This little book is not written so much about something or somebody, as it is written to somebody. It is just as its name implies. An appeal to the candid, and is that, I hope is your condition of heart. It is written to you. You are, therefore, invited to go with me through these pages while I act as the guide and you fill the place of an observer.

      My remarks are always addressed to you as though you were by my side. I shall not attempt to cover every point of the Nichol-Whiteside booklet, but we shall together examine enough of the book, to let you see the real spirit of it, and the irrelevancy of its arguments. If you had read the three booklets of Brother Boll of which the book we are now examining is a purported review, there would be no need that I write to you.

      I shall make no contention for a single position, that is held by Brother Boll except to present the position so that you may see and decide whether or not the Reviewers refuted his claim.

      You are not being persuaded to accept Brother Boll's position, let that be settled in your mind once and for all. The name of the Booklet that we are now to examine is, "Christ and His Kingdom, a Review of R. H. Boll." It is published by Mrs. C. R. Nichol at Clifton, Texas.

      The three books by Brother R. H. Boll that this Nichol-Whiteside booklet claims to review are:

      "The Kingdom of God."
      "The Second Coming of Christ."
      "The Book of Revelation."

      These are published by the Word and Work at Louisville, Ky.

      For convenience only I shall refer to brethren Whiteside and Nichol as the "Reviewers", and mean no discourtesy.

      Brother Boll knows absolutely nothing about my intentions of examining the Nichol-Whiteside Review of his three books just mentioned and it will be a surprise to him to learn of it.

      I send the little book forth with a prayer that good may be done and and no harm at all.

EUGENE V. WOOD. [1]

The Review Commended.

      The review of R. H. Boll, by Brethren Whiteside and Nichol, is ready, at fifty cents per copy. Order from Mrs. C. R. Nichol, Clifton, Texas. Sister Nichol advises that she has not brought a large edition of this work from the press. Order at once to insure a copy.

      R. H. Boll's doctrine reviewed is found in a new tract just from the press, by R. L. Nichol, Clifton, Texas. Fifty cents per copy.

      The review of R. H. Boll by Whiteside and Nichol covers his teaching of the kingdom, the second coming of Christ, and the book of Revelation. The review is fifty cents per copy. Order from Mrs. C. R. Nichol, Clifton, Texas.

      The review of the doctrine taught by Brother R. H. Boll, of Louisville, Ky., by R. L. Whiteside and C. R. Nichol, is a complete refutation and exposure of the false and divisive teaching of R. H. Boll and associates. This review should be in the hands of every Bible student. The doctrine, which is a combination of Russellism and Adventism, has done much to disturb and divide the children of God. But there is nothing left undone by Brethren Whiteside and Nichol to show how utterly antagonistic to the plain teaching of God's word is this doctrine advocated by Boll and his co-laborers. Price fifty cents. Order from Mrs. C. R. Nichol, Clifton, Texas.

F. W. SMITH.

      Jas. Douglas Phillips, Box 56, Tucumcari, New Mexico. May 8: "I filled my regular appointment at Jordan, a mission point, Saturday night, Sunday and Sunday night. There is more interest manifested there than at any mission point I have every visited. I have just finished reading C. R. Nichol and R. L. Whiteside's Review of R. H. Boll's speculative teachings on the Kingdom, Restoration of National Israel, etc, and pronounce it a complete job. Every preacher should have a copy of it." [2]

      The following list of endorsements in a small leaflet form was mailed to a majority of the members of the Peak and Main Streets church in Dallas, for which Brother Boll has held several meetings during the past six years.

      I have known something of Boll's peculiar heresies for ten years; but the "REVIEW" shows them to be worse than I have ever charged. Beside warning the brethren and protecting the cause against Boll's teaching the "REVIEW" will be of great value to those who are troubled with various forms of Materialism.--C. E. WOOLRIDGE.

      I have read Review of Brother Boll carefully. I believe his contention is stated correctly. The Review is all truth should demand. His arguments are exposed and his theories prove not well founded. I have an idea the Review will help Boll see his errors.--N. B. HARDEMAN.

      I have carefully read the Review of Boll's teaching, and I consider it a complete scriptural reply to his fallacies. It is shown that the interpretation placed on the prophecies relied on by Boll contradict the plain word of God. The compilation of the scriptures bearing on the subject of the kingdom of Christ is worth to any student many times the price of the book. The Review should have a wide circulation, and all brethren who have in any way been misled by this Advent-Russellite doctrine should have a copy.--F. B. SRYGLEY.

      I consider the Review a complete Scriptural reply to the fallacies of R. H. Boll and his associates. This Review should be in the hands of every Bible student. The doctrine which is a combination of Adventism and Russellism has done much to disturb and divide the children of God. But there is nothing left undone in this Review to show how utterly antagonistic to the plain teaching of God's word is his doctrine advocated by Boll and his co-laborers.--F. W. Smith.

      The "Boll-evil" as Brother Larimore calls it, is worse than I ever imagined. The Review will be an eye-opener. The theory has caused untold harm to the Cause in Dallas.--Will W. Slater. [3]

      Boll's teaching is injurious and divisive to the church of Christ. It is flagrant sectarianism. In the Review his doctrine is analyzed and completely exposed. The Review should be in every home.--J. B. NELSON.

      Review of Boll is a complete refutation of his position, and will save thousands from this modern Sadduceeism.--D. F. DRAPER.

      The Review is a complete refutation of R. H. Boll's false teaching. Send me twelve copies. I wish to place them in the hands of intelligent brethren to save their congregations from being misled.--W. T. B. SOUTH.

      Review of R. H. Boll's speculative teaching on the Kingdom, Restoration of National Israel, etc., is complete. Every one should read it.--JAS. D. PHILLIPS.

      In my judgment, the Review completely upsets Boll's theory.--N. E. WILLIAMS.

      The Review is fine.--R. H. JOHNSON.

      Brother Robert Henry Boll is the preacher for the Portland Avenue church of Christ in Louisville, Ky. He is the editor of the "Word and Work" and is the author of several books besides those mentioned in this appeal. "Truth and Grace" and a Commentary on Hebrews are among the books he has written. He was born in Germany and trained from infancy in the Roman Catholic Church. He came to America at the age of 15 years; this was in September 1890, stopping for a while in Zanesville. Ohio, from which he came to Tennessee and became a farm laborer. It was in that good old state he fell into the hands of some members of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, who were interested enough in the deluded soul of this little German catholic orphan boy to show to him the simple way of the Cross, and on Sunday April 14th, 1891, he was "delivered from the power of darkness and [4] translated into the Kingdom of God's dear Son." It was after this that he went to Nashville, Tennessee, and presented himself to Brother Jas. A. Harding, and asked for the opportunity to enter the Nashville Bible School and study the Bible. He walked twenty miles in the rain to make application for entrance into the Bible School of which Brother Harding was then president. This fact of his walking so far in the rain to try to enter a school to study the Bible touched the heart of president Harding, though there was no vacancy for a boy "to work his way through." Love found the way and in the fall of 1895 he became a member of the student body of the Nashville Bible School. He preached his first sermon in a mission meeting in the Nashville jail and his first protracted meeting was in a school house named "Accident."

      I get the substance of this little biographical sketch from J. W. Shepherd and E. L. Jorgenson in "Truth and Grace." I have not known Brother Boll but a few years having met him the first time in Dallas about five years ago. I have been informed that he has preached in many of the states and in Canada, but for more than twenty years he has lived in Louisville where he has done special work in Hebrew and other studies at Southern Baptist Seminary and it is said that the professors say he was one of the best scholars that has gone out from their classes.

      For a while Boll was associate editor of the Gospel Review which paper is not now published. It was then published in Dallas, Texas; Jesse P. Sewell was managing editor, and associated with him beside Brother Boll were Joe S. Warlick, J. H. Lawson, G. Dallas Smith, F. L. Young and T. B. Larimore. About the year of 1908 Brother Boll was chosen to be editor of the first page of the Gospel Advocate. His co-editors on this journal were: M. C. Kurfees, J. C. McQuiddy, L. A. Elam, E. G. Sewell and David Lipscomb. This was about the time I became a Christian and Brother Boll's weekly contributions to the Gospel Advocate were a great help to me in becoming settled in the hope of the Gospel. His articles were often copied by other religious journals. J. W. McGarvey, I am told, copied some of his editorials in the Christian Standard.

      I am told that Brother Boll was a great favorite among his own brethren in and around. Nashville, Tennessee, where he held many [5] successful meetings. The Nashville Bible School conferred an honorary degree upon him and praised him for his scholarly attainments, for his loyalty to the truth and above all for his humility and piety. These characteristics were especially commended to the students as worthy of imitation. I have been further informed that both Brother Lipscomb and Brother Elam commented at different times before the students upon Boll's humility and consecration.

      Regardless of whatsoever criticism may have been preferred against Brother Boll. I have never heard this one: that he disbelieves any part of God's Word. But some are charging that he literalizes it, believes just what it says and does not allow for impassioned poetic expressions.

      A preacher friend of mine, and one who does not agree with Brother Boll's position on some things, said in my presence once that during the time of Boll's most successful writing on the Advocate, one of our common opponents, a Russellite, I think it was, sent a rather acrimonious article into the Advocate office in which he attempted a reply to some of Boll's references to Russellism. Brother F. W. Smith replied to this attack and prefaced his article with a statement to the effect that Boll was too mild mannered and sweet spirited to deal with such an opponent.

      In 1915 the trouble arose about "Speculative" teaching and Boll went off the Advocate staff. I am not attempting a regular biography of Brother Boll. The point of Boll's piety and humility is emphasized for the reason that the Reviewers and others now taunt him for his piety and insinuate if indeed they do not state it--that it is not genuine, but put on for a purpose, and there are those who try to make it appear that it has been assumed since the "Boll-evil" began.

      Brother Boll's scholarship and popularity are pointed out because the Reviewers repeatedly claim that he writes in a disjointed way and that it will take a "mental acrobat to follow him." I do not claim that Brother Boll is right in every thing he teaches, neither would he allow me to say he is without faults, but truth and honor, to say nothing of Christianity, demand that every man be treated fairly at least.

      But read the appeal. [6]

      My dear brother in Christ, whosoever and wheresoever you may be, I pray you to open wide the avenues of approach to your heart and consider what I have to say. If I am wrong in any particular I beg you to point out my error and help me correct it. If I am not wrong, then someone else is, and I entreat you to help me locate the wrong and correct and overcome it instead of aggravating and spreading the wrong. There is now a great deal being said about "Bollism" and the "Boll-evil" and by some who do not even know what Boll teaches on these points of discussion.

      If Boll Is guilty of teaching things that are unscriptural and therefore dangerous for him to teach and for others to believe, he should be corrected and shown the error of his way, that you, I, or the Reviewers or some one, "might save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins."--Jas. 5:20. I know and you know that love will always think of making an effort to help and never hinder the subject of its concern.

      But you know, my brother, that this divine injunction cannot be obeyed by misrepresenting and personally abusing a brother who has erred from the truth, but as to whether Brother Boll has been thus treated I ask that you for the present defer judgment. Every man who thinks at all will want to know at once what it is that Boll teaches that is so objectionable and so dangerous, otherwise he will not know what his attitude is to be towards the matter. This too, I believe you will agree is right. Then will you not agree also, my dear brother, that you should learn what Boll teaches from Boll's own writing and not from what his opponents, or friends, say about his teaching. If anyone should oppose your reading Boll's writing, would that seem to you to be fair to you or Boll? I will not ask you to take 'what I state about Boll without investigation. I desire investigation. But when you have thoroughly investigated the whole issue you will find that Boll does not differ one iota from those things that are most surely believed among us, so far as either doctrine or practice is concerned. The difference arises over what shall happen when this age comes to an end, and when our life in the flesh is over--questions of eschatology. Any congregation among us might be convinced on every point and converted to Brother Boll's every position and it would not change its practice in the smallest [7] particular, unless, as Brother Boll claims, it would make it more consecrated and pious. You would not file an objection to that would you, my brother? Since there is no difference in either faith or practice on any essential point between Brother Boll and the rest of us, why I plead, in all earnestness, should we want to disfellowship one another over such things, and denounce one another as "hypocrites and blasphemous blatherskites." Does that sound to you like a spirit of brotherly love? Does one have to employ such sulphurous encomiums (?) to advertise one's close adherence to the "truth."

      But says one, Boll is the man who draws the line and disfellowships others. If that is true, then Boll a sinner. But is it true? Just here I want to mention the fact of Brother Boll's having held several meetings for a certain church of Christ in Dallas, the writer attended two of these meetings. It was he who asked that Bro. Boll preach, the Dallas sermons which make up, "The Second Coming" book, and Brother Boll reluctantly enough consented to preach these sermons. If you have not read this book, get it and search for the dangers so excitedly referred to by the Reviewers. I was reliably informed that a preacher of Dallas said, "The time has come when we are going to have to draw the line against any one who has anything to do with that church that has Boll to preach for it." Note now, "We will have to draw the line," then bewailingly and sanctimoniously urge that Boll divides churches. There are any number of faithful gospel preachers who are considered by the brotherhood to be among the very best writers and preachers in the United States who do not agree with Brother Boll on every thing he believes, yet these good brethren are not willing to disfellowship him, but are in full Christian fellowship with him.

      Search Boll's writings and see whether you can find anybody denounced as unchristian, and unworthy of fellowship. In private conversation with Brother Boll about the brethren who are saying so many unkind things about him personally, he refers to them in kindly and brotherly terms, which is unquestionably characteristic of a faithful Christian. And yet, you say that Boll does the disfellowshipping? Are you not wrong? If you are not yet convinced that you are wrong, suppose you just write a note to some of our papers and mildly suggest that Boll may be, "Worthy of our respect and love after all" and see what sort of treatment you will receive! Try my brother, just try it. [8]

      In the name of our Lord, brethren, there is something wrong some where. But you say that Boll ought to cease to teach these things if they are not essential. Non-essential! Just try, my brother, to think of some non-essential parts of God's Word. Who is the author of the expression "The Non-essentials"? A preaching brother said to me just few days ago, "We ought not teach anything upon which we are not all agreed. Then I said, we will be forced to cut out a great deal of the Bible. Let me ask just here, my candid Christian brother, unto whom shall we appeal the case to get just that part of the good Word of God so beautifully arranged off in a little book to itself, containing only those things, "Upon which we all are agreed." Now if it ever comes to this pass that "We" must segregate a part of the Word of God, then where will be the legitimate room for preachers of the church of Christ to preach against denominationalism and the creeds of men?

      One of our greatest preachers whose name is found in "the list of endorsements," recently said to me, "I doubt very much whether there are any two of us who are agreed on everything concerning Bible teaching."

      Are we coming to it that we must first turn our writings over to a board of censors before they are given for publication? If so, who will constitute that ecclesiastical board, to whom can we appeal for justice when we feel we have been treated unfairly? The Lord Jesus said, "Call no man your father who is on the earth for one is your father even he who is in Heaven." Matt. 23:9.

      It seems to me that a number of brethren have agreed together to oppose Brother Boll, because they do not agree with all he believes, and their influence has led others to disfellowship him. If these brethren simply dissented from Boll's view, and if their writings on the subject consisted only in argumentation and not in personal denunciations, the case would be entirely different. Then there would be no divisions, or factions, or bitterness. Brethren, do not permit yourselves to be deceived in believing you are doing God's service while killing one of his servants.

      Our leading men have always differed on some points, and they discussed their differences and reviewed and refuted each other when they could, but they never disfellowshipped each other, or tried to stop each other from preaching their respective views. Alexander Campbell [9] preached and wrote a great deal about the millennium. He held some of the same views Boll holds. He published a paper called the "Millennial Harbinger." He thought the millennium near at hand. Dr. Brents preached and wrote things about the millennium that were never generally believed by other preachers with whom he associated and labored congenially.

      I am told that Jas. A. Harding believed and preached that the righteous will spend eternity upon this earth--redeemed earth. He and Brother David Lipscomb differed on several points, but lovingly fellowshipped each other and were co-laborers in the Master's Kingdom. Brother Tolbert Fanning, for another example, contended that the church has no elders now, but they ceased to be with the spiritual gifts. Not a great many agreed with Brother David Lipscomb's view of a Christian's attitude toward civil governments, and there is not now, and perhaps never was, agreement among us in regard to a Christian's taking part in carnal warfare. But in all the points here alluded to, Brother Boll is in exact accord with Brother Lipscomb except on the Millennium--but for that he must be denounced as a "Hypocrite, Blasphemer!" Now in all candor, my brother, can you endorse such a course of conduct by a few influential leaders and writers toward one of God's children who stands firmly and foursquare for every item of the doctrine and practice of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ?

      As to differences among us about the teaching of the prophecies and the book of Revelation, you know, my brother, that Boll is not the only one who "speculates," even granting that all his teachings are speculative. Dr. Thompson wrote a large book on such themes, and the book was published by the McQuiddy Printing Company, and sold through the Gospel Advocate, yet I feel safe in saying that not a single writer on the Advocate staff believes what Dr. Thompson taught. But no one has reviewed him and no demand was made that he cease to teach what he believes on these prophetical, not to say speculative themes. And no one has been abused and persecuted for reading his book. Did not Brother J. W. Chism of Texas write a book on prophecy once, in which he affirmed something like this: That Alexander Campbell came in fulfillment of certain Old Testament prophecies, and that the whole restoration movement was foretold by inspiration? Many of us would doubt his application of prophecy. We do not agree with his theory, [10] but Brother Chism is not hated for this and unchristianized, nor does any one demand that he stop teaching his theory. Many others could be mentioned, but it would consume too much time and space to give them all. Nobody reviewed any of these brethren as "Hypocrites" and "Blasphemous blatherskites." But you say Boll must stop! Why? Just because he is "pious"?

      I never met Brother Whiteside and have only met Brother Nichol twice. I used to read Brother Whiteside's articles with unusual interest, because they were the expressions of a carefully working mind, full of logic as well as practical common sense. Brother Nichol is a man of keen intelligence and amply able to analyze and gather the thoughts intended in the writings of another. But in this review of Brother Boll's teachings, there are some things that seem to indicate that they see the weakness of their contention against him, or, at least, they see the inconsistency of their attitude toward him personally, and to justify themselves, they endeavor to make mountains out of mole hills. I think it is possible that these brethren in this special case are not conscious of such a motive. Personal prejudice and a partisan spirit sometimes lead men to say things and do things that they would not say and do if the seas were calm in which they were sailing. Let us hope to see this proven true with these brethren who are able to follow a better trail than the one set forth in this review; better things are expected of them than this. They were working to expose some flagrant heresies, and with them "Trifles light as air became confirmation strong as proofs of holy writ."

      No better proof of this can be found than is abundantly supplied by the Reviewers themselves in their booklet. You will notice, my brother, that they frequently insist that they cannot understand Boll, and insinuate that Brother Boll is purposely vague, evasive and cunning. Once they openly charge that Boll has veiled his theories and kept back the most grossly unscriptural part of his "hurtful teachings." Thus in one breath Boll's opponents charge that Boll will not cease to teach his theories and just hold them in silence and in the next breath they charge that he will not come out and teach them so that even such astute men as the Reviewers can understand what he does believe.

      Furthermore, my brother, if Brother Boll's theories are as fanciful and unfounded as his opposers report them to be, they ought to be easily [11] illuminated and overthrown. Will you not agree to that? There certainly should be no need to resort to baneful personalities and to the cheap trickery of the sectarian debater. Should there? Truth never needs any such defense, and a man who holds the truth never needs to abuse or misrepresent or in any way mistreat his opponent. Again, I ask you, my brother, do you not agree? Surely you do.

      Maybe now you are asking in your mind if I make the charge that Brother Boll has not been fairly treated and logically refuted in the review that is so highly recommended and I will not let you wait long for my answer. It seems to me that this review, the only one that has ever been attempted so far as I know, abounds in bitter personalities, impugns motives and appeals to prejudice. When you have seen my reasons for so thinking, if you think I am wrong, you will please show me wherein I have erred. Furthermore, there seems to be a disposition on the part of the Reviewers to hunt motes, to strain at gnats, and to force an issue where none exists, and when they can't make it appear big and frightful they insist that Boll did not come out clearly and frankly and that what he says is not nearly so bad as what he secretly believes. And even when the Reviewers do find a point from which they might reasonably dissent, they do not fairly and logically answer it.

      Sincerely, brother, and in due kindness toward the Reviewers the best that I can say for their booklet, aside from its ugly personal reflections, it is only quibbling and sham logic. In the following pages I give you my reasons for this pronouncement and I ask you carefully, thoughtfully and prayerfully to read these pages with an open mind and if you then feel that I am wrong I insist that you write to me and tell me that I am wrong and that you indorse the Nichol-Whiteside review, of personalities, denunciations and all. Will you do it?

      Come then and let us reason together. Through these pages we shall examine only enough of the arguments and statements to prove what I have here said. I shall not argue Brother Boll's position except just far enough to show that it is not refuted. Don't forget, brother, that we be brethren. (Gen. 13:8). For whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. (1 Jno. 3:15). Let brotherly love continue. (Heb. 13:1). Moreover as for me, far be it from me that I should sin against Jehovah in ceasing to pray for you: but I will instruct you in the good and the right way. (1 Sam. 12:23). Consider what I say; and the Lord [12] shall give thee understanding in all things. (2 Tim. 2:7.)

      The following sentences from the Reviewers will enable the dispassionate reader to form a judgment as to the value of any criticism offered by these men. They are quoted verbatim.

      "In the letter to the church at Smyrna, written by John, Jesus said some of the Christians in Smyrna would be cast into prison; but he exhorts them: 'Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life' (Rev. 2:8-11 ). Who but him who is blinded by a false theory, or obsessed by a desire to attract attention to himself by teaching something which will place him in the limelight, will declare that these Christians in Smyrna were 'hoping' for, and 'looking' for, Jesus in the 'days of the apostles'?" Page 12.

      Boll desires to attract attention to himself and to get into the limelight! Obsessed with such desire!

      "It is a little hard to follow Brother Boll in all he says (and does not say) on the kingdom question. We have felt in reading him that he has not fully revealed himself--that he purposely withholds his convictions on some points which cry for declaration. But we have no desire to do him an injustice--to do so would be worse than an injustice to ourselves--but the reader will appreciate that it is hard for one who desires to be just to be fully satisfied with his efforts in reviewing an author when some of the prominent and essential features of his program are presented in a more or less veiled form." Page 17.

      Boil purposely withholds his convictions! They didn't find those awful things he believes!

      "All this fuss Brother Boll makes about Christ coming 'for' his saints, taking them off to heaven for several years, and then coming 'with' them is pure balderdash!" Page 17.

      Balderdash! Beautiful word in Christian literature! Also there is a misrepresentation of Boll's idea in the above sentence as will be shown later. There is a misapplication of scripture in the first quotation above. This will be pointed out too.

      "If Boll always knows what he is driving at, he has a faculty of sometimes keeping others from knowing." Page 19. [13]

      "Possibly Boll hopes to rule over Nashville, Tennessee, as one of the cities of his jurisdiction. Out of this hope perhaps he gets some consolation. But Nashville and Texas are rather far apart for him to rule over both." Page 29.

      An ugly personal reflection is here based on a misunderstanding which again becomes a misrepresentation.

      "Like everyone obsessed with air idea. Boll weaves in everything that he can use to construct a theory, and excludes those passages which explode his theory. And yet he claims that he has no desire to make out a theory, but wants the word of God to speak for itself, and no matter what it says he will be content. Such pious cant is usually put forward by every theorist, for only they feel the need of putting forward such claims. When any man boasts of his honesty, veracity, piety, devotion to God's word, or lack of theory, or when he makes such claims prominent--well, anybody but dupes become suspicious." Page 33.

      Boll excludes, suppresses scripture! Pious Cant! Cant means, to say it a hypocritical way, to deceive or impose upon by pretense of piety or worthiness. Reader, does that sound like Christian culture and expressions from pious godly hearts?

      "Such juggling of the word of God to save a wild speculation is unworthy of any man making any sort of claims to Christianity. Then, when his perversions are shown up and he is held up in his true light, for him to pose as a pious martyr is revolting." Page 48.

      Juggling! Pose! Pious Martyr!

      Mark the above sentence reader, for we shall see the connection later. Boll's piety is exasperating and the fact that it is only a pose does not make it any less so, it seems! It would not be at all strange for wicked men to dislike a man for piety--they always think that Christians are hypocrites--for now as of old, "they that are born after the flesh" persecute those who "are born after the spirit," and Cain slew Abel because his own works were wicked and Abel's were righteous (1 Jno. 3:12), but that Christian men should without cause discredit a brother's piety is unaccountable!

      Yet, recently, when a prominent preacher was told that Boll was known to spend quite a while in private prayer when he did not know that he was watched or timed, said "I do not indorse [14] that." Wonder if he would indorse the Lord who spent a whole night in prayer?

      Some eight or ten years ago a preacher who was then a wicked man and whose wickedness has since been exposed and who has now quit the church entirely, said that wherever Boll preached the brethren thought he was the only man who had any religion. And he added, "Whenever I hear of Boll holding a meeting at a place I know they will never enjoy my preaching any more. They will not ask nit to preach there most likely."

      It is easy to understand that man's hatred of Boll, and it was bitter. But why good men, lovers of godliness and contenders for truth should so talk, is a mystery. It is not a mystery that they should oppose some of Boll's idea, but to oppose him is!

      "But it must be acknowledged that there is in some an incurable mania for ruling somebody." Page 64.

      "He is now training and testing men for rulers. This fills men who think they belong to this class with a feeling of self-importance." Page 6.

      In a sentence that shall be examined under another heading it is even more plainly stated that Boll now rules and dictates and bosses.

      "And his blatant and dogmatic assertions on this point seem to us to be the slanderous ebulitions of a blasphemous blatherskite." Page 72.

      Blatant! Dogmatic! Slanderous! Ebulitions! Blatherskite!

      Yet the one alluded to is pious!

      Why, a blasphemer or a blatherskite either could not even pose as pious!

      "It seems that he had it in himself to theorize and he deliberately selected the plan wherein he would not be bothered with trying to make history fit his theory, but could invent events to suit his theory. No, sir; the futurist is not obliged to manufacture resemblances between the prophecies and the course of past history. All he has to do is to manufacture future events to fit his theory! But even then he does not know that he is right, and must end his argument with an 'if.'" Page 83.

      According to these sentences Boll did not, as some believe, in an earnest and prayerful study of the Bible come upon passages that he sincerely believed to teach the things he now preaches, but he first [15] decided to theorize, build a theory, and then "deliberately selected a plan that would be free from certain difficulties and went to work to find proof for a plan then already "deliberately" chosen!

      Now, reader, if these epithets and charges do not put Boll clear out of the pale of Christianity and even clear below the plane of an honest, honorable, trustworthy man, what kind of charges would you make and what sort of language would you use so to rate a man?

      "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? To his own Master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. . . . . . But why dost thou judge thy brother? Or why dost thou set at nought ('make of no account'--a blatherskite is a 'worthless fellow') thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." (Rom. 14:4, 10).

      Under the heading "theories" the Reviewers get personal again but they make the following philosophical observation:

      "Brother Boll's theory on the nature of the kingdom is hurtful to the character of him who believes it. It is a fixed principle in human nature that what one intently believes is reflected in his character, or rather it shapes and moulds his character. Now, Boll believes that the 'tested' servants of God will be rulers--rule with a rod of iron--over the cities of the future kingdom. That desire and ambition to rule then will have its effect on his character now. And is it not manifest? At first the reader may resent this charge, but a little reflection will convince any one of the absolute truth of the principle and its specific application. For where can you find a class of men who accept more slavishly the word of another than do the followers of Boll? Well, Brother Boll tells us that we are being 'tested' here for the future. How can a man's future fitness and ability to rule be tested except by an experiment in ruling? Boll is certainly ruling, and thereby he is proving his ability to rule in the 'future kingdom,' provided he has the same crowd as subjects that he is ruling now. But there is the rub--one phase of his theory will not allow him to have them as subjects then. But this is one of the weaknesses of his theory, for it requires about as much training and testing to make obedient subjects as it does to make efficient rulers." Page 5. [16]

      Now let us overlook the effort here made by a process of theorizing to convict Boll of being a demagogue or ruler of man's faith, and let us, by an argumentum ad hominem, apply the same process of theorizing to the Reviewers.

      Boll teaches that those who suffer with the Lord here in this life shall sit down with him upon his throne and reign with him and with him rule and judge the world when this life is over--when this age comes to an end. As to how Boll thinks we are now being prepared for this future work we quote the following from the Reviewers themselves as they quote Boll and comment. Hear them:

      "Brother Boll draws a dark picture of the church as it is and also as Christ designed it to be, 'in unworldly walk, humiliation, rejection, and suffering, and all the stringent spiritual requirements.' These terms he uses in contrast with what he supposes shall be. 'Stringent spiritual requirements'--stringent is a strong word. It seems to fit the feelings of those only who serve grudgingly." Page 27.

      But now the Reviewers claim that this conviction of Boll's fills him with self-importance, gives him an incurable mania for ruling somebody and makes him now seek to rule. Yet, mark it reader, when the Reviewers come to answer Boll's arguments on those scriptures that say we shall reign, and judge the world, and angels, under the headings 'Judging' and 'Reigning' on pages 63 and 64 they take the position that we are now judging and reigning. That those scriptures are now being fulfilled by us in this life!

      Now if Boll's idea that we shall rule and reign and judge in the future--after that we are prepared for it by "an unworldly walk, humiliation, rejection and suffering, and all the stringent spiritual requirements"--a clause at which the Reviewers sneer--they found and wrote a whole paragraph about it, makes him a boss and a demagogue, what will the Reviewers idea that we are now ruling, reigning and judging while we are in the flesh and without stringent spiritual requirements make of them? If a man's theory determines his conduct which of the above theories will fill a man with self-importance and make him domineering and inclined to lord it over his brother and force him to cease teaching things he does not like?

      But you say Boll teaches that we shall rule with a rod of iron! He quotes Rev. 2:27, and that is what is there said. Do the Reviewers [17] believe that? Of course they do but they think it is figurative. So Boll also believes. He says it is figurative. But, you say, that is a different sense from that in which we are now reigning and judging. Then our present reigning and judging do not fulfill this scripture and the others relied upon by Boll and therefore the whole argument upon reigning and judging does not answer Boll. It fails of its purpose and is useless.

      Thus you see, reader, in order to escape the predicament that their personal stab at Boll put them in the Reviewers will have to give up their argument against his idea of a future reign.

      Boll believes that we are now reigning and judging in the same sense that the Reviewers set forth on pages 63 and 64. That is by our righteous and pious lives we condemn the unrighteous and the impious and therefore incur their hatred, but the Bible says we must first suffer or endure and then reign (2 Tim. 2:12) and that it is the man that overcomes and keeps Christ's works to the end who shall rule with a rod of iron. The Reviewers did not therefore explain this at all or answer Boll. They only slurred him.

      But this is only a small sample of their handling of the Boll questions. Be patient, reader, it is worse further on.

      Under this caption the Reviewers protest their faith in the Lord's return and rush to the defense in strong language of those who Boll has "maligned" by saying they have ceased to look for, expect and long for the coming of Christ. A few lines from the Reviewers will show you how they got at that: Hear them:

      "No one who believes the Bible to be a revelation from God doubts that Christ will come again. Throughout Christendom disciples of Christ talk and sing of the coming Christ; and throughout the civilized world on the first day of the week they assemble to partake of the Lord's Supper, an institution through and by which they show their faith in the promise of their Lord's coming. 'For as often as we eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come' (1 Cor. 11:26). The religious people with whom Brother R. H. Boll is affiliated, and for whom he has been preaching for the past quarter of a century, are among those who observe the Lord's Supper and yet he says: [18] 'I have made the statement--and I am not unwilling to make it again--that the professing church has virtually lost its hope of the second coming' (SC 10). 'The thought of his coming has faded out of the minds of men. . . . . . In fact, I believe that the whole present-day theology is unfavorable to the doctrine of the coming of Jesus Christ. Most theology has no room for it' (SC 11).

      "Brother Boll does the great body of Christians an injustice; and we resent such charge which carries with It the thrust that Christians are ignorant on this point, or infidels and hypocritical pretenders, as to his coming. In observing the Lord's Supper Christians. 'proclaim the Lord's death till he come.' Are Christians ignorant of this fact? So they are, if Boll's statement be correct; or, if they know the Bible teaches that in partaking of the Lord's Supper they 'show his death till he comes,' but do not believe it, to that extent they are infidels." (Page 11).

      Thus you see the Reviewers do their best to make Boll say that all his brethren are hypocrites or infidels and pretenders--words that will not be found even by implication in Boll's writing when referring to any body who professes to serve God, if found at all. And they "resent" this and claim that they and all other Christians are now looking for and hoping for and expecting Christ's coming. But under the very next division of their review they argue through about seven pages to prove that the apostles and New Testament disciples were not looking for and expecting Christ to come in their day. Now if it is a slander upon Christians of today to say that they are not looking for and expecting the Lord, why is it not a slander upon Christians of the New Testament times to say that they were not looking for Christ in their day? Did they not partake of the Lord's Supper each Lord's Day also?

      But you suggest that the Apostles and early Christians were looking for and expecting Christ to come again, but not in their day. Is that the way, then, that we too are looking for and expecting the second coming? We believe it will happen some time but don't expect or look for it in our day. Now if you think that is what the Reviewers mean you will make them agree with Boll's charge exactly and confess to the "slander". That is the way Boll says most Christians of today look for Christ. But he says that the New Testament teaches that Christ may come at any moment and that Christians should be watching and ready, [19] waiting and anxious to see their Lord. That their expectation of Christ is an incentive to righteous living. While he thinks this should be the Christian's attitude now, Boll never said that Christians had ceased to believe in a theoretical way that Christ will some day come again. And if that is not the only way the Reviewers are looking for Christ they have certainly been unfortunate in their expressions and arguments in this booklet. They always put the terms "looking for" and "hoping for" in quotation marks and in other ways appear to ridicule the idea of looking for and expecting Christ. They even argue that we may hope for a thing that is definitely put beyond a period of time, which is correct. Boll will not deny that, but the question is does a thing have to be some time ahead in order for us to hope for it? If so, how far in the future must it be in order to allow hope? What is the minimum period of time? If they say there is not necessarily any period of definite length they will again agree with Boll and say that the thing hoped for may occur at any time. If they say it is not likely to occur at anytime what time do they set for it to occur? If they will not set the time me for it to occur how much time do they set before it will occur as a minimum? They say positively and rather vehemently that it is not imminent--likely to occur at anytime. If they cannot tell what time must intervene before Christ comes can they tell what events must occur before his advent? If they cannot tell either and say there may not be any of either then they agree with Boll and they have espoused the awful doctrine of imminency. No use to argue that sometime may elapse before He comes, If yes, how much? If no, imminency.

      Reader, what do you think was gained by all this arguing about the Second Coming? Are we all watching for, and looking for him? If so, where is the issue between any of us and Boll? If we are not watching for and looking for him why all this furor about Boll's statement to that effect? Look up the meaning of that word again "balderdash."

      There is no prophecy in the Lord's Supper of the Lord's Second Coming. It commemorates his death and shall continue to do so as often as it is observed "till he come." The expression "till he come" marks the duration of the institution and not its purpose. But even if it does mean what the Reviewers say it means that would not prove by any means that many of those who partake of the Lord's Supper do not fail to appreciate, realize and visualize that feature of the sacred institution. [20]

      As the Reviewers say Christians everywhere sing of the coming of Christ and our hymn books are full of the theme, but if the Reviewers are right, we have either ignorantly, or in unbelief been singing an awful lot of error. There are any number of songs that tell us to be always ready, watching, waiting, looking for the Lord--thus implying that he may appear at any time. Some of these have been severely condemned since "Bollism" got started. Not many years ago one of the Reviewers, I was informed, stopped the brethren in a certain congregation from singing,

      in his meeting and he left partisans there who did not want that hymn ever sung there again and thus a division in sentiment was created and Boll had not even been there. Although the expression, "I know that my Redeemer liveth and on the earth again shall stand" is almost a verbatim quotation of Job 19:25, in order to sustain our theory, or rather our quibble that Christ will never set his foot on the earth again we must repudiate our songs, revise our song books and "interpret" Job.

      "Hear our beloved David Lipscomb on page 360 of his "Questions and Answers": "When Jesus comes again the will of God will be done on earth as it is in heaven and all things in the world will be restored to harmonious relations with God the supreme ruler of the universe."

      This only shows you the limit and the spirit of the opposition of Boll personally.

      There is a song in one of the Gospel Advocate books that has been sung in some places a great deal and which says that we "Shall reign as Kings and priests to God on high" when Jesus comes or when this life is over but now since the brethren, to refute Boll, have discovered that it is here and now that we reign and rule--even to the regulating of the songs the brethren sing--that song too must go. It is in the Gospel Praise and I think it is number 79. If that is not the number it can easily be found by the aid of the index. It should be torn out of the books, although that book was edited by our late venerable Brother E. G. Sewell. The teaching of that song might divide some Church, now since we have found out that it isn't true (?). But Oh, how we used to sing it and rejoice in the glorious prospect! [21]

      This is the heading to the next division of the Boll review and in the "Contents" the Reviewers list it as "Boll's Imminency." It does seem that Boll is always imminent in some brethren's writing and preaching in these days.

      But the Reviewers are after Boll's Idea that the Coming of Christ is imminent. He has explained often that by the use of that word he means that the time of that great, glad event is uncertain and may be any time--today or tomorrow. Does not Brother Boll explain to Brother McQuiddy when he was first criticised for using this word that he used it in its etymological sense?--Overhanging, impending, like a cliff that hangs over and seems about to fall. No one, can tell when it will fall; it may hang for years or it may fall at any moment--there is danger of its falling hence one would feel that one's life is in danger under such a cliff. That is the literal etymological meaning of imminency. And that is the the way Boll uses the word. Christ may come at any time and because we know not when, we should Le always ready. It is a risk, and there is danger in being unprepared. So Boll teaches and so he says the Bible teaches. He says that Christ's coming is imminent just as death is imminent and it is imminent from infancy--though it may not occur for ninety years.

      Now do the Reviewers deny that Christ may come any day? If they do, will they tell us when he is coming? If they do not know when he is coming how do they know he is not coming today or tomorrow? If they say they do not know either when he is or when he is not coming--then they have again espoused imminency! But this has been discussed before.

      Let us now hear the Reviewers start out under this caption:

      "Brother Boll says relative to the second coming of Christ, that the early Christians 'were hoping for him and they were looking for his return in the days of the Apostles'" (SC. 10).

      "The apostles did not expect Christ to come during their life on earth! If they believed that Christ would come during their life on earth, upon what did they base their faith? Such faith can not rest upon inspired testimony. If they wrote that Christ would come before they died, their statement to that effect was not an inspired statement, it is a fact that he did not come. If the apostles or any of the other early [22] Christians were "hoping for him" and were "looking for his return in the days of the apostles," such was not based on a correct interpretation of any statement made by an inspired man, for it is a fact that he did not come. If God led the early Christians to be "hoping for him" and to be "looking for his return, in the days of the apostles," then he led them to hope for, and to look for, that which did not take place. He who teaches that God led the early Christians to hope for and to look for the coming of Christ during the life of the apostles on earth, is guilty of declaring that God led his people to hope for, and to look for, that which did not take place. Did God deceive the early Christians. So he did if R. H. Boll is correct.

      "The interpretation of any passage written by an apostle, or any other inspired man, to the effect that he taught that Christ would come during the life of the apostles on earth, is a false interpretation. The fact that Christ did not come during the life of the apostles on earth is proof.

      "He who interprets any statement of the apostles as an indication that they expected Christ to come during their life on earth is forcing a false interpretation on such statement. This is true, or it follows that the apostles, if they expected Christ to come during their life on earth, did not base their expectation on inspiration. But R. H. Boll declares that the early Christians were 'hoping' and 'looking' for Christ to come 'in the days of the apostles.' It must follow then that his interpretation is false." Pages 8 and 9.

      I have quoted them at length, you see, because I want you to see how they take hold of a question and I don't want to appear to wrest their language. The Reviewers covered Boll's three books and yet their book is but a few pages larger than the smallest of the three. The reason is they never quoted more than three or four sentences at a time from Boll, and often in discussing a position taken in one book they quote a sentence from another book. But they claim that Boll would not speak out so they could understand him and I suppose they had to piece out his theory as best they could. At any rate I do not accuse them of garbling though I may show you some things that I will not know what to call. I will just let you name them.

      But now let us examine some things said above. You will keep in mind that the Reviewers are here denying imminency and don't forget [23] either that they claim to be hoping for and looking for Christ themselves. They resent the charge that they are not so hoping and looking.

      You notice that they emphatically deny that Christians in the apostolic period were looking for and expecting Christ while they were living. And they affirm that no inspired statement would justify such a conclusion, etc. They reason that if God led those Christians to expect the Lord while they were yet living that He--God--deceived them. We will notice that reasoning in due time but before we do that we must call your attention to a quibble here upon which the greater part of this whole division of seven pages is based. Boll's statement to which the Reviewers allude (they do not quote) reads as follows:

      "They were hoping for Him and they were looking for His return in the days of the apostles. When persecution raged, when the Christians were slain for their belief--were put to death in all kinds of cruel fashions--they kept alive the hope of the coming of the Lord Jesus." (Second Coming P. 10).

      Now I think, dear reader, that you will understand at once that this refers to the Christians who lived in the days of the apostles, so also the Reviewers understand it. Then you see that "the days of the apostles" simply means a period of time--what we call the apostolic period. What is now affirmed of the Christians of that period?

      That they were hoping for and looking for the Lord. Is that not clearly what Boll's sentence says? But how do the Reviewers undertake to deny this? Why, they base their whole argument upon the expression "in the days of the apostles" and this they assumed to mean while all of the apostles were living. Thus they made Boll affirm the Christians of that age were looking for Christ to come before any one of the apostles should die. A fallacy which is sufficiently obvious. But then upon that fallacious assumption the Reviewers launch into a vehement denial of Boll's position (?). (If you think "vehement" too strong, I call to your attention that they themselves were constrained to say, "Do you ask upon what we base such strong statements.") And sure enough, upon what did they base this denial? Why upon the fact that Peter knew he was going to die--that John know Peter was going to die. (2 Peter 1:13, 15; John 21:18-19) Now you have it, brother. Here you behold logic, eh? The Christians who lived in the days of the apostles were not looking for and hoping for the Lord's [24] return because Peter knew he must die! And Boll declared according to the Reviewers, that the Christians of that age were expecting Christ to return while everyone of the apostles was yet living on the earth in the flesh!

      Now it is true that Boll believes that those Christians looked for, hoped for, and even expected Christ to come in their day--before all of them should fall asleep. "We shall not All sleep." (1 Cor. 15:51) If language means anything this means that some of them would sleep--indeed they were already failing asleep and that was the whole occasion of those comforting words from Paul found in 1 Thessalonians 4:13 to close, which I beg you to read right here. They were expecting to live to see Christ come and some of their loved ones fell asleep and Paul wrote to comfort them and assured them that those of them who lived till Christ comes would have no advantage over those who were now asleep. For when the Lord comes the dead in Christ shall rise first--that is, before the living saints ascend to meet Christ--and then the living would be changed and they all together would go up and meet the Lord.

      But while the expression "we shall not all sleep" indicates that some of them should sleep it does not indicate or imply but positively states that some Christians (and so far as they knew, some then living) would not sleep.

      Now if that statement and the expression "we"--mark it reader, "we who are alive and remain," and Paul's prayer that "your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire" unto the coming of Christ, do not teach that even Paul and those to whom he wrote hoped for Christ to come while they--some of them--yet lived, pray, what do the words mean? By what sort of ingenious interpreting can we make Paul's expression "we shall not all sleep" mean? Did he mean to say, "We shall all sleep, but some Christians who will live away down in the ages--(some where beyond the first quarter of the twentieth century--a considerable period beyond, for Christ's coming is not yet imminent. Horrors no!) will not all sleep?" And how, in reason's name, are we going to "interpret" 1 Thess. 5:23? Weymouth translates and comments on that passage as follows:

      "And may God Himself, who gives peace, make you entirely holy; and may your spirits, souls and bodies be preserved complete and be [25] found blameless at the Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

      Then this footnote:

      "(Bodies) An indication that the apostle expected the coming of Christ to take place in the life time of the first readers of this letter--whilst they were still in the body."

      It was because mockers ever taunting the disciples with the suggestion that Christ had failed to fulfill his promise to come again and because some of the disciples themselves were in danger of becoming discouraged because of the delay in the Lord's return, that Peter wrote to remind them that such mockers had been foretold: That they must never forget "this one thing" that the Lord is not slack concerning his promise, he would not fail--he would come and because of that fact--that they looked for him--they must give diligence to be found in peace. (Found in peace two thousand years after they had died?) (2 Pet. 3).

      But the Reviewers say that if God led the disciples to look for and hope for (always belittling the idea by the quotation marks) Christ in their day He--God--deceived them. And strange as it may seem that is just what the mockers were saying in that day--that he had failed in his promise and hence deceived them. If the Reviewers had been there they would no doubt have challenged these mockers for a debate and affirmed that the Lord had not promised to come in their day--"no inspired statement could be found on which to base any such idea". But Peter did not deny that he had made such a promise but he rather affirmed that he had promised to come but he showed clearly that he had set no time to come, but that a thousand years with the Lord is no more than a day with men, hence if he delays even that long it would not be slackness with the Lord, though as man count slackness it would be. That is, such delay on the part of men--whose lives are measured by time--would be slackness. Not so with the Lord. But then Peter exhorts the disciples to be ready, to live godly, to be careful to be found in peace for he will come as a thief that is unannounced.

      I ask you to read carefully the whole chapter and see if that is a false interpretation.

      But before we go further with the statements of inspired men let us notice another fallacy in the statements of the Reviewers. They say that to make any inspired statement teach that Christ promised that he would come in the days of the apostles is a false interpretation. To that [26] we must all agree. Boll will agree there. No one has ever taught that Christ said or even intimated that he "would come" then. No apostle ever taught that Christ would come in his day. What they did teach was that Christ might come in their day. But even Christ said he did not know when he would come and the apostles taught that they did not know when he would appear--that he would come as a thief. Therefore, be ready; that note is heard through the whole New Testament. That you may see it I will here quote a few of the many passages. Notice the words watch, wait, look, hope, earnestly desiring, etc., in connection with the second coming and then remember that the Reviewers always discredit those words with quotation marks, thus using them as Boll's words.

      All references are from the Revised Version. Read thoughtfully please.

      "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is. It is as when a man, sojourning in another country having left his house, and given authority to his servants, to each one his work, commanded also the porter to watch. Watch therefore: for ye know not when the lord of the house cometh, whether at even, or at midnight, or at cockcrowing, or in the morning; lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch." (Mark 13:31-37).

      "If any man loveth not the Lord, let him be anathema. Marana-tha." ("O Lord Come"--margin) (1 Cor. 16:22).

      "For our citizenship is in heaven; whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ." (Phil. 3:20).

      "For they themselves report concerning us what manner of entering in we had unto you; and how ye turned unto God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, who delivereth us from the wrath to come." (1 Thess. 1:9, 10).

      "But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning them that fall asleep; that we sorrow not, even as the rest, who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also [27] that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep. 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; then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words." (1 Thess. 4:13-17).

      "But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that aught be written unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. When they are saying, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall in no wise escape. But ye, brethren are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief: for ye all are sons of light, and sons of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness: so then let us not sleep, as do the rest, but let us watch and be sober." (1 Thess. 5:1-6).

      "Cast not away therefore your boldness, which hath great recompense of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, having done the will of God, ye may receive the promise.

      "For yet a very little while He that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry. But my righteous one shall live by faith: And if he shrink back, my soul hath no pleasure in him." (Heb. 10:35-38).

      "For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us, to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world: looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." (Titus 2:11-13).

      "And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment; so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation." (Heb. 9:27, 28).

      "But forget not this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is [28] long-suffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 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 work that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing that these things are thus all to be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy living and godliness, looking for and earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God, by reason of which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? But, according to his promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 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 Peter 3:8-14).

      Reader, what sort of idea do you gain from these scriptures. Do you think they indicate that the apostles want Christians to be watching and expecting the Lord?

      But the Reviewers say that the fact that Christ did not come in the days of the apostles is proof that Christ did not want his disciples to expect him then. He told them to watch because they knew not the day he might come and find them unprepared unless they watch. Now did he mean that for them or for those who will be living when the day does at last come? If the fact that the Lord did not come in the days of the apostles proves that he did not mean for them to be ready, watching and expecting him then the same proves that he did not intend that advice for anybody who has lived since unless it is this generation and if he does not come while we live it will prove that he did not mean it for us. How will the last generation know that it is the last and that therefore Christ's language applies to it?

      Brother, if the New Testament teaches anything at all, it teaches that the Christian's attitude toward the coming of Christ is one of readiness and expectancy. He also "loves his appearing" (2 Tim. 4:8). This was the attitude of New Testament Christians--has been the true Christian's attitude ever since and will be till he comes.

      If Christ had promised to come on a specific day or in a specific age and then failed to come it would have been deception but he set no time. He left it uncertain and told his disciples to be always ready. [29]

      Contending that the disciples of the apostolic day were not looking for Christ the Reviewers say concerning the church at Smyrna:

      "In the letter to the church at Smyrna, written by John, Jesus said some of the Christians in Smyrna would be cast into prison; but he exhorts them: 'Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life' (Rev. 2:8-11 ). Who but him who is blinded by a false theory, or obsessed by a desire to attract attention to himself by teaching something which will place him in the limelight, will declare that these Christians in Smyrna were "hoping" for, and "looking" for, Jesus in the "days of the apostles"? In addition to the telling these saints in Smyrna that some of them would be cast into prison, he adds that if they were faithful throughout their lives, they would receive the crown of life. Would it not be interesting to hear Brother Boll tell just how these Christians in Smyrna were "hoping" for him and "looking" for him, in "the days of the apostles"?

      Thus they make the expression, "Be thou faithful unto death" mean--Be thou faithful throughout your lives--even to old age and right up to death. But it does not say "until death" but "unto death." It means be thou faithful even if it costs your life. How faithful must I be?--even unto death, Christ became obedient even unto death (Phil. 2:7-8). How obedient? Even unto death--endured the cross. The disciples at Smyrna were going to be cast into prison and suffer but they were exhorted not to allow that to deter them but to be faithful through all that and even unto death.

      This is as plain as it can be but the Reviewers made it not only the basis for a negative argument but also for an ugly personal thrust. But we must remember that the Reviewers are not under any "stringent spiritual requirements." (See page 27).

      The Reviewers know that when this was written all the apostles were dead except John. Why did they throw in their quibble on "in the days of the apostles" here? Because without that their whole denial is a joke. If they deny that those saints were looking for Christ then they make the same charge against those Christians that Boll makes against the majority of Christians of this age and the Reviewers' "resentment" of Boll's charge is a failure. But they must make capital of that and resent it in behalf of us all, or else they may fall to stir up prejudice [30] against Boll. To fail to see the creature so thinly clad in such reasonings as have characterized the Reviewers' personal attacks, if it were not for casting reflection upon the intelligence of some of the endorsers of "The Review" I would venture the use of the Reviewers' own words: "One would have to be a 'dupe' to fail to see through it all."

      Some of the endorsers of the Whiteside-Nichol Review had not examined Boll's writings for they told the writer so.

      The only way the Reviewers could find anything at all to say in reply to Boll's idea of Christ's coming for his saints and with his saints was to misunderstand him. They not only do not refute Boll but they actually agree with him. To be sure they do not agree with what they represent him as teaching but they do not represent him correctly. They take exactly the same arguments to refute Boll's position that he uses to establish it. Boll says that the saints will go out to meet the coming Bridegroom and return with him. He uses the parable of the virgins as an illustration. He argues that to meet one coming to the place where you are indicates a return with that one. (He is fair to state that he does not, however, make these arguments in the books; the Reviewers make the same arguments that both Boll and Blackstone make and they base them on the same scriptures.) So you see even the Reviewers believe that when Christ comes his saints, both those living those raised from the dead, will go up to meet him in the air--on his journey to the earth--and come back with him to the earth. The only point of difference at all is the length of time that may elapse before they come to the earth after they have met in the air. I assume that the Reviewers believe that Christ will not stop in his journey to the earth even when the saints meet him. He will keep coming right on and the saints will turn immediately back and come with him. Boll thinks there will be certain affairs attended to there at that meeting place and then Christ and the saints come on down to the earth. This difference is negligible.

      But the Reviewers make a big difference. Hear them:

      "In his theology there are different 'stages' of the 'Second Coming,' and it takes the sum total of the 'stages' to constitute the 'Second Coming.' Boll says Christ comes 'for his saints,' returns with them to heaven, where with him they abide for some years, and then 'he comes with his saints'--these are the stages, and it takes both of them to [31] constitute the 'Second Coming.' To illustrate his idea, he says, relative to his trip for Louisville, Ky., to Dallas, Texas: 'If, for example, I were coming to Texas and some of my friends had met me in Texarkana, and then I came on to Dallas with them, you would not say that that was two comings. So, the first stage of the Second Coming is when the Lord Jesus comes down and receives his own up. Then, after certain affairs have been attended to, he comes with them and the whole world sees his coming' (SC. 21 ). It is strange to us that Boll cannot see that his trip to Dallas does not illustrate his point, for in the 'stages' of what he calls the 'Second Coming' he has Jesus coming for his saints, and with them returning to heaven, abiding there some years, and then returning--'coming with his saints.' Whereas, in his illustration he was met by some friends in Texarkana, and came right on to Dallas with them. When his friends met him in Texarkana, had he returned with them to Louisville, and remained several years, and then come to Dallas, his illustration would have fit, but there would have been two comings." Page 7.

      "Brother Boll contends that Christ is coming 'for' his saints, at which time they will be caught up to meet him in the air, and go with him as he returns to heaven, where they remain for some years, and then the Lord comes 'with them.'" Page 16.

      They make Boll teach that Christ will come twice--two comings--but Boll teaches no such thing. He plainly says that there will not be two comings and illustrates the idea by his journey from Louisville to Dallas. Hear him:

      "That is the second stage of His coming. It is not a different coming, but the same coming. If, for example, I were coming to Texas and some of my friends had met me in Texarkana, and then I came on to Dallas with them, you would not say that that Was two comings. So, the first stage of the Second Coming is when the Lord Jesus comes down and receives His own up. Then, after certain affair have been attended to, He comes with them and the whole world sees His coming."

      Boll does not teach that Christ will go back to heaven and then come again. There is no intimation of such an idea--nothing that could even be tortured into such a meaning. Boll says not two comings but the same journey--only a meeting. The following diagrams will show how terribly the Reviewers distort Boll's idea. This diagram was used by Boll in preaching on the subject in Dallas. [32]

(Top) Boll's Idea (Side) Reviewers' Idea       Note now, Boll teaches in this diagram that the Lord Jesus comes for his saints. 1 Thess. 4. They meet him in the air; then he said they attend to some affairs, and then he comes with his saints.       But the Reviewers after quoting Boll correctly turn right around and make the argument that he said the saints go with the Lord back to Heaven and stay several years and then come back to Earth, which is not only unfair but a plain misrepresentation of Boll's position.       Now draw your own conclusions about how this mistake occurred.       Why didn't the Reviewers tell what they believe to be the truth about the Lord's coming, giving a little Bible proof? [33]

      The next division of the review is headed with the Greek preposition "EK".

      Under this heading the Reviewers seem to think that they refute Boll's idea of two resurrections, although a reader who is not acquainted with the Boll idea would not know what they are discussing. He would probably think that Boll has doctrine which he calls "ek" for short. But Boll uses "ek" only parenthetically on one point in favor of two resurrections and if the Reviewers take that point from him, which they do not, his proposition would still stand. But if I have not satisfied you yet, brother, with proof of all I said about the review being quibbling, I think I, at least, have you on the "anxious seat" and right here I'll bring you through. But let us first hear the Reviewers and again we give them ample space--we give all they say on these words:

      "Brother Boll says, 'Uniformly, when the resurrection of God's people is spoken of with reference to the other dead, it is a 'resurrection from the dead'--Greek, 'ek' 'out of, 'from among'; a distinction which the Revised Version preserves. (See for example, Luke 20:35, 36) (R. 64.) But 'ek' does not occur in verse 36. So the resurrection of God's people, when spoken of with reference to other dead, is uniformly a "resurrection from the dead" in Lk. 20:35! Uniformly--in one place! and the Revised Version preserves this distinction in one verse! It is true that 'ek' is used in several places where the resurrection of one person is referred to, as, for example, in several passages which speak of the resurrection of Christ. But no fair minded scholar would try to establish a rule from that, for the simple reason that 'ek' is left out of some passages. For example of the absence of 'ek' see Acts 17:32; 26:23; Romans 1:4. In Acts 4:2 we find the resurrection 'ek' the dead where it appears that the resurrection of all the dead is referred to. This seems to upset Boll's criticism.

      "As to 'exanastasis' in Phil. 3:11 means 'out-resurrection,' Thayer gives no such idea--'a rising up; a rising again, resurrection.' The noun form is found in the New Testament only in this place. The verb from which the noun is derived is defined by Thayer: 'To make to rise up, to raise up, to produce: sperma, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28. To rise in an assembly to speak: Acts 15:5. If Boll's idea is in the noun, it should also be in the verb from which the noun is derived. But [34] any one can see that in Mark 12:19 and Luke 20:28 the brother was not to 'out-raise' up seed to his brother. We are persuaded that there is not a shred of foundation for Boll's criticism. But it is a pre-millennium argument, though Thayer, a pre-millennialist, gives no support to the argument defining the words." Page 15.

      The Reviewers exclaim victoriously that "ek" is not in verse 36, thus leaving the impression that Boll had given a reference that does not say what he claims that it says. But one sentence runs through more than one verse and "ek" is in that sentence but the part of the sentence that contains "ek" is verse 35 and Boll made the mistake of citing two verses--the same sentence--and therefore his whole theory is false. We will call this, Quibble number One.

      Boll says that the Revised Version uniformly reads "from the dead" when speaking of the resurrection of God's people with reference to the other dead--not the resurrection of all the dead but of God's people and he cites as an example Luke 20:35, 36. The Reviewers ridicule the idea of saying uniformly irk one place--which Boll does not say--and they seem to think that they have actually "drawn out leviathan with a hook." But Boll gave that reference as an example and said "See, for example, Luke 20:35, 36". And after shouting one place, the Reviewers actually admit that "ek"--the Greek preposition which the Revisers translate "from"--is found in several passages where the resurrection of one person is spoken of and they cite an example--Christ. Well, that is exactly what Boll said. He said, "when speaking of the resurrection of God's people with reference to the rest of the dead," "from" is used and the Greek is "ek". "With reference to the rest of the dead" means what is done for God's people that is not done for the rest--they are raised "ek"--"out from among"--the other dead. The Reviewers accuse Boll of saying that this is true "uniformly in one place" and then admit that it is true in several places and then next cite a few places where it is not true, they say. We will call this Quibble number Two.

      Read now again this sentence from the Reviewers:

      "For examples of the absence of 'ek' see Acts 17:32; 26:23; Romans 1:4. In Acts 4:2 we find the resurrection 'ek' the dead where it appears that the resurrection of all the dead is referred to. This seems to upset Boll's criticism." [35]

      After inferring that "ek" only occurs "uniformly in one place" they cite a few places where it does not occur, they say! But now, reader, get your Greek Testament and look up those references, there are just three of them. Remember the expression "the resurrection of God's people with reference to the rest of the dead". Then read Acts 17:32. Whose resurrection is there referred to? Now read the verse preceding--verse 31. Whose resurrection is there referred to? One of "God's people"? Notice that verse 31 says "from the dead" and verse 32 says "of the dead". Look at your Greek.--There is ek in verse 31. Here is one more place where "from--"ek"--is "uniformly" found. And in a passage-- next verse above--that the Reviewers cited as an example of those where "ek" is not found!

      The Reviewers say that Acts 4:2 refers to the resurrection of all the dead--or that it "appears" to. They were not sure. Well, that passage could be so understood if "ek" were not there, but its most obvious meaning is that the apostles were preaching that Jesus had been raised from the dead and this troubled the Sadducees for two reasons--they had killed Christ and they didn't believe in a resurrection. But to preach the resurrection as a doctrine, as the Pharisees did, would not have troubled the Sadducees. It was the fact that Jesus had actually been raised from among the dead that troubled them.

      The use of "ek" here makes this meaning certain. Weymouth's translation and others read "from among the dead" here is always where "ek" is used.

      Boll is absolutely right in saying that "when the resurrection of God's people with reference to the rest of the dead" is spoken of it is always "ek"--"from among" the dead (See, for example, Acts 10:41; 17:31; 3:15; 4:10; 13:30; John 12:1, 9, 17; Heb. 11:19; Luke 20:35).

      In this list of citations I should give Phil. 3:11 also, but as the Reviewers take up that separately we will follow them.

      Notice their comment on "exanastasis". They say that word--the noun is found only in this place--Phil. 3:11. In this combination the word is not found elsewhere. But this is simply the word "anastasis", which is always used for resurrection, compounded with the preposition "ek". And we have seen that the two are used together often. Here they are compounded into one word. The Reviewers seemed not to [36] know that, as "ek" preceded a vowel here and turned into "ex".

      Rotherham--1872 edition--translates this the "out-resurrection from among the dead". The Emphatic Diaglot reads, "the resurrection from among the dead". Weymouth translates it "from among the dead" and then gives us this footnote: "The resurrection from among the dead--The 'first' resurrection, also mentioned in Luke 20:35; John 5:25; Acts 4:2; 1 Cor. 15:23; Rev. 20:5, 6. Compare 'a better resurrection' Heb. 11:35."

      But the Reviewers say that Thayer does not support this idea. I wonder! Now you just turn to Thayer's definition of "anastasis"--the above word with "ek" left off--and read this.

      "He Anast, he prote" in Rev. 20:5 will be that of true Christians, and at the end of a thousand years will be followed by a second resurrection, that of all the rest of mankind Rev. 20:12. On the question whether and in what sense Paul also believed in two resurrections, separated from each other by a definite space of time, compare, Grimm and then Thayer tells what work of Grimm to see. Thus Thayer "in defining these words" does affirm two resurrections and cites a work that argues that Paul taught it and cites this very passage, Phil. 3:11, and others as proof.

      But the Reviewers try to burlesque the idea of exanastasin meaning the "out-resurrection" or a resurrection "out from among the dead" by finding the verb exanistemi applied to raising up seed (Sperma means seed) to a dead brother. They say, "Did he out-raise seed?" Exactly.

      But first let us notice that this verb is used in only three places in the New Testament and the Reviewers give them all. Not one of them refers to raising the dead! This is not the verb that is used when raising the dead is spoken of. Twice this verb is transitive and refers to raising up seed, and once it is intransitive and refers to one rising in an assembly to speak. Yet even in those passages the idea of "out from", "from among" is present. You can see it as a man rises in an audience--from the people assembled--to speak. When a man died without children it was a misfortune, a calamity and to offset this his brother takes the dead man's wife and out of this calamity--out of this state, he raises seed to the dead man. Hence children rise up to--as if from--a dead man. They were counted his children. [37]

      So you see, reader, in the two paragraphs which we give from the Reviewers they say:

      1. That Boll cites a verse as containing "ek" in which "ek" is not found, but we found that "ek" is in that sentence.

      2. That Boll says a thing he did not say--"uniformly in one place".

      3. That exanastasis does not mean "to rise out of" or to "rise out from" hence "out-resurrection", when that is exactly what it does mean.

      4. That in defining these words Thayer does not favor the idea of two resurrections but we found that Thayer affirms that very doctrine and cites a work that uses this very passage of proof.

      But, reader, let us concede that the Reviewers gained every point on "ek" and "anastasis" and what have they done with the chief arguments in favor of two resurrections? Not a thing.

      What did they do with the expression, "first resurrection"? Didn't mention it.

      What did they do with Rev. 20:5 which plainly says a thousand years will pass after the saints rise before the rest of the dead live? They didn't do anything. Why didn't they try?

      How did they explain Paul's efforts to attain unto the resurrection if there is only one and it universal and unconditional? They did not try to explain. Shall we wonder Why?

      How did they interpret the expression "counted worthy" of the resurrection? They made no effort.

      Notice, Jesus said that all who attain, to the resurrection from among the dead will be sons of God and equal to the angels.

      But the Reviewers say that this is the general resurrection and that all men will be in it--not some from among the dead--but all the dead.

      Therefore all men will be equal to the angels and be sons of God because sons of the resurrection. Luke 20:34, 36.

      Thus our Reviewers have given us universal salvation! Universal unconditional salvation! Don't forget now that the doctrine they preach in this argument here.

      You see, brother, Boll says that the resurrection of Luke 20:34-36 is the "first resurrection" and the wicked are not in it. Did the Reviewers give any explanation of that passage at all? None.

      Yet those who commend the review say it is a "knockout", that it [38] leaves nothing undone and the Reviewers themselves suggest two or three times that Boll will be ashamed of himself when he sees what they have done for him!!!

      Then

      While we are discussing the resurrection we will notice what the Reviewers say about Boll's position on 1 Cor. 15:23-28. Again we will give what they say in full, for the more they say the easier they are answered. Here as usual they bluster about what they have done for Boll and denounce him as unchristian, but they absolutely do not touch the subject. But hear them:

      "And this harmonizes perfectly with 1 Cor. 15:23-28, where Paul declares that when all enemies are destroyed, then will Christ deliver up the kingdom to the Father. 'But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits; then they that are Christ's, at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him.'

      "Boll seeks to avoid the force of this passage by saying, 'In the English the word 'then' may mean either 'at that time' or 'next after, next in order.' But in the Greek these ideas are distinguished. The Greek word 'tote' expresses the idea of 'at that time'; but in enumerations, where sequence is expressed, the Greek has, 'eita' or 'epeita.' It is that latter word which is employed here, in 1 Cor. 15:23, 24. A stricter rendering of these two verses would be--'Christ the first-fruits; after that they who are Christ's at his coming. Afterwards cometh the end when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God even the Father.' The length of time elapsing between the items enumerated by 'eita' and 'epeita' stand. Let it express mere sequence--the next thing in order, learned elsewhere. But 'eita' and 'epeita' indicate that the events follow one another in order' (K. 68).

      "We do not intend to allow Boll to muddle this text in any such unscholarly way, nor to escape by such easy method. Let his definition of epeita stand. Let it express mere sequence--the next thing in order, [39] and what have we? Christ comes, the, next thing in order is 'the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom of God.' With this meaning other uses of the word agree. In the same chapter, and in discussing the appearing of Christ after he arose Paul says, 'He then appeared to Cephas, then (eita) to the twelve; then (epeita) he appeared unto above five hundred brethren at once. . . . then (epeita) he appeared unto James; then (eita) to all the apostles.' In giving a brief outline of his history in Gal. 1 and 2 Paul says, 'I went into Arabia, then (epeita) after three years I went up to Jerusalem. Then (epeita) I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, then (epeita) after the space of fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem.' Leave the time limit out of the word entirely if you prefer, and it changes the sense not one whit. Paul here gives the order of his journeys and no journey comes between the one and the next. One event is mentioned, then the next one in order is mentioned.

      "So Christ comes, and the next thing in order is the end. But make the time between his coming and the end when the kingdom is delivered up as long as you like, and what has been gained? The next thing in order after his coming is the end. But Boll would not have it thus: With him the next thing in order after he comes is the destruction of the world-power, then a resurrection, then the thousand years reign, then the judgment of Revelation 20, before the kingdom is delivered up. With him the next thing in order is not the end. But here is what Boll says 'The order is: Christ first, then (next) they that are his at his coming. Then (next in order) the end when all is subdued, and the last enemy shall have been destroyed (which Rev. 20:7-14 shows to be after the 1000 years). He delivers up the kingdom to the Father' (SC. 44). Such juggling of the word of God to save a wild speculation is unworthy of any man making any sort of claims to Christianity." Pages 46, 47, 48.

      You must bear in mind now, brother, that this passage is not one that is used by Boll as a proof text. It is one that is used by his opponents to offset his claim of two resurrections was a period of time between them. It is argued that Christ comes and then--at the same time the end. But replying to this Boll shows that the Greek word which is here rendered by "then" does not mean "at that time," as it means "the next in order". The Reviewers give up the contention that [40] it means "at that time" and agree with Boll that it expresses sequence--the next thing in order. Now when they made that concession they lost their point on this passage completely. But before we point out their fallacy let us read the scripture in question:

      "22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits; then they that are Christ's at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power."

      There, you see, that Paul teaches that all men are going to be made alive but they will not all be made alive at once but "each in his own order--Greek tagmati--rank, band, company or cohort. (That begins to look like proof for Boll). But what will be the different orders or companies that are made alive? Paul tells us plainly. Christ first--"then"--next in order--"they that are Christ's"--Christians--at his coming. Now if only "they that are Christ's"--are made alive at his coming when are those who are not Christ's going to be made alive? But you say they are not discussed here at all. Are they not included in verse 22? "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." Does that not embrace all of Adam's posterity? Will they all be raised at Christ's coming? If so, why did Paul say each in his own order and specifically state the order that would be raised at Christ's coming. The order is Christ first, then Christians at his coming--there is only one other order--sinners. When will they be made alive? This passage does not tell, but Rev. 20:5 does tell plainly.

      But the Reviewers think they show that "then cometh the end" means that nothing else could happen between Christ's coming and the end. But remember that "then" does not mean "at that time" but next in order. The Reviewers admit it. But they say, "so Christ comes, and the next thing in order is the end." And they ridicule Boll for having things happen between one thing and the next thing. Therefore with them "then" may allow a space of time but it does not allow events--anything. Now let us see where they are: Paul was converted and went to Arabia (first thing) then (next thing) he went to Jerusalem after three years. Therefore he did not do a thing during those three years, according to the Reviewers, for nothing can take place between the things denoted by "then"! [41]

      "Then" (next thing in order) after fourteen years he went up to Jerusalem again. But nothing could take place during those fourteen years, according to the Reviewers, and therefore Paul was still for that period. They will make him rival Rip Van Winkle yet.

      But that is not the worst yet. Consider this: Paul says Christ is made alive first; "then", next in order, before anything else can happen, say the Reviewers, "they that are Christ's at his coming." Now you have it, the next thing in order after Christ's resurrection is his coming and the resurrection of his saints. Therefore nothing can happen, no events transpire between the two things covered by "then". Although nearly two thousand years have come and gone, generations have been born and buried, kingdoms have been founded, have flourished and have fallen, the church has apostatized and reformations have taken place since the first event and the next event of that first "then", the Reviewers say it cannot be. Nothing at all can happen between the one thing and the next thing, they say. But I leave you to say whether or not they are right.

      But here is a real explanation.

      Our way of using next does seem to demand that nothing take place between one thing and the next thing. But it only covers the things being enumerated. Boll made that clear in the statement that the Reviewers quote and criticise. He said, "But in enumerations, where sequence is expressed, the Greek has 'eita' or 'epeita.'" Hence the sequence or order of events that are being mentioned one after another is all that is meant by "then". It does not mean that no other events can happen between those that are being enumerated. They are first and next in relation to each other.

      On the above scripture McGarvey and Pendleton have this to say in their commentary:

      "Then cometh the end (the apostle does not mean to say that this end--comes immediately after the resurrection, but that it is the next in order of great events, so far as humanity is concerned.)"

      Now notwithstanding the egregious blunder the Reviewers committed here by not knowing the use and meaning of this little Greek word translated "then" they, in their usual bullying, braggadocial manner, speak of Boll's treatment of the word as "unscholarly," accuse him of "juggling the word of God" in an effort to "escape" but which they [42] would not allow him to do and they finally say his is claim is unworthy of any man who is a Christian!

      Yet, mark it well reader, they agree with Boll entirely on the only point that he makes on this passage--viz--that "then" does not "mean at that time" but expresses sequence. With that admitted that passage is out of the way of Boll's idea which he bases not on this but another passage.

      So, you see my brother, the Reviewers have not yet even touched the issue on the two resurrections. In another place they do make an argument that seems to apply against Brother Boll's position and we will hear it now:

      "'Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment' (Jno. 5:28, 29). Boll says this does not say that all are raised at the same time. It does say, 'The hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth.' They all come forth in the same hour. But in commenting on this Boll says: 'John 5:28 does not require the meaning that within one and the same, hour the righteous and wicked are raised. . . . . Moreover it is worthy of note that John used 'hour' in a dispensational sense here' (R. 64). Let Boll make 'hour' represent a period of time of any length he pleases, it helps him not. With him the righteous are raised in the age preceding the Millennium, and the wicked are raised in the age following the Millennium age. By no sort of twisting or juggling of words can he make the 'hour' in which all are raised include two periods or ages, with the Millennium age of a thousand years between. Only by scrapping and suppressing scriptures can he break the force of this and other passages." Page 50.

      Now this has the semblance of an argument and if this were taken by itself apart from other things In this book and if (note two if's) the Reviewers had left off the ugly charges of "scrapping" and "suppressing" scriptures, Brother Boll might consider the Reviewers worthy opponents and we would so consider them. But all, the potency of an if! Even if Brother Boll is wrong in all his conclusions, my brother, and if it were ever consistent with Christian culture to charge an opponent with the serious sin of "scrapping" and "suppressing" God's word [43] such a charge is not justified against Boll. He not only adduces the scriptures that he thinks sustain his ideas but he also adduces and examines those that seem to apply against him. The Reviewers have not made an argument worthy of notice that Boll did not anticipate in the books they claim to review. In fact a man could take up Brother Boll's books and collate the arguments against Boll's positions as he states them in his own language and have a better hook against "Bollism" than the one we are here examining.

      Here Is the way Boll disposed of the "hour" argument:

      "John 5:28, 29 does not require the meaning that within one and the same hour the righteous and the wicked are raised; but for each and all of them the hour will come when they will be raised. Moreover it is worthy of note that John uses 'hour' in a dispensational sense here, as in John 4:21."

      The hour will come for each. A preacher says to an audience, "The hour is coming when every soul here will face death. The hour is coming when all of you must die." And that audience would mentally acknowledge the truth of the statement but unless the Reviewers were in that audience there would be no one there who would understand the preacher to mean that they would all die at once--in the same hour.

      In the scripture here under consideration the Saviour speaks of "A resurrection of life" and "a resurrection of condemnation". That certainly makes two--or it makes a difference of some kind and when other scriptures say that they take place at different times--a first and by implication a second resurrection--why deny it?

      What do the Reviewers do with Rev. 20:5? Nothing--except they say it may be figurative. Well if it is what does it teach? Is figurative language meaningless?

      Charles T. Russell did not believe the doctrine either and he got rid of the passage by saying that it is an interpolation. The Reviewers and Russell agree on this point (If I were to treat them as they treat Brother Boll I'd charge them with teaching Russellism and advance this as proof) but the Reviewers have not the temerity to follow Russell's tactics and tear this out of the Bible, though they would as well to do that as to say it means nothing at all to us. One preacher told me it means nothing to him.

      "Intimation of another seed" [44]

      One division of the review is given the above caption and we here reproduce that division in full just to show you how the Reviewers do things. The comment on it will be short. Hear them:

      "Brother Boll says, touching John's preaching: 'The announcement of the kingdom thus became the basis of the call to repentance. In it also is found the first covered intimation that God would reject the fleshly seed of Abraham if they failed to repent and would raise him up another people' (K. 35). 'If they failed to repent!' How in the name of logic and respect for one's own word can Boll make such statement. Hear him, 'To Isaac himself God repeated the substance of the promise made to his father: the land promise, the Oath, and the universal blessing; to be fulfilled to his posterity--a sure and unchangeable promise: for it was based on the fact that Abraham had obeyed God's voice; which fact was in the past and could never more be undone' (K. 22).

      "But did the Jews repent? Boll says that God offered the Jews the kingdom when he came, but they rejected it; and their opposition to him, the promised king, became so great, their hatred so intense, that it finally culminated in his death at their hands. Did God know they would not accept Christ? Boll says that it was foreseen that they would reject him. 'But it is sufficient for us to know that Jerusalem did reject her King and failed of her opportunity; and though the offer was made to her in good faith, her rejection of the invitation was foreseen and made a factor of God's larger plan. Undoubtedly she might have realized her ancient promise then; but God knowing that she would in no wise hear, had laid his plans accordingly from of old' (K. 44). If Israel had accepted Christ and 'realized her ancient promise,' what would have become of God's pre-arranged plan?

      "God made an 'unchangeable promise . . . based on the fact that Abraham had obeyed God's voice; which fact was in the past and could never more be undone' that Israel should have the kingdom; but the 'unchangeable promise,'which was based on the fact that Abraham had obeyed God's voice, was later made conditional, Boll says, on their repentance. And if they did not repent, then God would raise up another people and give them the kingdom. But they did not repent! So then God rejected them. What more needs be said? One must [45] needs be a mental acrobat to follow Boll, and in addition thereto have a convenient forgettery."

      Now look at that question--that last sentence in next to the last paragraph. As a parallel question: God had prearranged that Judas should betray Christ. Acts 1:16, 25. If Judas had got converted and refused to betray Jesus what would have become of God's plan? Did Judas have an opportunity or was he helpless?

      Christ was crucified by the "determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God." (Acts 2:23). If the Jews had received Jesus and the Sanhedrin acquitted him what would have become of God's plan? Did the Jews have a chance or were they helpless?

      Now notice the first sentence in the last paragraph quoted above. The Reviewers make Boll say that the fact that was in the past and could never more be undone was that Israel should have the kingdom. But that is not true, as you will see by rereading. The fact that was past and could not be undone was that Abraham obeyed God's voice. But God could reject the Jews and still fulfill his promise even if he had to make stones into children.

      "Incognito"

      "We are unable to determine what he means by the kingdom sharing the incognito of the king (K. 41 ). 'Incognito: With (one's) identity concealed; esp., in a capacity other than one's official, or under a name or title not calling for special recognition.'--Webster. That is its meaning as an adjective or adverb. As a noun it means, 'One appearing incognito; also, state or disguise of such a one.' Boll uses it as a noun. Does he mean that the identity of Christ and his kingdom is concealed, that they are now under an assumed name or in disguise to hide their identity? Such is the significance of the word in its common use. But in what way that word can be rightfully applied to Christ and his kingdom we are utterly unable to see. True, he refers to 1 Jno. 3:2 as his proof, but that text has no bearing on what he says. John says it is not yet manifest what we shall be; but to say that we do not now know what we shall be in our glorified state is far from saying that the kingdom is now disguised or under an assumed name. However, according to Boll's idea of what the church now is, it does appear that we are under an assumed name while masquerading as a [46] kingdom. Boll seems to think the kingdom is now in disguise, for he speaks of the present spiritual, veiled, suffering form of the kingdom. 'Veiled form'--perhaps that is his incognito, the kingdom in disguise. And yet we know as little about what he means by the 'veiled form of the kingdom' as we do about his 'incognito' form. We think the veil is over Boll's eyes so that he is unable to correctly discern and clearly describe what he thinks he sees." Page 26.

      That is from the Reviewers. Now here is what Boll said that called forth, I give his heading and parts of two paragraphs:

      "The first explicit announcement of His Second Coming was made now, in answer to Peter's attempt to dissuade the Lord Jesus from 'the way of the cross.' He told all His disciples there and then that for them, as for Him, the present time must be a time of suffering and self-denial. The glory--when His power and authority would be manifest and exercised in the earth--would come in due season. 'For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render to every man according to his deeds.' (Matt. 16:22-27).

      "In the teachings that follow in Matt. 18, 19 and 20, the references to the kingdom bear variously upon the one or the other of these features--the present spiritual aspect, as the kingdom shares the incognito of the King (1 John 3:2) in unworldly walk, humiliation, rejection, and suffering, and all the stringent spiritual requirements in order to final acceptance on the one hand; and the glory to come on the other. The teaching on humility and forgiveness in Matt. 18, in chapter 19 the reference to the severe self-renunciation of some (v. 12); the difficulty of entrance to the rich; and the apostles' destined enthronement to rule the twelve tribes of Israel."

      Reader, do you find it hard to understand that?

      Suffering first, glory next. But the Reviewers make a "bug-bear" out of "incognito."

      They found a possibility in it. How nice to show Boll up now as teaching that Christ is now masquerading in disguise--going under an assumed name.

      Incognito is from two Latin words (in--not; cognitus--Known) that mean "not known", not recognized and the very passage which Brother [47] Boll cites to show that the disciples share the incognito says:

      "Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God; and such we are. For this cause the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him: for we shall see him even as he is." (1 John 3:1, 2).

      Let us make a microscopic search for the faintest trace of fairness on the part of Reviewers in the above attack and the slide will be blank.

      As Christ was in the world and yet not known so are we, hence share his incognito but we shall also share his glory.

      How plain that is! Yet the Reviewers could not understand it even with the passage cited and with the aid of the dictionary. Is It true with them, "Their eyes they have closed"?

      Reader. I'll let you name that.

      We have now covered all the chief points of the Reviewers. They discuss the kingdom at some length but with practically all they say Boll will agree. They make the old argument to show that the kingdom was established on Pentecost and is here now. From this Boll does not dissent. He states that same fact over and over again. He thinks there is a future state of the kingdom and so do we all--we only differ about what that future state will be. We all know that there is a kingdom or a state of the kingdom that flesh and blood cannot enter. (1 Cor. 15:1-5). This Peter calls "the everlasting kingdom." They criticize Boll for speaking of "stages" of the kingdom but we all use words that amount to the same thing. In his debate with Bradley Brother Nichol calls the present stage of the kingdom the "first dominion" Page 94. "Nichol-Bradley debate" in contrast with the future stage which I suppose is the "second dominion."

      Boll may be wrong in his teaching about what the "second dominion" of the kingdom will be but so far no one has met his arguments and answered them. Why is this? If Boll can be convicted of unscriptural teaching why doesn't some one show up that teaching and stop this campaign of personal abuse, this guerilla warfare? [48]

      I don't know how Boll feels about it now but some years ago he did his best to get the editors of the Gospel Advocate to discuss the issue fully. He challenged them and made every fair offer for a full, frank and brotherly discussion, but they refused peremptorily and shut Boll out but they never fail to publish any kind of scurrilous attack on Brother Boll and now they commend this graceless little thing called a review!

      As a final illustration of the methods of the Reviewers, I introduce the following:

      "'Suddenly the scene changes. Jerusalem now is the place: disobedient unbelieving Israel is there again, and their temple is rebuilt' (R. 40). Thus he has the Jews restored to Jerusalem in their rebellion. But is Boll certain of this? He affirms it outright, but is he certain of it? He has told us that the land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was a sure and 'unchangeable promise' (K. 22), and that Christ inherited the throne of David and the land promise, and that he would reign on David's throne in Jerusalem. Again, 'But the observant reader of the prophets will notice that it is always after the national restoration and exaltation of Israel, and always through restored Israel, and in subservience to Israel that the Gentiles were to be blessed' (K. 63). He also told us that the things in Revelation were unalterably fixed, that they must be; and yet after all this, and much more, and after saying that Israel is restored in chapter 11, he ends all these long arguments and dogmatic assertions with an--'If.' 'If even the Jews get control of Jerusalem again, they will of course rebuild their temple at once' (R. 40). 'If!' And this whole theory hinges on the restoration of the Jews to their ancient home. 'If!' and thus his laboriously erected plan glides away on a little 'if' into the realm of dream-theories. 'If!' Thus he confesses, what all Bible students have known, that he is not certain of his own theory. 'If!' Thus he goes over the country stirring up confusion and strife over 'unchangeable promises' and over matters that are 'certain and settled,' all of which end in an 'if.' 'If!' If Boll had not used that 'if' where he did, he would be better pleased with himself when he reads this. And, too, those who have placed their confidence in him as such a wonderful Bible teacher would have more confidence in his ability. 'If!' Yes, by that 'if!' he confesses that he has presented only a wild speculative theory. 'If!' Why did he [49] say it? Just this: In an unguarded moment he gave expression to a doubt that lies deep in his heart." Pages 74, 75.

      Again.

      "And why should a man build theories as to the Lord's future program? He cannot know that he is right. Why disturb the peace of the churches with fine-spun theories that end with an 'if'? If a man's love for the church is greater than his vanity, he will not disturb the churches with his theories. Boll's entire theory could be true, what blessing comes to the church or humanity by parading it, and featuring it to the disruption of congregations?" Page 79.

      And then the last sentence of the book:

      "All he has to do is to manufacture future events to fit his theory! But even then he does not know that he is right, and must end his argument with an 'if.'" Page 83.

      Oh! Oh! Oh! Don't you know Brother Boll will feel bad "when he reads this"? Didn't the Reviewers demolish him that time! Now I just know you never saw such profound and logical reasoning before. And surely no writer or speaker ever did make such a fatal blunder as Boll did when he put that "if" in a footnote. And I know that you never saw a mistake pressed on a man with such deftness and masterly skill as the Reviewers displayed here.

      Surely the Civil courts never saw the equal of this in turning a technical point into overwhelming victory.

      The Pharisees were masters in verbal subtilties and technical quibbling but their effort to turn the Lord's statement about destroying the temple into an accusation was a piece of awkward blundering compared to this keen, analytical, direct and incisive thrust of the logical lance which left the foe a gory mass of lifeless flesh. Such wisdom and logic is too high for me I cannot attain unto it.

      But may be you can appreciate such reasoning and in order to let you see just how shrewd it was to find this "if"--couched in a footnote as it is--I am going to reproduce the entire page from Boll on which "if" is almost concealed but the luckless brother unconsciously betrayed his doubt. There is much on the page that is not relevant of course but you must see it. So here it is, asterisk, footnote, fatal "if" and all:

      "'It shall make thy belly bitter, but in thy mouth it shall be sweet as honey.' Then John took it and ate it up: it was sweet as honey to [50] the taste, but bitter to digest. He is told now (and this is the clue to the meaning of it all) 'Thou must prophesy again over many peoples and nations and kings.'

      "Some expositors contend that this great angel is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. We are by no means certain of it. True the rainbow which lately encircled the Throne of God (chapter 4) is about his head; and his face, like that of the Lord in chapter 1, is as the sun. The little open book in his hand may be that same seven-sealed, now opened book which the Lamb took from the hand of the Almighty (chapter 5). For all that it would require more definite and direct proof that the Lord Jesus is spoken of simply as 'another strong angel,' or is called an angel anywhere in his book--as, for example, as some think, in 7:2 and 8:3. The book of Revelation distinguishes between Christ and the angels as sharply as does Heb. 1. (See 5:11, 12). While the Lord Jesus Is doubtless that uncreated Messenger (i. e., angel) of the covenant in Mal 3:1--in the absence of direct statement, we cannot assume Him to be one of the angels that comes and goes on the pages of the Apocalypse, no matter what circumstantial evidence might seem to justify it.

      "But what is meant by the eating of the little Book, and the words 'Thou must prophesy, etc.'? As to the significance of the former, Ezek. 2:8 to 3:4 and Jer. 15:16, 17 is sufficient explanation, both of the eating, and the bitter after-effects. As to the latter--it was a now additional revelation granted to John: not a repetition of the former; nor an out-and-out new one, disconnected from the former; but a very important supplementary vision, and a conclusion and sequel, which begins at chapter. 12:1.

      "Suddenly the scene changes. Jerusalem now is the place: disobedient, unbelieving Israel is there again, and their temple is rebuilt.^* John is bidden to measure the temple and its worshipers--all but the outer court which was turned over to the Gentiles (the 'nations') who shall tread 'the holy city' (Matt. 27:53) under foot for 42 months. This is the first mention of the prophetic period of 1260 days, or 'time, times, and half a time' (i. e., 3 ½ years)--here called 42 months. (12:6, 14; 13:5). We defer discussion of it till we meet it again later. [51]

      "But in the midst of the wicked 'holy city' two witnesses have risen up, men of God, who prophesy during these 1260 days, clothed in sackcloth--the sign of deepest distress (2 Kings 19:1)."

      Foot Note

      "^* Twenty-five years before John wrote, Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed. If ever the Jews get control of Jerusalem again, they will of course rebuild their temple at once. Such is their well-known hope and purpose. John sees the unbelieving people back in their city and their rebuilt temple."

      Brother Boll states you see, that the temple is rebuilt. But some might wonder why he said re-built and he gave us a footnote to explain that the temple had been thrown down twenty-five years before John wrote, and yet it was standing in the scene which John gives us. How did it come to be standing, who rebuilt it? Why, the Jews. That would be one of the first things they would do if they get control of Jerusalem. And here Boll used his if and betrayed his doubt (?). Though in the sentence that called for the footnote he affirmed the fact and in the last sentence of the four in the footnote he again as conclusion from his "if" statement positively affirms that the temple is rebuilt hence the Jews had got control.

      People who are not so shrewd as the Reviewers might call that an argumentative "if" but such weaklings as that would never be able so utterly to overthrow, vanquish, demolish and annihilate Boll. And the brethren would not commend their work.

      Pst! Brother, a Wicked thought intruded into my cogitations. Do you suppose such frothing fits over "ifs" could have had anything to do with disrupting all (?) those Churches? Tell it not in Gath! But that thought stole into my mind.

      I admit, brother, that in treating this--what do you call it?--an "if", I have almost adopted the Reviewer's style but I wanted you to see that it could be used on both sides. I ask you to forgive me and do not consider the style in your decision--only let the sound reasoning weigh with you. Nothing but truth can live and if we hold to error we must die with it.

      "Now the God of peace, who brought again from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep with the blood of an eternal covenant, even our [52] Lord Jesus, make you perfect in every good thing to do his will, working in us that which is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. [53]

[AATTC 1-53.]

      The electronic version of Eugene V. Wood's An Appeal to the Candid; Being an Examination of the Nichol-Whiteside Review of R. H. Boll (Dallas, TX: Eugene V. Wood, [194-]) has been produced from a copy of the pamphlet in the Alex V. Wilson Collection. Thanks to Mr. Wilson for supplying a loan-copy of the printed text.

      Pagination in the electronic version has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. Inconsistencies in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and typography have been retained; however, corrections have been offered for misspellings and other accidental corruptions. Emendations are as follows:

            Printed Text [ Electronic Text
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 p. 1:      Louisville, Ky., [ Louisville, Ky.
 p. 2:      Ibid May 21, 1925. [ Ibid. May 21, 1925.
            Box 56 [ Box 56,
 p. 3:      This Reveiw [ This Review
 p. 4:      R. H Boll? [ R. H. Boll?
            beside those [ besides those
            April 14th, 1891 [ April 14th, 1891,
 p. 5:      Nashville, Tennessee [ Nashville, Tennessee,
            subtance [ substance
            J. W. Shepperd [ J. W. Shepherd
            J. W. McGarvy, [ J. W. McGarvey,
 p. 6:      suc- sessful meetings. [ successful meetings.
            a Russelite, [ a Russellite,
            to Russelism. [ to Russellism.
 p. 7:      Jas. 5:19. [ Jas. 5:20.
            know my brother, [ know, my brother,
            also my dear brother [ also, my dear brother,
 p. 9:      try my brother [ try, my brother,
            beauifully arranged [ beautifully arranged
            ecclesastical [ ecclesiastical
            Matt. 32:9. [ Matt. 23:9.
            denounciations, [ denunciations,
 p. 10:     Brints [ Brents
            Fanning for [ Fanning, for
            candor my brother, [ candor, my brother,
            four square [ foursquare
            old Testament [ Old Testament
            prophcies, [ prophecies,
            of prophesy. [ of prophecy.
 p. 11:     blathershkites." [ blatherskites."
            inconsistancy [ inconsistency
            notice my brother ] notice, my brother,
            Futhermore, [ Furthermore,
 p. 12:     Sincerely brother [ Sincerely, brother,
            denouncations [ denunciations
            forget brother [ forget, brother,
            (Jno. 3:15). [ (1 Jno. 3:15).
 p. 13:     (2 Tim. 2:7. [ (2 Tim. 2:7.)
            "Be thou [ 'Be thou
            of life" [ of life'
            "hoping" [ 'hoping'
            "looking" [ 'looking'
            "days [ 'days
            apostles"? [ apostles'?"
            "for" [ 'for'
            "with" [ 'with'
            balderdash! [ balderdash!"
 p. 14:     Reader does [ Reader, does
            privite prayer [ private prayer
 p. 15:     "if." [ 'if.'"
 p. 16:     honorable trustworthy [ honorable, trustworthy
            ("make of no account")-- [ ('make of no account')--
            "worthless fellow") [ 'worthless fellow')
            "tested" servants [ 'tested' servants
            "tested" here [ 'tested' here
            "future kingdom," [ 'future kingdom,'
 p. 17:     "in unworldly [ 'in unworldly
            humilation, [ humiliation,
            requirements." [ requirements.'
            "Stringent [ 'Stringent
            requirements"-- [ requirements'--
            him with self importance, [ him with self-importance,
            "Judging" [ 'Judging'
            "Reigning" [ 'Reigning'
            and page [ on pages
            --(a clause [ --a clause
            demogogue, [ demagogue,
            in the flesh [ in the flesh
            man with self importance [ man with self-importance
 p. 18:     "For as often [ 'For as often
            till he come" [ till he come'
 p. 19:     "I have made [ 'I have made
            second coming" [ second coming'
            "The though [ 'The thought
            room for it" [ room for it'
 p. 21:     severely condemend [ severely condemned
            "Question [ "Questions
 p. 22:     "were hoping [ 'were hoping
            Apostles" [ Apostles'"
 p. 23:     Boll is correct [ Boll is correct.
            He who interprets [ "He who interprets
            "hoping" [ 'hoping'
            "looking" [ 'looking'
            "in the days [ 'in the days
            of the apostles." [ of the apostles.'
            Page 8 and 9. [ Pages 8 and 9.
 p. 24:     conclusion etc., [ conclusion, etc.
            read as follows: [ reads as follows:
            John 21:18-19) [ John 21:18-19.)
 p. 25:     that is before [ that is, before
            Paul's expressions [ Paul's expression
 p. 26:     Jesuus Christ." [ Jesus Christ."
            fale interpretation. [ false interpretation.
 p. 27:     There fore, [ Therefore,
            wrath to come" [ wrath to come."
 p. 28:     sober. [ sober."
            unto salvation. [ unto salvation."
            and a thusand years [ and a thousand years
 p. 30:     Reviewers says [ Reviewers say
            concorning the church [ concerning the church
            Reviewer's "resentment" [ Reviewers' "resentment"
 p. 31:     Reviewer's personal [ Reviewers' personal
            Reviewers own [ Reviewers' own 
            word [ words:
            in the books [ in the books;
            different "stages" [ different 'stages'
            of the "Second Coming," [ of the 'Second Coming,'
            of the "stages" [ of the 'stages'
            constitute the "Second Coming." [ constitute the 'Second 
               Coming.'
            "for his saints," [ 'for his saints,'
            "he comes [ 'he comes
            with his saints"-- [ with his saints'--
 p. 32:     the "Second Coming." [ the 'Second Coming.'
            "If, for example, [ 'If, for example,
            sees his coming" [ sees his coming'
            in the "stages" [ in the 'stages'
            calls the "Second Coming" [ calls the 'Second Coming'
            returning--"coming [ returning--'coming
            with his saints." [ with his saints.'
            two comings. [ two comings."
            "for" his saints, [ 'for' his saints,
            "with them." [ 'with them.'"
 p. 34:     'from among,'; [ 'from among';
            But "ek" [ But 'ek'
            a "resurrection [ a 'resurrection
            from the dead" [ from the dead'
            true that "ek" [ true that 'ek'
            reason that "ek" [ reason that 'ek'
            absence of "ek" [ absence of 'ek'
            resurrection "ek" [ resurrection 'ek'
            seperma, [ sperma,
 p. 35:     "out-raise" [ 'out-raise'
            criticsm. [ criticism.
            pre-millenialist, [ pre-millennialist,
            the words. [ the words."
            absence of "ek" [ absence of 'ek'
            resurrection "ek" [ resurrection 'ek'
 p. 36:     it a passage [ in a passage
            verse above that [ verse above--that
 p. 37:     preceeded [ preceded
            he prote [ he prote"
 p. 38:     2.. That Boll [ 2. That Boll
            commend the reveiew [ commend the review
 p. 39:     on 1 Cor. 15:23-38. [ on 1 Cor. 15:23-28.
            "But each [ 'But each
            shall abolished [ shall have abolished
            things unto him." [ things unto him.'
            Bnt in the Greek [ But in the Greek
            epeita stand. [ 'epeita' stand.
            in order" [ in order'
            (K. 63). [ (K. 68).
 p. 40:     "the end, [ 'the end,
            kingdom of God." [ kingdom of God.'
            "He then appeared [ 'He then appeared
            all the apostles." [ all the apostles.'
            "I went into Arabia [ 'I went into Arabia
            Cillicia, [ Cilicia,
            up to Jerusalem." [ up to Jerusalem.'
            So Christ comes, [ "So Christ comes,
            afer he comes [ after he comes
            delieved up. [ delivered up.
            "The order is: [ 'The order is:
            to the F ther" [ to the Father'
            claims to Christianity. [ claims to Christianity."
 p. 41:     So also [ so also
 p. 42:     worst yet, [ worst yet.
            frst event [ first event
            thing  But [ thing. But
            ennumerations, [ enumerations,
            'epeita'" [ 'epeita.'"
            "in their ususal [ in their usual
 p. 43:     "Marvel [ "'Marvel
            judgment" [ judgment'
            "The hour [ 'The hour
            shall come forth." [ shall come forth.'
            "John 5:28 [ 'John 5:28
            used "hour" [ used 'hour'
            here" [ here'
            make "hour" [ make 'hour'
            the "hour" [ the 'hour'
            with the Meillennium [ with the Millennium
            and other passages. [ and other passages."
            sin of "scrappng" [ sin of "scrapping"
 p. 44:     uses "hour" [ uses 'hour'
 p. 45:     "The announcement [ 'The announcement
            another people" [ another people'
            "If they failed [ 'If they failed
            to repent!" [ to repent!'
            "To Isaac [ 'To Isaac
            be undone" [ be undone'
            But did [ "But did
            "But it is [ 'But it is
            ¶ Undoubtedly [ Undoubtedly
            accord- cordingly [ accordingly
            from of old" [ from of old'
            "realized her [ 'realized her
            ancient promise," [ ancient promise,'
            God made [ "God made
            "unchangeable promise [ 'unchangeable promise
            be undone" [ be undone'
            "unchangeable promise," [ 'unchangeable promise,'
 p. 46:     forgettery. [ forgettery."
            "Incognito: [ 'Incognito:
            recognition."-- [ recognition.'--
            Wesbter. [ Webster.
            "One appearing [ 'One appearing
            such a one." [ such a one.'
            idenity? [ identity?
            utteraly unable [ utterly unable
 p. 47:     "Veiled form"-- [ 'Veiled form'--
            "veiled form [ 'veiled form
            of the kingdom" [ of the kingdom'
            his "incognito" [ his 'incognito'
            "the way [ 'the way
            of the cross." [ of the cross.'
            "For the Son [ 'For the Son
            to his deeds." [ to his deeds.'
            In the teachings [ "In the teachings
            enthronment [ enthronement
            tribes of Israel. [ tribes of Israel."
            latin [ Latin
 p. 48:     dominion.". [ dominion."
            why don't [ why doesn't
 p. 49:     "Suddenly [ "'Suddenly
            temple is rebuilt" [ temple is rebuilt'
            "unchangeble promise" [ "unchangeable promise"
            "If." [ 'If.'
            "If even the Jews [ 'If even the Jews
            temple at once" [ temple at once'
            "If!" And this [ 'If!' And this
            "If!" and thus [ 'If!' and thus
            "if" into the realm [ 'if' into the realm
            "If!" Thus he confesses [ 'If!' Thus he confesses
            "If!" Thus he goes [ 'If!' Thus he goes
            "unchangeable promises" [ 'unchangeable promises'
            "certain and settled," [ 'certain and settled,'
            in an "if." [ in an 'if.'
            "If!" If Boll [ 'If!' If Boll
            "if" where he did, [ 'if' where he did,
            "If!" Yes, [ 'If!' Yes,
            "if!" he confesses [ 'if!' he confesses
            "If!" Why did he [ 'If!' Why did he
 p. 50:     congregations," [ congregations?"
            with an "if." [ with an 'if.'"
            "It shall make [ "'It shall make
            they belly [ thy belly
            sweet as honey." [ sweet as honey.'
 p. 51:     "Thou must prophesy [ 'Thou must prophesy
            nations and kings." [ nations and kings.'
            "another strong angel," [ 'another strong angel,'
            But what is [ "But what is
            "Thou must [ 'Thou must
            prophesy, etc."? [ prophesy, etc.'?
            JERUSALEM [ "JERUSALEM
            Suddenly [ "Suddenly
            "nations") [ 'nations')
            "the holy city" [ 'the holy city'
            "time, times, [ 'time, times,
            half a time" [ half a time'
 p. 52:     But in the midst [ "But in the midst
            "holy city" [ 'holy city'
            an "if". [ an "if",
 

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
Derry, PA

Created 6 February 2001.
Updated 21 June 2002.