• The Church
• The Name of the Church
• The Doctrines of the Church
• The Ordinances of the Church

      By "we" is meant the religious body known legally and ecclesiastically as "the Churches of God in North America." The work of establishing these churches in the United States had its beginning in Harrisburg, Pa., about 1825, under the divine influence of the Holy Spirit and the human leadership of Rev. John Winebrenner. The government and management of local churches is vested, primarily, in church councils consisting of elders and deacons. As these churches became more numerous their general government was provided for by the organization of annual Elderships, of which there are now eighteen, and a General Eldership, which meets quadrennially. These Elderships are composed of ministerial and lay representatives. These churches, with the exception of a few on the Pacific coast, are located in territory extending from the eastern boundary of Pennsylvania to the Rocky mountains, and have an aggregate membership at this time (1916) of approximately thirty thousand. What these churches teach and practice may be briefly summarized as follows:

      We differ from other religious bodies not only in the teaching and practice of certain doctrines but also in our conception of the church. The word "church," in the New Testament, is used in both a general and local sense. The former includes all true Christians (Mt 16:18 Eph 1:22 5:25-27 Col 1:18). This church contains all Christians and Christians only, which is not true of any visible organization. The other use of the word "church" applies to the local organization, such as the church of God at Ephesus (Ac 20:28) and the church of God at Corinth (1Co 1:2 2Co 1:1), just as we now speak [1] of a local church of God in any particular city, town, or community. Regeneration identifies one with the general church, and is the only condition essential to membership in a local church. There is an unscriptural use of the word "church"--that of applying it in the singular to a collective number of local churches and calling them the Church. This has no support in the Scriptures. When the New Testament writers referred to the churches of Galatia, Asia, Judea and Macedonia they used the plural (1Co 16:1,19 Ga 1:22 2Co 8:1). There is no instance in the Scriptures in which a number of local churches are taken together and called a Church. This is a denominational use of the word "church" and we discard it. We use the name "Churches of God in North America" instead of "Church of God in North America."

      Taking the word of God as our only and all-sufficient rule of faith and practice, we seek to be guided in all things by its precepts. We not only endeavor to carry out the scriptural conception in organizing local churches, but also give them the scriptural name. We teach that Bible institutions should be called by Bible names, and that conversely, scriptural names should not be applied to human organizations. The church is a divine institution (Mt 16:18 Ac 20:28). Its Founder has not left it without a name, nor has he left us in doubt as to what that name is. There are twelve places in the New Testament where we read of "church of God" and "churches of God" (Ac 20:28 1Co 1:2 10:32 11:16,22 15:9 2Co 1:1 Ga 1:13 1Th 2:14 2Th 1:4 1Ti 3:5,15) In these passages of scripture this God-given name is applied to the church at Ephesus, the church at Corinih, and the churches in Judea and elsewhere. In 1Co 15:9 and Ga 1:13 Paul tells how he persecuted "the church of God." In Ac 8:1-3 9:1,2, we learn that it was the church at Jerusalem that Paul persecuted. Hence the original church at Jerusalem, [2] which in an important sense was example for all that followed, was a "church of God." All other church names are of human origin. Some Churches, by their names, perpetuate the memory of their human founders; others emphasize a particular doctrine, ordinance, or form of ecclesiastical government. The name "church of God" is more comprehensive and significant than any other. And, above all, it is the only church name found in the Scriptures; hence we use this and no other. We do not do this in a spirit of assumption. We do not claim to be the only churches of God, but we claim to be churches of God only. We would rejoice to have every local church on earth accept this God-given name and live up to the standard which it indicates. But we are responsible only for our own use of this divine name for a divine institution.

      Some of the doctrines taught by the Churches of God are similar to those taught by other religious bodies. Others are different, and these are known as distinctive doctrines. John Winebrenner, when he published his "History of Religious Denominations in the United States," in 1849, gave a statement of our faith and practice. This was in no sense a creed or confession of faith, for we have always recognized the right of private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures. It was simply an explanation or statement of fact as to the doctrines which were generally accepted, taught and practiced by these churches. This statement can be briefly summarized as follows:

      We believe the Bible to be the word of God and the only authoritative rule of faith and practice. We believe in one Supreme God--the Father, Son and Holy Spirit--and that they are co-equal and co-eternal. We believe in the fall of man and his redemption through the atonement of Christ, and in the gift and work of the Holy Spirit. We believe in the free moral agency of man, as opposed to his unconditional election or reprobation. We believe that [3] only those who have been "born again," by the word and the Spirit, are worthy of membership in the churches of God; "that man is justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law, or by works of his own righteousness"; and that only those who continue to live virtuous and obedient lives will be saved. We believe in Baptism, Feet-washing and the Lord's Supper as church ordinances. We believe in Christian unity; in the Lord's day as a time of rest and worship; in the second coming of Christ; the resurrection of the dead; the immortality of the soul; a general judgment, and everlasting rewards and punishments.

      The foregoing quite accurately states the position of the Churches of God to-day. Changes of views during the passing years have been few in number and comparatively unimportant. A change of thought has, to some extent, gradually come about on the subject of the second coming of Christ, so that the pre-millennial view does not now prevail so generally as it did in the days of Winebrenner. While many, perhaps a majority, of our ministers advocate this doctrine, there are others who hold to the post-millennial view. The doctrine of Christian unity has always been a prominent part of our faith. Believing that the Lord established the only church which he intended should be established in the world, we have naturally opposed denominationalism as a departure from primitive Christianity. Our people are as loyal to that truth now as they ever were. But the hope of finding a remedy for this division by having the different denominations discard their human creeds and names and all unite on the Bible plan and under the Bible name is not so strong to-day as it seems to have been in the early years of our history. But these slight changes or variations of opinion have in no way disturbed the peace of the churches.

      The doctrine of regeneration, or the new birth, has always been fundamental in our teaching. Winebrenner, [4] in his book on this subject, published in 1846, declares regeneration to be "a thorough change of man's depraved moral nature, after the image of God." He further explains these terms by saying: "By the moral nature of man we mean his natural disposition, or spirit of mind. By his depraved nature we understand a natural propensity to evil. And by the image of God is meant a conformity or resemblance to God in his moral perfections, especially in his righteousness and holiness." Justification is explained to be a change in man's state, a judicial act that gives him proper standing before God (Ro 5:10 1Pe 2:9,10). While regeneration, as just mentioned, is a change in man's nature, from the evil to the good (Mt 7:17,18 Joh 3:3,7). This change he declares to be a moral one; that is, a renewal of man's moral, not his physical and intellectual nature. It is "a real change and not merely a relative or formal one; the regenerated man is "a new creature" (2Co 5:17). It is a great change, being spoken of as creation (Eph 2:10); and a new birth (Joh 3:3,7). It is a universal change, in which "all things are become new" (2Co 5:17). It is a manifest change, both to the one regenerated and to those about him, as is evident from the real, great and universal nature of the work as just mentioned. The character of the work also proves it to be a speedy change. It is a mysterious change (Joh 3:8). It is a supernatural change "accomplished by the influence and power, of God" (Joh 1:13 Tit 3:5).

      The all-important question of how this great change is brought about is answered as follows: The moving cause is God (Joh 3:16). The meritorious cause is the atonement of Christ (Ro 3:24,25). The efficient cause is the Holy Spirit (Joh 3:6). The instrumental cause is the word or truth of God (Ro 1:16). These are all from above. The procuring and conditional cause, on the part of man, is repentance and faith (Ac 20:21). Repentance is defined to include a knowledge of sin, sorrow for sin, hatred to sin, confession of sin, and [5] renunciation of sin; faith to include assent to the truth concerning Jesus, a desire for him as a Savior, and a trust in him for salvation. We have given but one scriptural reference in each instance, which will serve as a starting-point, and from which any one with a reference Testament can easily find many more which teach the same truth.

      Two other doctrines are somewhat closely connected with that of regeneration. One is the doctrine of man's free moral agency, or personal accountability. However far the doctrines of divine sovereignty and human freedom may be beyond our comprehension, man realizes that he has the power of choice (De 30:15-20 Jos 24:14-28); that if he is lost it will be because he will not be saved (Mt 23:37); and that if he is saved it will be because he wills to be saved (Re 22:17). "Repentance and faith are both voluntary acts of the mind. Hence we clearly perceive that salvation, from first to last, is conditional. God treats men as moral agents, and not as necessary ones or mere machines." No man can come to Christ except the Father draw him, neither can the Father consistently draw an unwilling man to Christ.

      The other doctrine is that of the perseverance of the saints. He who affirms that all men are free moral agents, also affirms that only those who endure unto the end are finally saved. He contends that man is a free moral agent after his regeneration as well as before, the difference being, that whereas he voluntarily did wrong before, he voluntarily does right now. And that inasmuch as he had the power of choice before his regeneration to either accept or reject Christ as a personal Savior, so now he still has the same power of decision to either continue in the Master's service and be saved, or turn from him and be lost (Eze 18:26 Joh 15:2 1Ti 1:19,20 4:1 2Pe 2:20). The reader of this brief statement of our position in reference to these doctrines will see at once that we are Arminian, not Calvinistic. [6]

      The doctrine of sanctification is also closely related to that of regeneration, and in our early history was taught incidentally, as a setting apart, at the time of the new birth, for holy service. In later years, principally to clear up the confusion caused by the erroneous teaching of "second-work" sanctification, the subject received more attention and became more prominent among us. As a result, our position on this mooted question has been clearly defined, and, as here briefly stated, is fully developed in "Bible Doctrine of Sanctification," mentioned in our concluding note on doctrinal books.

      1. The Scriptures teach that all Christians, or believers, are sanctified. In the Bible they are invariably addressed as sanctified, whether old or young in the Lord's service, and regardless of whether their manner of life was deserving of commendation or criticism. Paul, in writing to the church of God at Corinth, did not say that some of the members were sanctified and others not; but he addressed the whole church as a body, and as "sanctified in Christ Jesus" (1Co 1:2). Christians are everywhere spoken of in the New Testament as "sanctified," or as "saints," which means sanctified ones (Ac 9:13,32,41 24:10 Ro 1:7 8:27 15:25,26,31 1Co 1:2 6:1,2,11 14:33 2Co 1:1 9:1,12 13:13 Eph 1:1,15,18 2:19 3:18 4:12 Php 1:1 Col 1:2 Heb 10:10,14 Jude 1:1 and parallel passages).

      Since one is a Christian from the very moment of one's regeneration, and since, according to the above scriptures all Christians are sanctified, it follows that all Christians are sanctified at regeneration. Regeneration and sanctification are instantaneous and simultaneous, and cannot be separated chronologically. And it also follows that one must remain in a sanctified state in order to remain in a justified state.

      2. The Scriptures teach a sanctification that follows [7] regeneration. For example, while Paul says to the Corinthians, "ye are sanctified" (1Co 6:2), he also says, "ye are carnal" (1Co 3:3), and urges them to cleanse themselves, "perfecting holiness (sanctification) in the fear of God" (2Co 7:1). The Hebrews, who are addressed as "holy brethren,', are urged to "go on unto perfection" (Heb 3:1 6:1). The Thessalonians are addressed in the first part of Paul's letter as the elect of God, the "followers . . . of the Lord," the called of God, who had "turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God" (1Th 1:4,6,9 2:12). Yet Paul prays God in the very next chapter to "increase" their "love one toward another, . . . to the end he may stablish your hearts unblamable in holiness (sanctification) before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints" (sanctified ones).--1Th 3:12,13. And he closes his letter with the prayer that "the very God of peace sanctify you wholly," though he speaks of them as already "holy brethren" (1Th 5:23,27). See also Ro 6:19,22 Heb 12:14.

      3. Those who teach only the first class of texts, insist that all there is of sanctification takes place at regeneration; those who look only to the second class, advocate what is commonly known as "second-work" sanctification, that is, sanctification as an instantaneous work of grace subsequent to regeneration. But all of these texts must be considered, and they must also be harmonized. This we do on the ground of man's duality. Since man has a twofold nature, and since both are to be sanctified, it is natural, as well as scriptural, that his sanctification should be by a twofold process. Hence, "sanctification is the consecration of the believer to God in his person (personality), and the consequent purifying, by the Spirit through the truth, of his nature." "By person we mean the man as endowed with powers of intellect and will; that is, in so far as he is an intelligent, voluntary agent. He has the faculty of choice and of intelligent, executive action, and thus is a person. The man 'renewed' after the divine [8] image as an intelligent, voluntary agent, justified, born again, is the new man (Col 3:10). By nature we mean all that in man which is constitutional and under the dominion of the law of necessity, or of physical as opposed to moral law, or the law of voluntary action." The first class of texts, those which speak of sanctification as taking place at regeneration, refer to the person, who is at that time set apart, dedicated, consecrated to the service of God. The second class of texts, which speak of sanctification as taking place after regeneration, refer to the nature, which is brought under the control of the sanctified personality. The sanctification of the person is instantaneous. Personality is sanctified in an instant. The sanctification of the nature is a gradual process, a mortitying of the deeds of the body, a perfecting of sanctification (Ro 8:13 2Co 7:1 Col 3:5). "The sanctification of the nature is effected through knowledge and faith, and so requires to be a process. A process, both in that our knowledge, and so our faith, is not at any time complete and perfect . . . and this process of nature sanctification must go on from the time of conversion. It begins at once . . . and this process, as a rule, continues through the entire life of the Christian." Sanctification as an act, takes place at regeneration; as a state, it is a continual dedication.

      In addition to the foregoing doctrines, which are more or less distinctive, the others mentioned might also be discussed, but we do not think it necessary in a brief treatise of this kind. For, while such doctrines as those of the atonement, the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, the general judgment and eternal rewards and punishments are of very great importance, our views on these subjects are substantially the same as those of other evangelical bodies, which are generally familiar. Hence we turn to [9]

      In common with most religious bodies we believe that Baptism is a Christian duty; that God is its Author; that the minister of the gospel is the proper administrator; and that it should be administered in "the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." On two important points, however, the proper subjects and the proper mode of baptism, we differ from many others.

      The Proper Subjects.--The Scriptures very clearly teach that believers, that is those who through faith have accepted Christ as a personal Savior, are the only proper subjects of baptism. The Apostles were commissioned by Jesus to "make disciples of all the nations," and then baptize them (Mt 28:19). To these instructions of the Master they strictly adhered. On the day of Pentecost, "they that gladly received his word were baptized" (Ac 2:41). The experience of the Apostles in different places is well expressed in a few words concerning the work of Paul at Corinth, of which it is said that "many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized" (Ac 18:8). This is the scriptural order: to hear, believe, and be baptized. The same is emphasized by what we learn of Philip's work in Samaria. It is said that "when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women" (Ac 8:12). And later, when the Ethiopian eunuch requested baptism, Philip replied, "if thou believest with all shine heart thou mayest" (Ac 8:37). These and similar scriptures clearly establish the fact that believers are proper subjects of baptism, and also that they are the only proper subjects. For, since saving faith is essential to valid baptism, it follows that unbelievers are not qualified to receive this sacred rite. Jesus did not make disciples by baptizing the unsaved, but first made disciples and then baptized them, through the instrumentality of his disciples (Joh 4:1). [10] It was not until after Cornelius and his kinsmen and friends had received the Holy Ghost, that Peter suggested baptism (Ac 10:44-48).

      Manifestly this teaching of the word, also excludes infants from baptism. They cannot exercise faith, they cannot understand the rite nor be benefited by it. There is neither precept nor example for infant baptism in the Scriptures. Those who practice it refer us to the baptism of the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer and Stephanas (Ac 10:44-48 16:13,15,31-34,40 1Co 1:16 16:15). But there is nothing in these scriptures to show that there were infants in any of these households. On the contrary, we read that those who were baptized first "heard the word"; that they were able to "magnify God"; that they "received the Holy Ghost"; that they "rejoiced, believing in God"; that they were "brethren"; that they were "the firstfruits (first converts) of Achaia." We baptize children, but only those that are old enough to become believers in Christ. Baptism is "the answer of a good conscience toward God" (1Pe 3:21), which is not possible with either infants or sinners.

      The Proper Mode.--The word of God, which we take as our only rule of faith and practice, must decide this question, and not the convert's opinion. And we understand the Scriptures to teach that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism. The consensus of opinion of the ablest scholars and lexicographers of the past and the present is that the word itself always means immersion, and immersion only. The Greek word baptizo means to dip, plunge, or immerse. Professor Jewett says: "Baptizo in the whole history of the Greek language has but one meaning. It signifies to dip or immerse, and never has any other meaning." And, as Professor Stuart says, "All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this." Hence, had it not been for the subsequent introduction of other modes on the strength of human authority, first in case of the sick and later for all who preferred sprinkling or pouring, there would not be the confusion which now [11] exists; the word "baptism" would itself settle the question of the proper mode.

      But the claim that immersion is the only proper mode is further established by the places selected for its administration. John the Baptist baptized the people of Judea "in the river Jordan" (Mr 1:5). He baptized in "Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there" (Joh 3:23). It was in the river Jordan that Jesus was baptized by John, and concerning which we read: "And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him" (Mr 1:10). Jesus not only taught men their duty, but showed them how to discharge it. He gave example as well as precept. The same argument for immersion is found in Ac 8:38,39: "And they went down, both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip."

      The design of baptism also furnishes an argument in favor of immersion. The word teaches that it is the design of baptism to represent the burial and resurrection of Christ, and also our hope in the resurrection, based on the fact that the old man of sin has been buried and that we have been raised up to newness of life (Ro 6:3-6 Col 2:12). We therefore adhere strictly to immersion, since it is the only mode that represents a burial and resurrection. It is the outward, visible sign, of the inward, invisible change wrought by the word and the Spirit, and in this sense is a public confession of Christ. Practically all Christians are agreed that immersion is valid baptism. They differ in that some claim that immersion is the only valid mode, while others teach that sprinkling and pouring are sufficient substitutes. Hence, those who have been immersed are always satisfied. They never ask to be sprinkled or poured in later years. No one questions the validity of their baptism. But as much cannot be said of those who have been sprinkled or poured. Many of [12] them in later years become dissatisfied and ask to be immersed. So immersion is as satisfactory as it is scriptural, and it is satisfactory because it is scriptural.

      We differ from most religious bodies as to the number of church ordinances. While the Catholics have seven sacraments, and most Protestants only two, we teach that there were three ordinances instituted by Christ for perpetual observance in the church; namely, Baptism, Feet-washing and the Lord's Supper. The first and third of these are almost universally admitted to be ordinances. We believe that the second has the same essential elements to establish its validity, and that it is equally binding as a Christian duty.

      The first of these elements is divine authority, as found in the precept and example of Jesus Christ. The example, as shown in what Jesus did in washing the disciples' feet, is found in Joh 13:1-11. The record is full, clear and impressive. The act was done in the very shadow of the cross. His precept, or command, is found in Joh 13:12-17, particularly in Joh 13:14,15. Here we are plainly taught that we should do as he did, and that he did this for the purpose of giving us an example. It will be found that the example and precept are set forth as clearly as they are in connection with Baptism, and that the precept is more emphatic than that in connection with the Communion. "So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I, then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you" (Joh 13:12-15).

      The second element of an ordinance is its obesrvance in a formal manner. This is one of the respects in which a church ordinance differs from other Christian duties (as [13] for example charity) which are enjoined but without any specific form or manner. In fact, their observance may partake of a wide variety of forms. But an ordinance must be observed in a particular manner, not only obeying the command of Christ as given in his precept but following the form shown in his example. This formal observance is found in Feet-washing, just as it is in the other two ordinances.

      Third, an ordinance must have an element that appeals to the senses in order that there may be a formal observance. The sensuous element in baptism is water; in the Communion, the bread and wine; in Feet-washing, the basin, water and towel.

      In the fourth place an ordinance must be based on some fundamental fact in the mission of Jesus Christ. There are three of these great facts in Christ's work of redemption, for each of which there is a monumental ordinance established by him in the church. The first of these, in point of time in the history of his redemptive work, was his humiliation. This fact is commemorated in the ordinance of Feet-washing. The second momentous fact was his death, which is impressively represented by the Communion. And the other fact is his burial and resurrection, of which Baptism is the monumental ordinance. It takes these three ordinances to represent a complete Christ. It is not enough to have the two ordinances which remind us that he died, was buried and rose again. We need the other to remind us of the deep humiliation of his earthly life; that he left the courts of glory, and not only came to earth, but to the lowest and humblest conditions of mankind, in order that he might save them. We need something to point us to the manger, as well as to the cross and the tomb.

      The fifth element in an ordinance is that it symbolizes an important fact in the Christian's experience. Baptism symbolizes the burial of the old man of sin and our spiritual resurrection with Christ (Ro 6:3,4). The Communion symbolizes the soul's nourishment on Christ as the [14] Bread of heaven (Joh 6:48-58). Feet-washing symbolizes our cleansing from sin as occasion may require along the pilgrimage of the Christian life (Joh 13:8-11). It will be noticed that each of these ordinances, in its nature and form, is especially suggestive and appropriate for the purpose for which it is intended.

      Our position on the subject of the washing of the saints' feet is further strengthened by the fact that it was practiced in the days of the apostles (1Ti 5:9,10). This scripture shows that one of the duties of a certain class of widows was the washing of the saints' feet. It also shows that the ordinance of Feet-washing was observed at this time, more than thirty years after Christ instituted it. It shows that the apostles understood the Master to mean that it was to be observed literally and not simply be taken in a spiritual sense, as some contend. The spiritual significance should not be overlooked, but it is not necessary to discard the letter in order to have the spirit. We should have both, and give to each its proper place. The above scripture also shows that this ordinance was observed by the women as well as the men, the widow washing the feet of the female saints. And that this was a religious ordinance and not merely a good work, as some claim, is evident from the fact that it was limited to the "saints' feet." What Paul taught we may safely believe the other apostles taught. And what they taught in one place they of course taught in every place. So we have in support of the ordinance of Feet-washing the teaching and practice of those who were best able to understand the precept and example of the Master.

      This ordinance commemorates the great fact of Christ's crucifixion, the bread representing his body and the wine his blood (Mt 26:26-29). It also has the other essential elements of an ordinance, as mentioned above. Its general acceptance and practice by Christians has made it so familiar that no further discussion is necessary, [15] except to touch on a few mooted points. We observe the ordinances of Feet-washing and the Lord's Supper on the same occasion, and in the order just named, because we understand the Scriptures to teach that they were instituted on the same occasion and in that order. We select the evening service as the most appropriate time for the Lord's Supper, and for the reason that these two ordinances were instituted at night (Mt 26:20 Joh 13:30 1Co 11:23). The frequency of the observance of these ordinances is a matter of custom, since the Scriptures give no definite instruction (1Co 11:25,26). Many of the churches of God observe these two ordinances regularly every three months, while others observe them less frequently. We have always taught and practiced "open communion," as against what is known as "close communion " We believe that the Lord's Supper is for the Lord's children; that one is a child of God as soon as one is born into his family; and that, therefore, we have no right to establish any other condition on which one may come to the Lord's table than that of the new birth.

      We close this brief summary of what we teach and practice with the profound conviction that ours is a faith well worth contending for. May the Spirit stimulate us to a deeper devotion and a closer consecration in our God-given work of defending and promulgating the truth.

      LITERATURE.--Those who wish further information on the subjects treated in this tract can obtain the following works at the Central Book Store, 329 Market Street, Harrisburg Pa., at the prices named: History of the Churches of God, by Rev. C. H. Forney, D.D., LL.D., $2.65; Brief View of the Church, by Rev. John Winebrenner, 50 cents; Biography of Elder John Winebrenner, by Dr. George Ross, 10 cents, Winebrenner on Regeneration, 75 cents; The Philosophic Basis of Ordinances and Bible Doctrine of Sanctification, by Dr. C. H. Forney, paper, 25 cents; cloth, 50 cents; The Christian Ordinances, by Dr. C. H. Forney, 75 cents; The Ordinances, by Rev. John Winebrenner, 75 cents; Robert Woodknow's Difficulties, by Rev. Chas. F. Reitzel, paper, 25 cents; cloth, 50 cents, The Mode and Subjects of Baptism, by Prof. Milo P. Jewett, A. M., 60 cents.

      This tract is published by the Board of Directors of the General Eldership of the Churches of God, through the H. J. Forney bequest, for free distribution. A reasonable quantity can be obtained free from The Central Book Store, 329 Market street Harrisburg, Pa. [16]

[WWTP 1-16]

      The electronic edition of this tract has transcribed from a copy of the printed version. Thanks to Dr. Gene Crutsinger, Director of Library Services, Winebrenner Seminary, for providing the electrostatic copy.

      Pagination has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. Scripture references have been rendered in OnLine Bible format.

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
Derry, PA

Created 16 October 1996.
Updated 17 July 2003.