Truth Magazine

By Frank Jamerson

Several years ago a visitor who believed in sprinkling asked me: “Why don’t you ever quote any of the passages that favor sprinkling?” I had to confess that I did not know any such passages!

The English words sprinkle, pour and immerse have different meanings, just as the Greek words from which they are translated. Let us look at each of these words and see if sprinkle or pour mean “baptize.”

“Sprinkle” is generally translated from the word rhantizo. It is found in several passages in the New Testament, but it is never translated “baptize” because it means “to sprinkle.” “For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling them that have been defiled, sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh. . . ” (Heb. 9:13). Moses took “the blood of the calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people. . . . Moreover the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry he sprinkled in like manner with the blood” (Heb. 9:19,21). There is another word, proschusis which is translated “sprinkling” in Hebrews 11:28. If the writer had meant “baptize” in these passages, he would have used a different Greek word.

There are five different Greek words that are translated “pour.” In John 13:5, we read that Jesus “poureth water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet.” In John 2:15, Jesus “poured out the changers’ money.” Other passages use the word “pour” but none of them mean “baptize.” The conclusion must follow that to pour does not mean to baptize.

The word baptizo is transliterated (the Greek letters transferred into English letters) by the word “baptize.” W.E. Vine defines it as “immersion, submersion and emergence. ” Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon says: “to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge.” It is found many times in the New Testament, but is never translated by the words “sprinkle” or “pour.” If the writers had intended to say “sprinkle” or “pour” they would not have used the word “baptizo,” because it means to immerse.

The context of the word baptizo also shows the meaning of it. When John the baptist was sent to baptize, we find him “baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because they was much water there” (Jn. 3:23). When John baptized Jesus, Mark says: “And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him” (Mk. 1:10,11). John’s baptism was obviously immersion. When Philip baptized the Ethiopian, the context clearly indicates the action of baptism. They “came unto a certain water,” then “went down into the water” and he was baptized and “came up out of the water” (Acts 8:36-39). Twice the New Testament plainly calls baptism a “burial” (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12).

Why then, do people practice sprinkling? It originated as d4clinic baptism.” Those thought to be too sick to be immersed were sprinkled instead. Gradually it grew in popularity, for it was much easier, and after all, if it would be acceptable for a sick man, why not for a well man?

The woman mentioned at the beginning of this article had in mind the passages that speak of baptizing “with water” (see Matt. 3:11; Mk. 1:8; Jn. 1:26; Acts 1:5; 11:16). She was assuming that “with water” means something other than immersion. The fact is that the Greek word en (translated “with” or “in”) usually refers to “location” (called “locative” in the Greek). Even if it were used in the sense of “instrumental” (the object used), it would still not prove sprinkling. We are immersed “in” water.

The meaning of the word, the context of the word and religious leaders who believed in sprinkling all testify that the word “baptize” means immerse. It is only immersion that is a “likeness” of Christ’s burial and resurrection (Rom. 6:3,4). Sprinkling is a convenient substitute that originated in the mind of men, not from a careful study of God’s word.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 12, pp. 361, 376
June 19, 1986

By Robert F. Turner

The resurrection of Jesus is, of course, absolutely essential to the true meaning of Christianity. Without it Jesus was a teacher of great insight and ability, but self-deceived, and a deceiver. Without it Christianity becomes but another human philosophy, totally of this world. As Paul put it, “then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain” (1 Cor. 15:14), and having only a this life hope “we are of all men most pitiable” (v. 19). Jesus Christ “was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Rom. 1:4). (Phillips says, “patently marked out as the Son of God by the power of the Spirit of holiness which raised Him to life again from the dead.”) Cancel the resurrection, and you cancel the power that gives Christianity its life. Proofs therefore are tremendously important.

The Scriptures, as historic literature from the first century, record many proofs of the resurrection. His enemies knew very well His promise to rise again after three days and used every means at their disposal to make the sepulchee sure, lest “the last error be worse than the first” (Matt. 27:26f). Yet, at the appointed time the tomb was empty. The apostles and early disciples displayed incredible faith – even unto death -for what? A ruse they themselves had worked? But we do not plan to discuss such proofs in this study. Instead, we beg your attention to two proofs offered by the Apostle Peter, on the first Pentecost following the resurrection. One rested upon the testimony of believing witnesses; and the second, upon the experience of enemies who heard the witnesses. The first, His enemies were asked to believe; the second, they could prove to themselves by their own logic and experience.

Prophecies from Isaiah and Daniel had pointed to the “rule” of a coming Messiah. (The “anointed one” was Messiah to the Hebrews, Christ to the Greeks.) The “mountain” of Jehovah’s house would be established (Isa. 2), and the “sovereignty” and “dominion” of this government would be exercised by a descendant of David (Dan. 2:44; 7:14; Isa. 9:7). Peter must prove the crucified Jesus to be “Lord and Christ.” Obviously, both of these hinge on proof of the resurrection, and Luke records the marvelous way the Apostle blends these two purposes (Acts 2). Get your Bible, and follow with me.

When the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the Apostles, a multitude of Jews were attracted and were amazed and marveled at what they heard (v. 7f). But others mocked, saying these men were drunk. Their rash charge set the stage for Peter’s introduction. He declared “this is that” manifestation of the Spirit which Joel said would mark the “last days” (final dispensation) in which the remnant of the Jews, and “whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Joel 2:28f). He thus gave those who marveled at the demonstration of power something to consider, but with Jesus still dead this could be dismissed as a groundless boast. So Peter offers his first proof of the resurrection: the testimony of witnesses who had seen the resurrected Jesus. Peter said God had raised Him up (v. 24) and established His testimony by other witnesses (v. 32; cf. 1 Cor. 15:1-8). And His testimony was strengthened by the fact that this Jesus was “a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know” (v. 22, all Scripture emphasis mine).

Peter then reasoned with the Jews from Psalms 16:8f, a Scripture they considered Messianic. “David saith concerning him. . . ” (i.e., Jesus), “I beheld the Lord. . . ” (Acts 2:25). Furthermore, the “Holy One” would not see corruption (v. 27). And finally, “Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne; he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of the Christ . . . … On the strength of Peter’s first proof, the testimony of witnesses who saw the resurrected Jesus, he has reasoned that Jesus of Nazareth is Lord, Holy One, and Christ; and that He now occupies the throne of David. Unless we are extremely well versed in Hebrew thought and their obsession with prophecies about a Messiah, we can scarce appreciate the force of Peter’s argument. The Holy Spirit was guiding him to reach these Jews with their own brand of logic and with Scriptures they all held in a proper understanding of his next statement. “Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear” (Acts 2:33). “Being exalted” and “having received” are both singular and masculine, and must refer to Christ. It was Jesus who had been exalted, and it was Jesus who had received “the promise of the Holy Spirit.” The big question is, had Jesus been promised the Spirit; or, does this refer to something the Spirit had promised to Jesus?

Robertson says, “In itself the genitive is neither subjective nor objective, but lends itself readily to either point of view.” We must therefore allow the context to answer our question. If “promise of Holy Spirit” refers to the Spirit Himself, we have the problem of deity being given to deity, of whom it has already been implied that He had the Spirit without measure (Jn. 3:34). Isaiah wrote of “the Spirit of Jehovah” resting upon a branch out of Jesse (11:2), upon the “chosen servant” (42:1), and the “anointed” (61:1). However these passages point to the Lord’s show of divine power (Matt. 12:17f; Lk. 4:17f), and of divine approval during His personal ministry (Matt. 3:16-17). 1 am persuaded this passage refers to something the Holy Spirit promised relative to kingship; something closely suited to the argument and proof Peter is offering.

During the Lord’s personal ministry He had spoken of a time when “living waters” would flow from His disciples; and John explains this referred to the Spirit which “was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (Jn. 7:38-39). An outpouring, such as that on Pentecost, awaited the glorification of the Son of God. When Jesus promised the Spirit to His disciples He not only stressed the necessity for His going away; He also explained that He would occupy a new and different heavenly office (Jn. 16:7). Note, “Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name, ask and ye shall receive. . . ” (v. 24). “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter” (14:16). “The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name” (v. 26). His glorification and Lordship is here clearly indicated.

Now, how are these things “the promise of the Holy Spirit”? The immediate context quotes David as saying, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet” (vv. 34-35; Psa. 110:1). Jesus had cited this same Psalm (Matt. 22:43) saying, “How then doth David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying. . . . ” Mark’s account of this reads, “David himself said by the Holy Ghost. . . ” (12:36, KJ). Clearly, the Holy Spirit had foretold (promised) that the Son of God would be glorified, seated upon David’s throne. This exaltation would be given Him by the Father (Dan. 7:13-14). Then, and only then, would the glorified Son “pray the Father” that the Spirit be given the disciples “in my name.” But none of this could occur until Jesus had been raised from the dead.

Peter’s second proof of the resurrection called upon his audience to accept the logical conclusion of their own seeing and hearing. It ran something like this: You have seen and heard proof that the Holy Spirit is poured out from heaven; and you are amazed and marvel at this fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. But these “last day” wonders could not occur until the Messiah is exalted, and the Holy Spirit’s promise of kingship is realized. The promise of kingship was to one who would not be left in the place of the dead, and whose body would not see corruption. The conclusion is inescapable: We are witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection (v. 32); and you are witnesses to something that could only occur after Jesus had been resurrected, exalted, and made King on David’s throne (v. 33).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 12, pp. 367-368
June 19, 1986

By Harold V. Comer

This is a day of religious fund raising and money promotions. With all of the emphasis on pressure and gimmicks, there is a great need to restore the New Testament pattern of giving. The first century practice would correct many of the abuses that have become so obvious and distasteful in religious groups today.

I propose that the New Testament church had a specific pattern of fund raising which it was commanded to follow. That pattern called for freely given contributions, contributed upon the first day of the week.

Few people deny the fund raising abuses that exist today. Churches take up repeated collections at any excuse. Stewardship committees solicit members with high pressure techniques seeking larger pledges. Some churches tax members and try to set what each member’s contribution will be.

Some groups have repeated bake sales, rummage sales, fund raising suppers, car washes, candy promotions, and solicitation of non-members. Denominational groups build large endowments and investment resources with contributed funds. Congregations operate rental properties for profit.

Some preachers are always preaching on money and repetitively push for increased giving. Some preachers appeal to materialistic desires with promises of wealth, assuring you that your contribution will be returned in actual dollars and multiplied ten times or even one hundred times.

In churches of Christ a congregation would sell tapes for profit with the stated purpose of supporting its TV program. An institutional radio program offers prizes and gifts if you will send in a minimum contribution. “Special” contributions are taken up on Wednesday evening or during a meeting. Some preachers continually “harp” on giving.

If you are tired of a calloused, materialistic emphasis on money, you need to go back to the New Testament and ask if God cared enough about the financial affairs of His people to command anything specifically about how the necessary money matters were to be carried out. Did God command anything on this subject?

Only Contributions Commanded

In I Corinthians 16:1-2 the apostle Paul commanded,

. . . as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let everyone of you lay by him is store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

In 2 Corinthians 8:7 Paul referred to the grace of giving. He said, “. . . see that ye abound in this grace also.” In 2 Corinthians 9:7 Paul commanded, “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.” In Acts 4:32-37 the church at Jerusalem practiced sacrificial giving in its hour of great need.

Note that the passages show that contributions were commanded. Paul says that his words were an order or a command. God cared enough about their financial processes to specify one way to do it. When an authority specifies a certain way, that command excludes doing it any other way unless that other way is authorized elsewhere. No other commands are given about congregational fund raising so anyone who wants to go back to the New Testament pattern today should expect to have a contribution but should expect to stop there.

The contributions were specified for the first day of the week. The laying by in store was not laying some money by at home because then there would have to be collection or collections when Paul came. The contributions were to be given upon the first day of the week.

That is why churches that are determined to follow the New Testament pattern do not take up collections every night during a gospel meeting or on Wednesday evening. I’m sure that many could use the money well but a continual emphasis on money is finally distracting to their spiritual purpose of saving souls. When churches continually stress money they begin to look like pagan religions where salvation and redemption are purchased with one’s silver and gold (1 Pet. 1:18).

Occasionally, congregations depart from this pattern because of needs that are 46special” purposes to them. An institution or a “missionary” wants a special collection, so the pattern is bent and an unscriptural precedent is set as the congregation takes up a d6special” Wednesday night contribution.

Paul also specified that the contributions were to be given freely and cheerfully. Churches that use high pressure to squeeze more money out of people than they are willing to cheerfully purpose in their heart and give are violating the original plan. They show little concern in restoring the first century pattern for fund raising.

If we restore the New Testament pattern of giving we are going to have to teach commitment of ourselves to God (2 Cor. 8:5). We are also going to have to teach on giving and encourage brethren to give liberally (2 Cor. 9:13). Yet that is different from a constant emphasis on church budgets, needs, and financial matters.

If New Testament churches are to support themselves by the contributions of their own members, that excludes them

from door to door solicitations or street corner appeals. A church that is seeking to restore the first century practice will not allow itself to be drawn into sales and fund raising promotions. It will not be drawn into apartment management or farm management by keeping farms or apartments that might be given to it.

If you appreciate the simplicity of the contribution practices of Paul and Peter and the rest of the apostles, and the congregation where you attend doesn’t follow those, then there are probably other areas where they have departed also and you need to give thorough consideration to all of their practices, examining them and comparing them to the original pattern.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 11, pp. 345, 353
June 5, 1986

By H.E. Phillips

The “restoration” of anything is putting it back as it was. The word presumes that a departure, decay, destruction, a turning away, has taken place. Galatians 6:1 tells those who. are spiritual to “restore” the one who is overtaken in a fault. “Overtaken” in a fault is the return to the state of sin after having been redeemed by the blood of Christ. To “restore” such an one is to bring him back to the state of redemption by repentance and prayer, according to the word of God.

The restoration of the scriptural organization means putting the local organization of the church back as it was in New Testament days. That local organization was quite simple and unsophisticated. The scriptural arrangement is congregational autonomy with no organization but the local congregation.

Soon after the church was established by Christ on the first Pentecost following His ascension into heaven, Satan began his work to corrupt the doctrine and organization of the church. Paul warned the elders of the church at Ephesus about this (Acts 20:29,30). “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work. . . ” (2 Thess. 2:3,7). “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils. . . ” (1 Tim. 4:1). These verses support the statement that departure from the original teaching and practice of the faith began in the days the New Testament was being written, and the departure would develop into full apostasy. We should expect this to include the organization of the local church.

The Rise Of Denominationalism

The term “Church” is used in the New Testament to include all the redeemed (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22,23; 3:10; Col. 1:18). It sometimes refers to the congregations in an area or district, such as Galatia, Judea, Galilee, Samaria (Gal. 1:2; Acts 9:31, ARV). It is used to signify the assembly of the “called-out” – the church (1 Cor. 11: 18; 14:19,28,34). Then the word is used to describe a local congregation of God’s people (1 Cor. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; Rev. 2:1).

By the close of the second century after the church was established, dangerous changes began to take place in the church government. A bishop with a strong, dominate character and forceful personality began to assume the role of “chief” or “head bishop.” He soon became “The Bishop” instead of one of the number of bishops. The irresistible trend of human organization has been to centralize and place power in one man or one committee. In the case of the papacy, the hierarchy of Rome represents the ultimate in central power and usurpation of God’s authority. By the middle of the third century the bishops of large cities had assumed power over a district of churches and ruled them through an ever expanding hierarchal system. Bitter rivalry developed among the chief bishops, which culminated in a division between the Bishop of Constantinople and the Bishop of Rome. The separation of the two Bishops in 1054 resulted in the Greek Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church. The assumption of the title of Universal Bishop or the “Pope of Rome” was first given to the Bishop of Rome, Boniface III in 606 A.D.

This Universal Bishop claimed to be ruler of both the religious and the political world, thus the development of an Ecclesiastical-Political Hierarchy that suppressed people for centuries. Many subordinate ecclesiastical offices developed and this, of course, necessitated additional organizations. This Catholic Hierarchy is a maze of Political and Ecclesiastical organizations and institutions for every conceivable function. It is so foreign to the New Testament that it is not possible to even make a comparison with the New Testament pattern.

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the rebellion against the Roman Church brought into existence a number of religious bodies with different forms of government. Denominationalism is the product of an effort to reform the Catholic Church in organization, doctrine and practice. As the various forms of church government developed, problems of internal unity arose.

Martin Luther began his protest against the Catholic Church on October 31, 1517 in Germany. Zwingli began in Zurich, Switzerland, and John Calvin set forth his principles in Geneva, Switzerland in 1536. A Presbyterian form of government came from Calvin. Presbyterianism was introduced in Scotland by John Knox in 1560. Henry VIII became head of the Church of England by declaring himself head of the church in 1527 in a dispute with the Pope. Thus, it continued with the development of denominations and various church organizations.

The Beginning Of The Restoration In America

Out of the storm of Reformation discontent and theological disputes came the refreshing winds of Restoration thought and ideals. The decline of moral and religious life near the close of the eighteenth century caused several men of good minds to seek solutions to the problems and a restoration of the spiritual life as it was in New Testament times. They proposed to abandon all creeds and religious councils and go back to the Bible for the basics of early Christianity in doctrine, organization and practice.

Shortly before the turn of the nineteenth century unrest appeared in some of the major denominations in this country. The two principal areas of unrest were: (1) the call to abolish their creeds, and (2) an effort to restore scriptural organization and administration of power. These goals challenged the best minds of that day.

Near the end of the eighteenth century, James O’Kelley was established as a preacher in the Methodist Church. In 1794 O’Kelley led a committee to create a church government that would do away with all creeds and take the Bible only as the authority. This was in the right direction, but it did not get very far because other “conferences” gave birth to more “creeds” of one kind or another.

The Baptist Church was having its trouble with internal demands for change. Elias Smith was a member of the Baptist Church. His diligent Bible study led him to the conclusion that “Christian” (Acts 11:26) was the only name disciples of Christ should wear. He insisted that the Bible was sufficient for doctrine and practice. He later began meeting regularly with a few and established a church, which he called “a church of Christ”; they considered themselves only “Christians.”

Abner Jones, another Baptist, came in contact with Smith shortly after he established this church. They worked together in Vermont and New Hampshire, establishing “churches of Christ” that were free of human creeds, using only the Bible as their authority. They called themselves “Christians.”

Alexander Campbell was one of several who called for an abolition of the clergy rule and the creed making. Efforts were made to restore church organization local in nature and function. This plea gained great favor by the middle of the nineteenth century.

Barton W. Stone and Walter Scott united their labors and efforts with Thomas and Alexander Campbell. The movement grew rapidly, but the missionary conventions proved to be the thorn in the flesh that was to cause division later. A. Campbell tried to justify these “cooperative organizations and meetings” by explaining that they claimed no authority over the churches and formed no governmental organization. He was completely wrong.

However, neither Campbell nor Stone got away from e concept that evangelism necessitated organization above and beyond the local church. They created them d worked through them, but continued to talk about e local government of the church as the only divinely ordained one. Alexander Campbell was the first president of the American Christian Missionary Society, and continued in it until his death. His effort at a restoration of the New Testament organization of the church fell short of its goal.

Problems With The Restoration Efforts

The first meeting of the National Convention of Disciples was held in 1849 and the American Christian Missionary Society was the result. Many lifted their voices against this organization as being unscriptural, but Campbell’s voice was used as assurance that all was being done scripturally. The result was division among these brethren, and the first listing of “Churches of Christ” was in 1906. The Disciples of Christ and Christian Church, which later developed from another division, continued on in unscriptural practices and organization.

As the waves rise and fall with the tides, so the position and power of the Clergy in the organization of the church continued to rise and fall through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. From the early arrival of clergymen from England the doctrine of Evangelistic Ordination was a vital part of church organization. Churches could not be established without duly ordained ministers, and ministers could not function until duly ordained by an ordained minister. This was the center of local organization.

But this office of Evangelist, with this degree of power, began to decline with the work of Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell. The practice of Evangelistic ordination gave way to the requirement that a man be tested by the Conference or Association to determine whether or not he was suitable to serve as minister.

It was not long, however, until the idea of the superior position of the evangelist arose again. The “Pastor System” became a substitute organization for the eldership. W. Carl Ketcherside and G.K. Wallace debated the proposition involving the Pastor System and Evangelist Oversight in Paragould, Arkansas in 1952, and in St. Louis, Missouri in 1953. These debates are in print and provide some information on the subject. It ran its course and is not now the problem it was, except for a few spots in the nation.

Restoration Into The Twentieth Century

J.W. McGarvey was a student at Bethany College from 1857 to 1860. He graduated with highest honors, and became one of the greatest scholars among churches of Christ. He wrote several books, among them a book on the Eldership in which may be found his position on the organization of the church.

He taught that each church must have a plurality of elders. He wrote that these men were determined suitable for this work by the qualifications given in the New Testament, and that men who were not qualified could not be appointed as elders. He taught that these men were limited in their work to “the flock which is among you.” He insisted that there was no excuse for churches forming any kind of organization in the church in the absence of qualified men to be elders. In spite of the fact that brother McGarvey was so true to the Book on this subject, he accepted the nature and function of the American Christi I an Missionary Society.

H. Leo Boles also wrote a book on the Eldership which set forth the same Bible principles as J.W. McGarvey. Other men of that generation taught and practiced the truth on local church organization as taught in the New Testament.

What The Restoration Produced

The “Restoration” of the organization of the church had to go back to the first century and the doctrine of the apostles. As Paul and Barnabas returned from their first preaching tour they “ordained them elders in every church. . . ” (Acts 14:23). Paul left Titus in Crete, “that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee” (Titus 1:5). The church scripturally organized is pictured in Philippians 1:1: “Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” There are “servants,” 44saints … . bishops,” and “deacons.” That is all!

Restoring the organization to the New Testament church meant that preachers no longer maintained the oversight, in part or whole. Committees, boards, and the like could not substitute for scriptural overseers in each congregation.

A group of elders, not just one man, is to function as overseers in each local church. There are no organizational ties between churches for any function. Elders have no oversight over or into the affairs of another church anywhere. “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof. . . ” (1 Pet. 5:2).

Finally, the restoration produced a self-sufficient church in the local organization. Any organization or institution through which the local church attempts to do the work assigned to it, is unscriptural. Every authorized work given to the church that the church tries to assign to any other body or group is iniquity, and the workers of iniquity will not enter heaven (Matt. 7:21-23).

The restoration of the New Testament church, including the local organization, is not something that can be done one time and be forgotten. It is something we must continually strive to maintain. Every generation must be taught the principles of the New Testament and the requirements of local church government.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 11, pp. 338-340
June 5, 1986