"Thou hast given a banner to them that fear thee, that it may be displayed because of truth." — (Psalm 60:4)
"Lift ye up a banner upon the high mountain, exalt the voice unto them." — (Isaiah 13:2)
Devoted To The Defense Of The Church Against All Errors And Innovations
Vol.IV No.VIII Pg.2-6a
March 1942

The Need Of Unfeigned Faith And Fellowship

The end of Paul's charge to Timothy was "love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and faith unfeigned." From these things some who were desirous of being "teachers" had "swerved" and had "turned aside" and "understood neither what they said nor whereof they affirmed. These words of Paul set forth a rather accurate picture of the conduct of some men among us today. Some of them are young and are misguided by misplaced confidence in men who are plenty old enough to know better, and do know better, but have become Quislings in the church of Christ. Efforts are being made to lead the church into a pseudo unity and a false fellowship. Much is being made of "love" and "fellowship" but it is not love "in knowledge and in all judgment" nor is it fellowship "in the gospel," which Paul exhorted the Philippians to possess. One who does not know, and cannot discern, what to love is apt to love the wrong thing--we need love, but love in knowledge and in judgment, or discernment. When a preacher is heard to remark that he believes this or does not believe that—but—but, put it down that his faith is feigned! This lack of an unfeigned faith and love can be observed in the palpable inconsistencies in the attitudes of some leading preachers and brethren among. It is in order that some examples should be cited.

1. A Feigned Love

Sometime ago a copy of the "Chicago Christian" was sent to me. It is published by the Cornell Avenue Church of Christ, Ralph Wilburn, Preacher. The sentiments in this particular issue of this church bulletin are not hard to trace. In an article entitled "The Choice Before Us" the preacher had much to say about the "self-appointed lords of orthodoxy," and "playing the game with the big, influential preachers in the brotherhood," and "the orthodox dogmas of the brotherhood," "dictators" "political rackets" and other expressions of like nature presumably to emphasize the love we should have for each other! These expressions all sound familiar to some of us. A few years ago R. H. Boll issued A Doctrinal Manifesto" in which he branded the church and all of its loyal preachers and leaders with the same terms and many others like them. Such terms as "creed-bound sect," "orthodox dogmas," "popes," "dictators," "Pharisees," "Sanhedrin," have abounded in the writings of the Boll group and their sympathizers. Such terms always sound suspicious, but not knowing the preacher referred to above, who was author of the article, judgment might have been withheld if other expressions had not given him away completely. He criticizes bitterly a certain preacher in Chicago who "dogmatically refused to associate" with E. L. Jorgenson (R. H. Boll's chief aide)-- in a meeting there in the city. Next, he makes a critical reference to "such men as write for the B. B." Can anyone imagine what paper B. B. stands for? These fellows are too sweet and ethical to mention the Bible Banner by name, so they just initial it in their articles. And, finally, he makes an assault to condemn all of the writers in all of the papers who have been condemning the Murch-Witty "Unity Meetings" which he refers to as "this noble Christian effort." He very knowingly and lovingly avers that those who oppose it "have but the slightest notion of

what these gatherings are" and says (in love) that their "gullibility is manifest" in what they write against these digressive promotions. All of this the brother was saying while exhorting to kindness and pretending to write in love but it was not love unfeigned. He only located himself. His own article marked him. A further check-up revealed that he has been a student of R. H. Boll and writes for the Word & Work, Boll's paper.

And a recent issue of Word and Work copied the Wilburn article, "The Choice Before Us" in full. So the brother's "Choice" admittedly has been to cast his lot with Boll. It is generally known that Harding McCaleb, a rank premillennialist and Bollite, has been virtually in charge of the Cornell Avenue church. With that kind of a manager and this kind of a preacher, the chance for Cornell Avenue church to be a pure church of Christ is rather slim.

Incidentally, when a man loves the Word & Work and hates the Bible Banner he need not tell who and what he is—everybody knows. Their feigned love of the truth cannot be concealed—it will out.

2. A Feigned Faith

Before me is another example of one who is not a premillennialist—but. The elders of a Kansas church decided that they should have a statement from Lowell Davis, the missionary they were supporting in China. His reply was published in several papers, without comment or challenge, whereas it should have had both. He makes a partial statement of what he believes and does not believe, and adds that the issue is not worth "quarreling" over, that it is not necessary to understand these questions "correctly" (?), classes them with the eating of meats in Rom. 14, and hands down the decision that it is "not a matter over which one might withdraw fellowship." He has no disposition to "argue the question" but makes "this statement that all who care to, may know my faith in this matter"—and the evidence points to a feigned faith, indeed! But what else can the brethren expect from the missionaries, seeing that they are sent out from Louisville.

Instead of making a forthright statement and letting it stand, these sympathizers with the premillennial Boll group always make statements with plenty of loop holes, and wind up by trying to leave it so that their statement will be satisfactory to both sides. It can't be done. The check-up reveals that when the missionary, Lowell Davis, went to Louisville, Kentucky, he attended services and spoke at the Boll-Jorgenson churches! When asked why he did that, his reply was that the other churches (the loyal churches) did not invite him! And that is his "faith is this matter!" He does not believe premillennialism (try to find someone who admits it!) but—but what? No one must disfellowship these dear dividers of the church—the premillennialists. And as long as these missionaries are under obligation to the missionary office of Don Carlos Janes and the Louisville party "all who care to may know" their faith in this matter"-it will be a feigned faith. Between the actual premillennialists and the "but" premillennialists; the but—premillennialists are far more dangerous to the church.

The Kansas church got its information; all right—the brother is a Bollite, pure and simple. His speech betrays him, that he has been with Boll!

3. A Feigned Spirit

There cannot be too much of the spirit of Christ exercised, but there can be far too much talk about the "spirit of Christ" by those who feign it. For instance, the personnel of Harding College, Searcy, Arkansas, have been loud and long in their constant and fervent protestations of the sweet spirit among the brethren. They have been chief advocates of what they term "the spirit of Christ." They have scorned and condemned bitter personalities among the brethren. But that was all varnish-religious veneer. For their real spirit read the official bulletin they issued against E. R. Harper. The writers dipped their pens deep in poison and from their quills flowed the venom of their sweet spirit of revenge. Instead of dealing with the issue of the school's doctrinal status-whether or not premillennialism is believed, taught, condoned, sympathized with, fraternized with, their purity and soundness pro and con, these professors of the sweet spirit descended to levels about as low as personalities can go. Not satisfied to appease their wrath by offering up on the altar of their vengeance the victim himself, they descended so low as to invade the family circles, so to speak, to do the loathsome work of casting aspersions upon a man's aged father! Of all the wicked things that have ever been put in print and circulated among the brethren, this caps the climax of iniquity. It not only indicates that they are guilty of the charges against them, and shows that they feel the effect of the exposure on the issues involved, but it reveals the depravity back of the spirit they sweetly but suavely feign. In this instance, their piety has not turned into putty; it has putrefied into slime, seething in corruption. And they ask Christian parents to look to them for the spiritual development of sons and daughters. I will venture to say that there is not a worldly school or college in the land that would stoop to the thing they have done. I would rather send a son or a daughter of mine to a state school anywhere, than to send them to these men to imbibe their spirit and ideas of education, of ethics or of religion. They have themselves made the argument upon which the brotherhood should reject them—that argument is the Harding Bulletin on E. R. Harper.

4. A Feigned Soundness

For an example of feigned soundness we need not leave the subject of the foregoing paragraph. Harding College personnel has been persistent in their denials of charges that the school has harbored premillennialism in the form of some who believe and teach it and others who sympathize with it and privately promote it. To hear them talk one would think that they are the acme of soundness, and that opposition to premillennialism originated at Searcy! But what of their practice? Well, here it is: Clinton Davidson has recently been appointed to the board of trustees of Harding College, according to announcements in the state press. Of Course, everybody knows who Clinton Davidson is. He is the man of digressive fame, of the Copyrighted Christian Leader fame, of sue-the-socks-off-of-them fame—in short, the man from New York, who so recently tried to intimidate all the preachers and the papers and take over the schools and the churches by his propaganda. , His schemes were exposed; the brethren turned him down; his propaganda organ, the New Christian Leader, folded up—and now Harding College adopts him, or has he adopted it? Soundness, indeed! I ask you, members of the church, can such a college be trusted? Their professions of soundness are feigned.

Copyright Davidson and Doctor Benson run together. They attended a church service in Washington, D. C. together sometime ago. Roy E. Cogdill preached a sermon on Premillennialism, and it is reported that they got in such a big hurry that they did not have the time to stay and shake hands with anybody—they left!

Doctor Benson aspired to become a great economist. So he began to tell government officials what to do and what not to do with their expenditures. Doctor Benson made some radio speeches over networks. It is generally rumored that his speeches were prepared for him and that Clinton Davidson made the contacts as a publicity scheme for Harding College. Anyway, for a while Doctor Benson was in national lime-light. It went to his head, and he began to monkey with the administration of the N. Y. A. He drew a withering rebuke from the head of that department and the result was exit, Doctor Benson, the great Economist!

The following clipping is from the Washington (D. C.) Daily News:

Harding College Economy

Drive Runs Afoul Of Nya

Those Harding College students who wanted to donate their NYA allotments to the Treasury during the war will not be permitted to do so, Director Aubrey Williams of the National Youth administration has made quite clear.

While Treasury Secretary Morgenthau was drafting a letter of thanks to send the 20 students at Searcy, Ark., Mr. Williams was making critical comments on the conduct of Dr. George S. Benson, Harding College president.

Economy Campaign

For when Mr. Williams pointed out that the $210 monthly NYA allotments, which have been going to the Harding students, would be given to 20 other students selected from 179 in Arkansas who have dropped out of other schools, allegedly because of the lack of NYA funds, Dr. Benson said:

"The NYA action is an attempt to discredit my campaign for reduction of non-defense Federal expenditures. For weeks the NYA has been trying to line up colleges in the 11 southern states to put pressure on Congress for restoration of NYA funds. I refused to join the movement because I know that there is no need for NYA at this time." In reply to this, Mr. Williams declared:

"We had been led to believe the Harding College students who gave up NYA jobs did so voluntarily because they didn't need them. I am surprised that Dr. Benson admits this action was part of a so-called economy drive of which he is the ringleader.

Endorsed By 1249

"The 1249 college officials who certified that NYA employment is essential if 14,616 college students are not to be forced out of school have done all that needs to be done in the way of discrediting Dr. Benson.

"The allegation that this agency has been lining up colleges to request restoration of NYA funds is nonsense unbecoming to a college president."

The Treasury reported that while Secretary Morgenthau would write and thank the students, there is nothing that can be done about NYA funds except what is done by NYA officials.

Thus the N. Y. A. officials saw through the DavidsonBenson government meddling economy drive and branded it as a publicity stunt for Harding College. That is the real caliber of Davidson and Benson. Let the brethren take note of Benson's words quoted in the newspaper article. He says: "The N. Y. A. action is an attempt to discredit my campaign for the reduction of non-defense Federal expenditures." Brethren, we have an authority on government expenditures among us, a great economist—Doctor George Benson, President of Harding College, Searcy, Arkansas!!

The inconsistency of this has not occurred to Harding College professors even yet. The college has always maintained that civil governments are evil, according to J. N. Armstrong, for wicked men to run, and not for Christians and non-participation in war in any way has been an outstanding tenet of the college. Yet their president presumed to dictate the economic policies of the government! O Consistency and Soundness, where art thou, Brother Armstrong calleth for thee!

5. A Feigned Contending For The Faith

We were told in a recent article by another prominent Doctor among us, Doctor Brewer, that Contending For The Faith is not the mere title of a book—his book. This pronouncement was made at the end of his article in the Gospel Advocate relating the persecutions that he is enduring at the hands of the Catholics in Lubbock, Texas. But the denominational preachers stood by him nobly, as well as some of the brethren, and he has escaped martyrdom, at least, temporarily!

Such a feigned contending for the faith! Everybody in Texas knows that the Catholics are very much in the minority at Lubbock. When Doctor Brewer espoused the cause of Protestantism there, he was on the popular side. And he has had much to say about Protestants this and that. Is that contending for the faith? Is Protestantism any more the faith than Catholicism? But that is Doctor Brewer all over—he can make a great splash over an issue like Communism, Catholicism, Companionate Marriage, where he can arouse the popular sentiment of the religious public, and rally the denominational preachers to stand behind him but when it comes to defending the church against isms and errors within our own borders that have a far greater immediate effect on the church than Catholicism, Doctor Brewer "sitteth in the seat of the scornful."

The editor of the Gospel Advocate, recently presented me with a copy of the Brewer book, "Contending For The Faith." I am expected to say something about it. My first observation is that Harding College has been snubbed. The author holds an "honorary" degree from Harding College, yet it is not listed among his "attainments" on the author's page. We naturally wonder why. He seemed quite proud of being a Harding College LL. D. doctor, ordained by Benson, at first, but now it appears that his pride has waned. Is it because several others among us have become that kind of a doctor, too, and the distinction is minimized?

My next observation is that his book begins with a big peeve, right in the preface. The author is grouchy. Before his book was published he sent out letters to a select number of preachers stating that he would probably print photostatic endorsements by Foy E. Wallace, Jr. and N. B. Hardeman of certain articles that he wrote several years ago which would appear in the book. The Bible Banner commented on it to the effect that he had just called me a megalomaniac twice in two articles, and had been actually heard more than once to say some of the most uncomplimentary things at all about N. B. Hardeman, and everybody would wonder why he wanted to print endorsements from men whom he held in such an attitude. That seemed to sour on the author's literary stomach, so he sent forth his book, to be read by whoever may ever read it, with a peeve, taking digs in the preface of it, without calling any names. He says "the editor" at that time was not in "agreement" with him on certain issues but wanted to be his first convert. That is mighty fine for an editor to be willing for someone to convert him on a controverted point, even if it is Doctor Brewer. I have never heard of him being that humble. Then he explains that not "wishing to take the advantage of any one" he did not publish the endorsements and added: "if any brother wishes to talk two ways he will have enough to answer for without any accusations from this book." How charitable the brother was—not to make any accusations in his book! Read the above again and see how many accusations you can pick out. Thus is recorded the author's petty peeve in the preface of his book. It follows him everywhere he goes, in his writing and in his preaching, in his book, and I doubt not-in his dreams!

As for talking two ways the author under review is the last man that ought to mention that. He takes both sides of every issue before the church, then flops his wings and

lights on the fence, and crows! In this book he runs true to form. His chapter on Premillennialism, as expected, is the outstanding example of his inconsistencies. He avows that he does not believe premillennialism, of course, and he makes some arguments against it—but he criticizes those who have opposed the doctrine far more severely than he does those who teach it! There it is, first on one side of the issue, then on the other, then on the fence, and cocka-doo-dle-doo!

For an example of talking two ways, the chapter on "Premillenarianism" is remarkable. The author says "This is a most excellent subject to let alone"—but he does not let it alone. He says that men cannot enter a discussion of it and "remain entirely balanced and serene and sane"—then he himself enters into the discussion of it! His criticism of those who teach the doctrine is draped in flowing, easy-to-listen-to unoffensive language, but when he refers to those who oppose the teaching he bluntly calls them hobbyists—that they have made a hobby of opposing the teaching. This can serve no other purpose than to break the influence of, the opposition to these false teachers and their teaching-a thing that Brewer has persistently tried to do from the beginning of the controversy. He brands those who have debated against these heresies, who have defended the church against their encroachments, as hobbyists. But if they have made a hobby out of opposing premillennialism on the same principle he has made a hobby out of criticizing them who have opposed it! Between the two, I would certainly rather make it my hobby to oppose a bad doctrine than to make a hobby of opposing the men who do oppose the bad doctrine, as G. C. Brewer has done and he rides that hobby in his book. When he renounces the teaching he also denounces those who have exposed it. That reveals where his real heart is on the question.

For the outstanding inconsistency in it all compare the following. On page 191, of chapter 9, he says that it is "a question that is entirely academic and touches no essential point of doctrine or item of practice in any Christian's life." Then on page 195, in the same chapter, he declares that the "premillennial theory contradicts the Scriptures." Is that talking two ways? Or talking just any way? Premillennialism contradicts the Scriptures—but it should not be an issue! Premillennialism contradicts the Scriptures—but it is a question that is entirely academic! (The word "academic" means that it is a debatable question. But if it contradicts the scriptures, how can it be classed "academic"?) Premillennialism contradicts the Scriptures but it touches no essential point of doctrine! Premillennialism contradicts the scriptures—but it does not affect practice in any Christian life! How about the effect it has had upon the practice in the life of R. H. Boll, E. L. Jorgenson, and the entire group of men who have taught the doctrine, divided the church, and have no more fellowship today with true churches of Christ in Kentucky than a digressive Christian church has? Does preaching a false doctrine have any effect on the "practice in any Christian's life"? Preaching a bad doctrine would seem to me to be a mighty bad practice in any Christian's life.

An author so illogical ought not to try to make a syllogistic argument on anything much less on a subject on which he has so often contradicted himself. Thus the

author of the book which bears the title "Contending For The Faith" proceeds, to minimize the issue and to weaken rather than strengthen a real contention for the faith. The truth is, he loves the teachers of premillennialism far better than he loves those who oppose it. There is nothing in the doctrine to him that would keep him from working wholeheartedly with the Boll group—and if their party was big enough, it is evident that he would be with them in person as he is in heart. His every utterance on the subject in pulpit and press has been a feigned contending for the faith.

On Catholicism, where Protestants are overwhelmingly in the majority, he is bold. On Communism, he declared that Russia is the place for it, to the American Legion, exclaimed, "give me a gun" to defend Americanism against Communism! (Wonder how he feels about that now in the light of the present war?) He is a martyr on Catholicism, wants a gun to use on Communists, but minimizes Premillennialism! By all means, he should keep the denominational preachers behind him. As much as he has called on them to lead the prayers in his meetings, he evidently thinks the Lord will hear them when the Catholics get after him. Contending for the faith!

6. A Feigned Unity

The world today has witnessed a new method of warfare with new and scientific weapons. These weapons are not all mechanical, such as huge tanks, giant bombers, and late model guns. One of the most potent weapons of modern warfare has been psychological. The name of it is Propaganda. It was used as a means of softening and undermining certain nations preparatory to an invasion, and by this weapon Herr Hitler's succeeded in subduing some of them without firing a shot. But the world has become wise to his ways and Der Fuehrer is not faring so well.

Years ago the leaders of the Christian Church decided that they could not win the battle for digression in open warfare-they learned their lesson in the first debates that were held. Now, after so long a time, they launch a new offensive—they attempt to soften the church by propaganda. The Minister of Propaganda in Germany is Dr. Josef Goebbels. In the Christian Church his name is James DeForest Murch. Through the fifth columnists in France, and a Quisling in Norway, Germany's office of Propaganda became effective. In the same way The Christian Church's Murch has attempted to make his pseudo-unity campaign propaganda effective in the churches of Christ. Our ranking fifth columnist was Clinton Davidson, and our chief Quisling is Claud F. Witty. There is, of course, a whole brood of them in various forms. But the brethren have become wise to their ways, and they are fast becoming impotent.

A few months ago Herr Hitler boasted that his latest invasion was a push-over, the opposing armies, in fact, had been "smashed," then "shattered," afterward "crush ed" and finally "annihilated"-but still he never reached Moscow!

So it has been with these invasions in the church. Propaganda was sown throughout the length and breadth of the brotherhood in the form of Clinton Davidson's surveys and questionnaires. Then came the shattering announcement that ninety-five per cent of all the preachers had surrendered to him—it was a push-over! He would then crush the press by buying up the papers and starting one great paper of his own, and finally he would annihilate the remnant of us by suing the socks off our feet! But where is Clinton Davidson now? Does anybody know? The only wee little word we have had lately is the notice in the Arkansas papers that Doctor Benson had put him on the Board of Harding College, at Searcy! His movement fizzled out. The men who tried to help him put it over began to fall off his band-wagon like rats deserting a sinking ship. Since then they have been trying to explain why they ever had anything to do with it—they did not know this and that and so forth and so on! And they wouldn't let anybody tell them. Doctor Jesse P. Sewell (D. D.) stood in the pulpit at El Paso, Texas, and, referring to some of us by name, publicly declared that we had lied on Davidson. He proceeded to tell them what a great person this man Davidson was. But after Davidson's movement had collapsed, at the close of a lecture by E. R. Harper at San Antonio exposing the Davidson affair, Doctor Sewell hurried to the front, emphatically endorsed all that Harper had said and declared that Clinton Davidson had deceived him! Then with his usual dramatics he shouted for everybody that endorsed his statement to stand up!! But where was Doctor Sewell when the fight was going on? He was hiding out behind the lines, helping Clinton Davidson and all the other Quislings all he could.

The following recent report in the Firm Foundation is an example of the influence of Jesse P. Sewell, and other older brethren, on some of the younger men in the church.


By P. D. Wilmeth

It has been called to my attention more than once that my connection with the New Christian Leader as a writer has and is still misunderstood by many brethren who do not know me personally. This connection has been construed by some as indicative of my belief in, or non-committal to or sympathetic attitude toward the doctrine of premillennialism and those who espouse the same. Such is definitely false. I neither believe the doctrine, nor do I wish to lend my influence knowingly in that direction. Those who know me personally know that my convictions are definitely in opposition to this as well as all other error. It is a happy privilege of mine to express my conviction at this point and thus clarify in the minds of any who may have a question mark on my position. I never care to do anything in any way that might mitigate against my influence in the kingdom of God, and by this principle I am at all times guided. I am grateful for the confidence of my brethren, for their help, and long ago dedicated my life to the full service of Christ and the church. I trust that all who read this will clarify this false impression should it arise in the future.

(Brother Wilmeth has reference to the Christian Leader under its former management.-G. H. P. S.)

Thus it now is that every man who ever wrote for Davidson's Christian Leader wants the stigma removed! They were all deceived. Yet the Bible Banner was telling them the truth in every issue. They have now admitted that it was the truth—but they are still mad at the editor of the Bible Banner for telling it, and have never apologized for the bad names they called us. Even the editor of the Firm Foundation puts a P. S. to the above piece to let everybody know that the reference is made to the former management Christian Leader.

The best evidence that the Murch-Witty pseudo-unity movement is on the way out is the recent article on Straws In The Wind" in the Christian Standard, by James DeForest Murch. A casual reader can see the evident weakness of the Murch article. It bears the marks of a dwindling movement. It came in with a great gust of wind. There was a "rapprochement" at Detroit, a "fine, fellowship" at Indianapolis, and a "veritable victory" at Lexington. They had enlisted all of the "intellectual" and "spiritual" brethren among us, such as S. H. Hall and T. C. Wilcox, as recruits to the Unity Movement. Only those on outer "lunatic fringe" were left among the objectors, and they heralded to the brotherhood that the opposition would be "annihilated" with the next spring offensive! But the Christian Standard admitted the failure of their very next meeting at Columbus, Ohio, conceding that the attendance was "cut down" due to the counter-attacks from certain sources among the "conservative brethren" whom Murch designated as "the lunatic fringe." The Murch-Witty movement began its retreat. According to the latest from General Murch and Lieutenant Witty, it has now dwindled down to a few "straws in the wind." The threatened storm has passed, the dust has cleared away. It was only a whirlwind. That accounts for the straws! Since Paul says only those without knowledge are tossed around by the wind and James reminds that only the doubters are driven by the wind," and Jude pronounces a woe upon those who are "carried along by winds," we will let Murch and Witty have what they can get from the wind they blow.

Periodically, General Murch and Lieutenant Witty write articles of a revealing nature—exposing the real spirit and inner purposes of these Unity Meetings, falsely so called. Quite inadvertently this time Murch has exposed that the purpose of the Unity Meetings is to bring about generally what happened at Horse Cave, Kentucky, locally --with a step beyond. Only the restrictive clause in the deed kept them from introducing the organ into that church. In all other particulars they have become an orthodox Christian Church. Murch now claims that this is an accomplishment of the Unity Meeting. He reveals that it proposes to do that to all of the churches. Appropriate and appreciated attention to this phase of his article has been given in an editorial by Brother B. C. Goodpasture, in the Gospel Advocate, and is covered by Brother John T. Lewis and other able writers in this issue of the Bible Banner, doubtless to the embarrassment of both General Murch and Lieutenant Witty, unless they are beyond the point of embarrassment in their scheming. They are poor diplomats—not even good schemers. They cannot keep their secrets. They ought to stay out of print, or else establish a censorship, for every time they break into print they say a lot of things that vindicates all that has been said of their intents and purposes. They prove that we have told the truth on them. The unity (?) they have offered is not in part but in whole a feigned unity! The New Testament is replete with warnings against such schemes and schemers. If the complacency of the American people constitutes an inner danger to our national liberty, it is no less so spiritually. If the leaders of our nation must cry, Wake up, America! it is also imperative that the church awake. Awake to what? To the dangers yet within. The fifth columnists and the quislings are still at work. They do not sleep. They are known not by what they say so much as by what they do not say; not by what they openly teach, but by their attitude toward certain teaching and teachers. Their pulse on these questions can always be felt in an attitude which they hold. They do not believe this or that—but! They have no compliments for men who have fought the battles against error and never a criticism of those men who promote them. It is an attitude, brethren, an attitude that marks men among us today. It is not an actual preaching of error, but the wrong attitude toward the plain preaching of all of the truth. Some men preach truth, and do not preach error; but they do not preach all of the truth, and they do not condemn error. Withholding a truth is as evil in God's sight as teaching an error. It is the mark of a timeserver, who cannot be trusted with the spiritual interests of the church. The church is not now endangered so much by actual premillennialism as it is by an attitude toward error, a by-product of premillennialism—softness. It exists in many forms. We are told that the nation is soft, that society is soft, and the general effect of it all on the church is to make it soft. It is the back-wash of the general condition of the world.

Remember, the Ministry of Propaganda exists for the purpose of softening opposition before an invasion! But whenever and wherever, in whosoever or in whatsoever form anything contrary to sound doctrine and faith unfeigned may appear let us unite in the determination that they shall not pass!-F. E. W.