizing without being 471 Order of the acts of worship • 471 Ordinances, God's 472 Ordination and baptizing 473 Organ, my position on the 474 Organ, will worshiping with the, cause one ij be lost? 475 764 INDEX. Organ in worship, can differences ever be arbitrated? 476 Organs, going to hell, etc. 477 Organ, the, in the Sunday school 479 Organ, can Christians worship with a church that uses the? 480 Organs, may Christians buy? 482 "Owe no man anything" 484 Paradise, where? 484 Paradise and the "third heaven" 485 Paradise and the dying thief 486 Pardon, the terms of, the same to all 487 Passing the plate 488 Passover, were the, and the Lord's Supper the same? 489 Paul planting and Apollos watering 489 Pharaoh, the name 490 Pope, the first Catholic 490 Popularity with the world 491 Posture in prayer 492 Powers, the, that be 493 Prayer, the Bible on alien 494 Prayer, leading in 495 Prayer meeting, dispensing with, in hot weather 497 Praying for temporal blessings 498 Praying for his murderers, Jesus 499 Preachers, called and sent 500 Preaching Christ without baptism 500 Preaching — did it cease when the New Testament was written ?__ 501 Predestination, etc. 503 Presbyterians, taking membership with 504 Presbyterians, communing with 505 Presumptuous sin 506 Priest, when did Christ become a? t 507 Priesthood of Melchisedec 507 Priests and Levites, age of 508 Prince of the power of the air, the 509 Prince of this world, the 509 "Principles" of Christ, what are the "first?" 510 "Prison," the "spirits in," and the state between death and the resurrection 510 "Prison," preaching to the "spirits in" 512 "Promise to the fathers," the 513 Prophecies of Matt. 24 .514 Prophecy and our duties 516 Prophecy, the millennium, etc. 516 Prophesying in part, knowing in part, etc. 517 Providence, special and general 518 Public prayer 519 Punishment, capital 521 Punishment after death — will it end? 522 Punishment, degrees in 523 Questions, miscellaneous 525 Questions unanswered in the Bible 526 Rahab — was she a harlot? 526 Rebaptism 527 Rebaptism and other questions 528 Rebaptized disciples, who baptized the? 531 Rebaptized, why? 531 Rebaptism of the twelve 532 "Receive him not into your house," who? 532 Recognition, future 533 INDEX. 765 Reconcile 2 Kings 2: 11 and John 3: 13 535 Records, church, etc. 535 "Regeneration," the word 538 Repent, how did God? 538 Repentance 539 Repentance and restitution 539 Repentance, fruits worthy of 540 Resurrection, the, when? 541 Resurrection body 542 Revelation — part at a time 543 Revelation, the book of, and speculations on 543 Riches and salvation 544 Righting wrongs, etc. . 547 Rod, coming with a 548 Romans, the, and the Jews 548 Romans, seventh chapter 549 Romans, ninth chapter 551 Romans, eleventh chapter 553 Sabbath, the question of 556 Sabbath, must we keep the? 572 Sabbath, was the, changed to the first day of the week? 577 Sabbath, the "high," and what "third day?" 579 Salary, stated, for preaching 581 Salvation, "the common" 582 Salvation came to Zaccheus, how 582 S an ctifi cation 583 "Sanctify," meaning of 587 Satan tempts men, how? 589 Scapegoat, the 590 Second coming of Christ 590 Sectarians taking part in the worship 591 Sects, communing with the 592 Shepherd, the true 593 Sick, anointing the 594 Signs to follow 595 Sin, not pardonable 597 Sin, difference between Peter's and Paul's 599 Sin, can a child of God? 600 Sin, willful 600 Sin, "the man of," and other questions 603 Sin, the, "unto death" 606 Singing, queries on 608 Sinless, do Christians become? 610 Sinners, alien, and restitution, etc. 613 Sinners, alien, and prayer 614 Slaves and masters 614 Sociables, parties, etc. 616 Social meetings 617 Societies, reply to J. W. Higbee on 618 Solomon, was he a colored man? 621 "Sons" of God and "daughters" of men 621 Soul, what is the? 621 Soul and spirit, distinction between 622 Soul, where it goes at death 622 Speculation, avoid 623 Speculations, what are they worth? 623 Speculating condemned 626 Speculations on the second coming when they cause division 626 Spirit, the Holy 627 766 INDEX. Spirit, blasphemy against the Holy 638 Spirit, the gift of the 639 Spirit, who "the poor in" 641 Spirit, praying for the Holy 641 Spirit, baptism and gift of 642 Spirit, birth of the 644 Spirit, when is one born of? 646 Spirit, the Holy, in Christians 1 647 Spirit, water, and blood 648 Spirit, witness of the 649 Sprinkling in Ezek. 36: 25 650 Sprinkling, is it ever called "baptism" in the Bible? 650 "Star in the East," what was? 652 Storms, does God send? 652 Sunday school, the 654 Sunday schools, authority for 655 Sunday schools, literature in 657 Sunday-school work, shall sinners lead in? 658 Sunday-school superintendents 659 Supper, the Lord's, and the passover 660 Supper, who should eat the Lord's? 660 Supper, when to eat the Lord's 661 Supper, questions on the Lord's 663 Supper, which is meant? 664 Supper, eating the Lord's, twice on the Lord's day 665 Supper, is there authority for the Lord's, on Saturday? 666 Supper, did Jesus partake of the Lord's? 666 Supper, intoxicating wine in the Lord's 667 Swearing 668 Tabernacle, what became of the? 670 Talents, parable of the 671 Tares, the 672 Teaching in classes 674 Teaching and the Supper, which first? 675 Teaching the Bible, numerous questions on 676 "Teaching in songs," how? i 679 Tempting Christ 680 Temptation, meaning of "lead us not into" 680 "Tenth," one, to the Lord 681 Thanks before eating 683 Theaters, going to 683 Thief on the cross and paradise, the 686 Thief's language a question, is the? 687 "Third heaven," purpose of Paul's vision in 688 "Thorn in the flesh," Paul's 688 Time referred to in Heb. 8: 10, 11 and 1 Cor. 2: 9 688 Time of the sojourn in Egypt 689 "Times of refreshing" 690 Timothy, Paul circumcising 690 Timothy, Paul circumcising, and refusing to circumcise Titus 691 Timothy, was he a bishop? 692 Tim., 1, 5: 24, 25 693 Tobacco 693 Tomb, how long was Jesus in the? 694 "Tongues for a sign," etc. 696 "The elect lady," who is? 696 Translation of Acts 2: 38 697 "Troubled waters," healing by the 698 Unbaptized, shall the, lead in prayer? 698 INDEX. 767 Unbeliever, who the, in 1 Cor. 7: 12-14 699 Union meetings 700 Unpardonable sin, can the, be committed now? 702 Unregenerate, can the, believe? __• 702 Untaught questions 704 Usury y^ 706 Veiling their faces, women _ 706 Voice, the, heard by Saul 707 Voting C 707 Voting in the church s . 708 Voting men out of the church, etd' 710 "Water and blood," how Christ "came by" 713 Water, the clean, of Ezek. 36: 25 715 Wheat and tares, the 718 "Whirlwind," Jehovah in the 718 "Wind" in John 3: 8 /_ 719 Wine, what kind in the supper * 720 Wine, blackberry, in the Supper 721 Wine, Timothy, elders, and 721 Wine, old and new bottles, etc. 722 Wise men, the, and the shepherds 723 Witches and familiar spirits, are there, now? 724 Withdraw from a brother, how to 725 Withdrawing from a brother, meaning of 725 Witnesses, the two 726 Woman, how "the weaker vessel" 727 Woman, the, of Rev. 12 728 Women speaking in the church 729 Women speaking in schools 729 Women praying in public 730 Women conducting worship 733 Women teaching men 733 Women preaching 734 Women asking questions 735 Women administering the Lord's Supper 736 Women teaching in the Sunday school 736 Women laboring in the gospel 737 Women, as well as men, must contribute 737 Women, what "those" did in Phil. 4: 3 738 Women and expedients 738 Women, "platted hair," "gold," etc. 741 Word, how the, a "discerner of thoughts" 742 Words, what are "idle?" 743 Working and eating . 744 Works, "the first" 744 World, was the, created out of nothing? 746 World, how long the, created before man 747 World, what, in Matt. 28: 20 747 World, how the, peopled after Cain 747 World, dealing in institutions of the 748 Worm, the, that "dies not" 749 "Worship" and "service" 749 Worship, "family" 751 Worship, calling on Baptists and Methodists to take part in 751 Worshiping together, white and colored 752 Worshiping with those in whom we have no confidence 753 Wrath, how by nature children of 753 "Yoked unequally" 754 Zechariah, a passage of, attributed to Jeremiah 755