(Concluded-from page 167.)

Acts 2:38, "Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost," is taken as presenting " the two great conditions of receiving the Holy Ghost:repentance and faith in Christ for the remission of sins.'' " No other conditions," he tells us, are required. (See page 24, "The Three-fold Secret.")On page 32, this is re-asserted, and he remarks:

" But. mark this, that both of these were essential. One was not sufficient. Men must repent and believe. For a man simply to repent of his sins, without faith in Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, would not bring the gift of the Holy Ghost, for one of the essential conditions would be missing. So also for a man to attempt to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ without repenting of his sins would not, and could not, bring the gift of the Holy Ghost, for the same reason."

Is it possible if faith in the Lord Jesus is wanting that there should be genuine repentance? Do not these two things go together ?

Acts 19:1-6, is interpreted in the light of this dogma. (See page 33.) After referring to Paul's "inquiry," Whether they had received the Holy Ghost? and the "negative" answer given to it, he says:

" 'Unto what then were ye baptized?' said Paul; and they said :'Unto John's baptism,' 'Oh, I see,' says Paul, in effect, 'but don't you know that John baptized only unto REPENTANCE? Now repentance is not enough to bring the gift of the Holy Ghost; you must believe in Jesus Christ.' "

Did not John teach his disciples to believe on the One to come after him ? Was it really so, that these disciples had not received the Holy Spirit because they had only repented? had not yet believed on Christ? We shall see. Mr. McC. further states, on page 34:

"And when they heard this, they believed on Jesus Christ, and, baptized into His name, received the Holy Ghost." (The italics here are mine. I have omitted his.)

I will now quote the scripture."When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." There is nothing said about their believing on Jesus Christ. Mr. McC. has put that in. Further, if we read the next verse, we find that even yet they do not have the Holy Spirit. They are believers and are baptized, but still for some reason they did not get the Holy Spirit. It could not be because they, had not repented. He tells us they had. Here is something for Mr. McC. to explain. Here is a company who have complied with the "two only essential conditions" for the reception of the Spirit and yet have not received Him !He has overlooked the fact that they did not receive the Holy Spirit until Paul laid his hands on them. There was no laying on of hands in Acts 2:It was not necessary there. The company had already received the Spirit, with whom the converts in Acts 2:were connected, when they were baptized. Now here at Ephesus there is an independent company. Will the Holy Spirit own and form two independent bodies or companies?"By one Spirit we are baptized into one body."This must be demonstrated. Paul, then, lays his hands on them-the sign of identification and fellowship, and then they receive the Holy Spirit.

When, as on page 35, speaking of Aquila and Priscilla expounding to Apollos "the way of God more perfectly," it is added, " doubtless teaching faith in Christ for remission of sins," it is going beyond Scripture. It is also wise above what is written, when on the same page the twelve disciples at Ephesus are called, "Apollos' mis-instructed disciples."

But I must hasten on. The comments, on page 36, in regard to " the case of the Samaritans recorded in Acts 8:5-25 " are very bad.

"There certainly was at least an intellectual belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. Why then was the Holy Ghost not received? Since, as we have seen, God distinctly says that He will be received if men but repent and believe, the fair inference would be that they had not honestly repented. We believe this to be a case where the other condition of a true heart-repentance was lacking, even though they professed faith in Christ. This was surely the case with one of them. For Simon, the sorcerer, had professed belief and been baptized at this time (ver. 13), and yet Peter declared to him, 'Thy heart is not right with God.' "

Where has God "distinctly" said, The Holy Spirit will be received "if men but repent and believe"? What is supposed to be this is Acts 2:38. What is " distinctly " said is, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." The 7th chapter of John's Gospel, ver. 39, shows that the condition of believers receiving the Holy Spirit is the glorification of Jesus. Now here in Acts 2:, Jesus has been glorified and the Holy Spirit has been given. Believers have received Him. The Spirit given to believers was a public acknowledgment of them on the part of God. The Christ-rejecting Jews were thus convicted of their sin, and, stung thus in their consciences, cried out, "What shall we do ? " Peter tells them, Submit to Jesus-the One you have rejected. In submitting they became believers, no doubt. But the whole emphasis in their case is on submitting. If they did so they would have the remission of their sins and partake in the gift which was God's public acknowledgment of believers.

Now the case of the Samaritans is altogether different. Philip in the progress of his evangelizing came to Samaria. The purpose of the Lord was that He should be testified of, not only "in Jerusalem" and "in Judea," but "in Samaria" also, and "to the uttermost part of the earth." (See Acts 1:8; Luke 24:46-48, and elsewhere.) Philip is now in Samaria testifying of Christ. The testimony is heard, and it is seen also that it is confirmed by signs and wonders; for God gave the tokens of His attestation of His witnesses and servants. The testimony was received and submitted to by many, "both men and women."Was Simon a fair sample of all these? He was manifested as having no " part nor lot in this matter." Were all these so ? Were they all shown to have been unreal in their submission ?Not at all. Their repentance and faith, then, was not a mere intellectual belief and a dishonest repentance. Nor was it " a case " of one condition fulfilled and another lacking of having believed while yet " they had not honestly repented." Their repentance was " a true-hearted repentance."But why is it they do not receive the Spirit? Why does not God give them the same public acknowledgment He has given to other believers. Simply because it must be demonstrated that there is to be only one body or company. So Peter and John come from Jerusalem-from the company already owned of God. When they had prayed for them and laid their hands on them-the sign of identification, as we have already seen, these Samaritan believers receive the Holy Spirit.
On page 44, the new nature and the Spirit are confused. He says, "When the new life, the Spirit, came in." There are other instances of this, but I pass on to notice a statement on page 47 :

"But now being set free (Greek) from sin (God's act in Christ) and become servants to God (your act of surrender, needful to make yon realize that freedom which is in Christ), ye have your fruits unto holiness."

I do not argue against the believer surrendering. On the contrary I join Mr. McC. most earnestly in urging it. Nor do I oppose the thought that the surrender which he insists on is " needful" in order to " realize " or enjoy our "freedom which is in Christ." But I must strenuously resist the thought that this-our " act of surrender" is what makes us "servants to God." It is God's act in Christ, by which we are redeemed, through which we are saved, that establishes God's claim upon us and makes us His bond-servants. The extent of this claim we have to learn, and practically we find, as we yield ourselves to Him, our sense of the claim He has upon us is constantly deepening.

There is a statement on page 101 that needs to be corrected.

" Christ did not raise Himself:it was not so appointed:He was raised by another-the Father."

Acts 2:24 says, " Whom God hath raised up." Chap. iii 15 reads, "Whom God hath raised from the dead." The reader will find readily other passages in which the resurrection of the body of Jesus is attributed to God. Rom. 6:4 teaches us that "Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father." In i Pet. 3:18, we read that He was "quickened," or raised, "by the Spirit." In John 2:19, we find, "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple" (His body), " and in three days I will raise it up." In accordance with this, we read in i Cor. 15:4, " He rose again the third day.'' The statement, " Christ did not raise Himself," denies Scripture and robs Him of glory which belongs to Him glory in which He shares jointly with the Father and the Spirit.

There is much more of like character in these writings, but I will not pursue the matter further. We have seen enough to refuse his system as being unscriptural. It weakens the power of the word of God in the souls of those who receive it. May the Lord keep His people from it.

In closing I think it is due to Mr. McC. that I should say there is much that is really good in his books. I join him heartily in seeking a truer spiritual state than is commonly found. While I have condemned his system, perhaps severely, yet I have eliminated the personal element altogether, or as nearly so as was possible. While I reject his system and warn the Lord's people against it, I can most cheerfully thank God for the evidences I have found of his personal piety, earnestness and zeal, godly purposes and a heart that is right with God.

May the truth which God has given us, in order that we may be in communion with Him, be deepened in the soul, both his and mine, and in the soul of the reader also. C. Crain