Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Nigeria: “Will you reconcile Rom. 4:5 with Phil. 2:12?”

Reply:

Rom. 4:5 says, “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Phil. 2:12 says, “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” These texts are in two different contexts. Essentially they do not need to be harmonized or reconciled for they are not contradictory.

“Worketh” Versus “Worketh Not”

In Rom. 4, Paul is reviewing what “the Scriptures saith.” Was Abraham justified by works; that is, was Abraham justified by perfect obedience to law? No, he was not (Rom. 4:3). Whom did David say would be blessed? Did David say the blessed are those who never sin? No, David described the blessed man as the forgiven man (Rom. 4:6-8). God makes one righteous by faith, not by works (Rom. 4:11). Justification is by the system of faith. It is not “through the law,” or by works of perfect obedience.

In Rom. 4:4, 5, Paul is not saying, “But to him that obeyeth not, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Rather, he is stating a fact. He is not making an argument. He is enunciating a simple truth. The one who sins, the one who depends upon God for forgiveness, that is the one that “worketh not.” If the one who has sinned believes on God, “his faith is counted for righteousness.” His works cannot avail, for he has sinned. If he had never sinned, his works would obtain the reward of justification. God would owe it to him to declare him righteous in His sight. Only to one who never sinned would God owe salvation. So, the one who “worketh” is the one who never has sinned. The one who “wvorketh not” is the transgressor who must rely on God for righteousness. If he is forgiven, it is a matter of grace, not debt. His faith is the means by which God declares him righteous.

Whatever terms or conditions God sets forth can never alter the fact that forgiveness is a matter of grace. Again, the man who “worketh” is the man who never sins. The man who “worketh not” is the sinner who cannot depend upon perfect obedience for righteousness.

In Phil. 2, Paul encourages those who have obtained “the righteousness which is of God by faith” to continue in their salvation which is maintained by obedient faith (cf. Phil. 1:6, 7; 2:12; 3:9). Paul does not say, “Work out your own means of being made righteous.” This would contradict Romans 4:4, 5. Consider Abraham. He was not justified by works. He was justified by faith. His faith was a working, obedient faith (Jas. 2:21-24; Rom. 4:12). Abraham did not keep a law perfectly. He sinned. When he did, his forgiveness became a matter of grace and faith, not of debt and works. His faith, which was counted unto him for righteousness, was a faith which was obedient (cf. Gen. 12:1-4; Heb. 11:8; Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:4, 5).

Note The Romans

The Romans illustrate this point. They were sinners. They were not justified by works. They were justified by grace, faith, and the blood of Christ (Rom. 3:24; 5:1; 5:9). Still, their response to God’s system of justification had to be an obedient one (Rom. 1:5; 6:17; 18; 16:26). Then, “your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world” (Rom. 1:8). “For your obedience is come abroad unto all men” (Rom. 16:19). The obedience of this passage is parallel to the works of Phil. 2:12. Under the system of justification by grace without works, one must be obedient, working out his own salvation with reverence and awe (Eph. 2:8-10; Phil. 2:12).

Truth Magazine XXI: 38, p. 594
September 29, 1977

By Luther Blackmon

In John 10:41 it is recorded that the people said, “John did no miracle,” and there is nothing in the scripture that indicated that this is not true. John the Baptist performed no miracles. And there was a reason as we shall show in the conclusion of this study. But here is food for thought, particularly for those who place so much emphasis on miracles today.

In the first place, John was one of the greatest preachers who ever lived. Jesus said of him, “among them that are born of woman there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist” (Mt. 11:11). Secondly, “he was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb” (Lk. 1:15). Thirdly, he was sent on his mission by the Lord: “There was a man sent from God whose name was John” (Jn. 1:6). He had all the qualifications that modern “miracle workers” claim. But he “did no miracle”. Why?

Old Testament Miracles

The Old Testament records about fifty miracles besides the Genesis account of creation. God did most of these, either for the punishment of wicked men or nations, or in behalf of His people in times of stress or danger. Healing the sick was not among them. In fact, I can think of no instance of healing an individual except the arm or Jereboam (1 Kg. 13) and this was a case of undoing one miracle with another. The healing in connection with the brazen serpent was also of this nature. Numbers of people were killed by God’s power, others were stricken in various ways, and some raised from the dead; but healings were scarce.

The Miracles of Jesus

The Bible says that the recorded miracles of Jesus were “written that we might believe that he was the Christ. . . and that believing we might have life through him” (Jn. 20:30, 31). Here we might just ask this question: “If miracles were to continue through the ages, why was it necessary that the miracles of Jesus be written?” If the Lord were going to give His people power to continue performing miracles, then every generation would have the same miraculous testimony that people had in the time of Christ’s ministry. Hence, there would have been no need to have the miracles of Jesus recorded.

Disciples Given Power of Miracles

When Jesus sent the apostles out under the limited commission (only to the Jews), He said, “as you go, preach, saying, the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils. . . ” (Mt. 10:7, 8). You have no doubt heard many people say they were miraculously “healed”. How many have you seen or heard who were raised from the dead?

In the same verse in which the Lord said to “heal the sick”, He also said to “raise the dead”. But ask a “miracle worker” to let you see him raise one from the dead and he will indignantly inform you that you are asking him to “tempt the Lord”. But he does not mind our seeking him to work a healing “miracle”. In fact, he invites us to come down on certain nights with the promise that this will be “healing night”. Why does it “tempt the Lord” to work a “miracle” on a dead man but it does not “tempt the Lord” to work a “miracle” on a sick man? Jesus raised many from the dead; Peter raised Dorcas (Acts 9); Paul raised Eutychus (Acts 20). What is wrong with raising the dead? When we question their claims that God heals miraculously today by human agency, they accuse us of trying to “limit God’s power”. It is they who limit God’s power. I believe that God can heal a man with an artificial limb as easily as He can heal a backache. But how many people do you know who went to a “healing service” with an artificial limb and were made whole? These “miracles workers” will not take such a person before their audience and try to heal him. They screen these out before their “healing begins”.

Why John Did No Miracle

John the Baptist did no miracle because his mission was of such nature that it did not require miraculous confirmation. Jesus performed miracles that He might confirm His deity: ” . . . these are written that ye might believe and that believing ye might have life through his name” (Jn. 20:30, 31). The apostles also were given power to work miracles, both before and after Jesus’ death and resurrection. The reason they could work miracles after He had risen and ascended to heaven is clearly set forth in . . .

Mk.16:15-20

“And he said unto them, go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover. So then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the work with signs following. Amen.”

This was a new message. It was different from the law of Moses. So the preachers of this message needed miracles to prove to the people that this new message was of God. The miracles (signs) that they were able to work confirmed the word that they preached. When the people saw these real miracles in connection with the preaching, they knew that these men were sent from God.

But what about those miracles the apostles did before Jesus’ death and during His personal ministry (Mt. 10:5-8)? It should be noted that this was during the same period when John was preaching and baptizing. Why, then, could Jesus’ disciples heal the sick, raise the dead, etc., while John could not?

John was sent to the Jews only-a people already in covenant relationship with God. Neither John’s preaching nor his baptism changed this relationship. His work did not alter the law of Moses. John preached “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” but John did not preach the “gospel of the kingdom”. John introduced Christ but Christ and His disciples preached the gospel of the kingdom. John’s work was to renew the Jews to their zeal and loyalty to Jehovah and to prepare them to receive Christ. His work is clearly set forth in Lk. 1:16, 17: “And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” John’s preaching was limited to Israel and designed only to turn them from their sins in repentance and get them ready to receive the Christ who was to come. This did not require miraculous demonstrations. It was not to be a new system of religion. Very soon these people John taught and baptized would be given opportunity to obey the gospel and, along with the Gentiles, be heirs of the blessings of that “kingdom which would never end”. Jesus was to replace Moses’ law. And it would require more than a Galilean peasant and a group of fishermen and tax collectors to convince the Jews that this message came from the same God that gave the law from Sinai, and to turn the Gentiles from their idols. So, the word they preached was attended by and confirmed by miracles. But the word has been confirmed and God is no more going to perform them again than He is going to send Christ to die again. This is why miracles are not performed by human agency.

“. . . them that believe”

Mk. 16:17 is much misunderstood and misapplied. “These sings shall follow them that believe.” This does not teach that every believer would be able to work miracles. It simply says that those who performed miracles (signs) would have to be believers. Back in verse 14 He had upbraided the eleven (Judas was dead) because some of them had not believed those who had brought them word when Jesus rose from the dead. 1 Cor. 12:20, 29 shows that not all who had spiritual gifts could work miracles. But even among the apostles, those who worked miracles had to believe in Christ.

Truth Magazine XXI:37, pp. 589-590
September 22, 1977

By Paul A. Jones

With the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, the question of man’s origin has been settled once and for all-man descended from the monkeys just as Darwin said, right? And in this enlightened age no intelligent person-certainly no scientist-questions the fact of evolution, right? Wrong!

For years it has been assumed (repeat, assumed) that Darwin proved the theory of evolution and, having proved it, disproved the book of Genesis in the process. But, I suggest that to draw this conclusion is to misstate the facts. For, as any reader of The Origin will learn, Darwin was not at all convinced of the finality of his thesis. In the sixth chapter of his book (Modern Library edition) he writes, “Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered” (Darwin, Op. cit., p. 124). Burroughs informs us, “Darwin was as far from being as sure of the truth of Darwinism as many of his disciples were, and still are. He said in 1860, in a letter to one of his American correspondents, ‘I have never for a moment doubted that . . . much of my book will be proved erroneous.’ Again he said, 1862, ‘I look at it as absolutely certain that very much in the Origin will be proved rubbish'” (“A Critical Glance Into Darwin,” Atlantic Monthly, Aug. 20, 1920, p. 238).

At this point, one may be thinking: But what about the fossils? And what about those experiments with the fruit flies, the gill-slits, mutations, and so on-don’t they prove evolution? Let’s look at these “proofs” one by one and see what they prove. As for the fossil record, Dr. Merson Davies, who holds two doctorates for research in geology, believes that the fossils support creation, not evolution (see L. Merson Davies, The Bible and Modern Science (1953), p. 6). Douglas Dewar, V. Z. S., a converted evolutionist, writes, “The creation. theories explain the fossil record far better than do those of evolution, and, as the latter involve impossible transformation, they ought to be abandoned” (Dewar, Transactions of the Victoria Institute (1944), p. 75). We agree.

Often cited as proof of evolution is the fruit fly (drosophila melanogaster). But; .breeding experiments with the fruit fly, far from proving evolution, have proved the very reverse (see Douglas Dewar, The Transformist Illusion (1957), p. 150). H. J. Muller. states that “most mutations are bad, . . . In fact, good ones are so rare that we can consider them as’ all bad” (Time, Nov. 11, 1946). Muller is a geneticist at Indiana University.

What about the :recapitulation theory and the argument from embryology on “gill-slits”? The recapitulation theory (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny) is an unfortunate “proof” of evolution, as it. does not agree with the facts. As Dewar pointed out, we know, from mammalian history that teeth were developed before tongues, but in the embryo the reverse is the case (Dewar, The Transformist Illusion (1957), p. 208). Darwin’s old geology professor, Adam Sedgwick, said: “After fifty years of research and close examination, the recapitulation theory is still without satisfactory proof” (Sedgwick, Darwin & Modern Science, p. 176). The argument on gill-slits, so-called, is no better than the others. Dr. A. R. Short, M.D., F.R.C.S., is authority for the statement that “the ‘gill-slits’ are not slits at all in mammals; they are grooves between the arches that support the blood vessels necessary to supply blood to the forepart of the body, including the developing brain. In fish, these grooves become perforated, and gills are formed; in the mammalian embryo they are not perforated, and there are no gills” (A. R. Short, Modern Discovery and The Bible (1955), pp. 64, 106).

The theory of evolution simply bristles with difficulties. For one thing, evolutionists cannot account for the migratory instinct in birds on the basis of evolution. For another, the absence of transitional forms between the major groups of animals; for another, evolution cannot account for the origin of chlorophyl. And there are many other serious difficulties evolutionists cannot explain.

If the arguments for evolution are so weak, one might ask, why are scientists so overwhelmingly in favor of it? The truth is, there are a large number of scientists who do not believe in evolution. The Creation Research Society of Ann Arbor, Michigan, numbers among its member over 400 men who hold advanced degrees in various scientific disciplines. All of these men oppose the theory of evolution for scientific reasons. Dr. Frank Marsh, Ph. D., biologist says that “if evolutionists had not wasted a generation of hard work in trying to pick up a trail which never existed, biology would be at least a generation further along in the discovery of the laws and processes which do exist” (Marsh, Evolution, Creation and Science (1947),. p. 285).

That man was created, not evolved, is the testimony of Moses (Gen. 1:27; 2:7, 21-22), Job (Job 10:8, 11). Paul (Acts 17:29; Rom. 5:13), Solomon (Eccl. 7:29; 12:1), Christ (Matt. 19:4), and of God Himself (Gen. 1:26; 3:19). In his fine book The King of The Earth (1962), Erich Sauer writes: “Thomas Carlyle was once at a meeting of learned men in which the problem of man’s descent was being discussed, and was asked to give his opinion. ‘Gentlemen,’ he said, ‘you place man a little higher than the tadpole. I hold with the ancient singer: ‘Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels’ (Psalm 8:6).” Ruth Benedict, in Race: Science and Politics (1943), points out that “the Bible story of Adam and Eve, father and mother of the whole human race, told centuries ago the same truth that science has shown today: that all the peoples of the earth are a single family and have a common origin” (Benedict, Op. cit., 1943, p. 171).

It is unfortunate, but true, that many who embrace evolution do so because of a bias against the supernatural. Thus, D.M.S. Watson, British biologist writes, “Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved . . . to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” Another evolutionist, Sir Arthur Keith, confessed that while “evolution is unproved and unprovable” he believed it because creation was “unthinkable.” Have you been brainwashed by evolution? The case for creation is more convincing.

Truth Magazine XXI: 37, p. 588
September 22, 1977

By Ron Halbrook

No one desires unity more than the children of God! God’s people desire unity with Communists and other atheists, with pagans and occultists, with denominational people and irreligious people, with members of the Christian Churches and Disciples of Christ, with people of all nations and races and continents and climes. God’s children seek unity with rich and poor, educated and uneducated, high and low, kings and servants.

But there is a very hard question which must be faced! What is the basis of that unity which God teaches us to seek with all men? Are we simply to find the lowest common denominator which might be shared with all these peoples, and unite upon that? Or, the lowest common denominator with some one or two groups of them? Very simply, Christ prayed that His own disciples might be sanctified and unified “through thy truth: thy word is truth.” Then He added, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:17-21).

No power, premise, or philosophy in heaven or on earth is approved by God as the basis of unity . . . none except His own truth. The gospel of Christ is “the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” Men may lose confidence in that revelation, despise it, call it foolish or weak. But “the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Cor. 1:18-25). God’s truth will unite all men in God’s Son. When God’s children preach God’s truth in all its fulness, they are seeking unity with all men. Everyone who obeys that truth is united with all the family of God in Jesus Christ.

After arising from the dead, Jesus sent the Apostles into all the world. “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:15-16). Shortly, the day of Pentecost came and the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostles to declare “the wonderful works of God.” Three thousand souls repented of every sin and were baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of those sins. “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved . . . . And believers were the more added to the Lord” (Acts 2:47; 5:14). Obedience to divine truth united men in Jesus Christ (Acts 2:1-47).

How can we maintain unity with God and His family once it has been established? When the church was under the guidance of inspired men, how did it maintain unity as various issues and problems arose? “All scripture is given by inspiration of God . . . that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). The scriptures answer this question as they do every religious issue. A study of the New Testament reveals that the problem of disunity raised by various issues was met by a solution provided in the inspired message, with the result that unity was maintained by all who accepted that message. Issues . . . Inspired Message . . . Unity. That was the pattern. As we consider the issues that arose to threaten the unity of God’s family, we will notice that the inspired message was a sufficient basis of unity for those who walked by faith.

An issue arose regarding the Christian’s relation to the Law of Moses. Now, if a man wanted to be circumcised, embrace certain distinctives of Jewish nationality, and even devote certain days for special devotion and reverence to God, that was his own personal prerogative. But when men began to preach these things as a part of the Gospel and to therefore bind them as matters of salvation and fellowship, the sword of the Spirit was drawn. The issue was pressed by certain Jews: must Gentiles be circumcised and keep the Old Law to be saved?

The inspired men stood together and spoke in one united voice by the Holy Spirit (see Acts 15, Gal. 2). They publicly refuted the Jews who were spreading this doctrinal error which bound Gentiles under Moses’ Law. Peter argued that God necessarily implied that the Gentiles were saved without the Old Law when He gave “them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us.” In that way, God showed there was no difference between Jew and Gentile, thus all men could purify “their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:7-11). Barnabas and Paul declared “what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them,” thus showing God approved the apostolic practice of preaching the very same gospel to the Gentiles which was preached to the Jews-which gospel did not include the Old Law (Acts 15:12). James produced a direct statement of divine revelation from “the words of the prophets” which showed that God had always planned to save all men in the New Covenant of Christ (Acts 15:16-18). Finally, an inspired letter was sent out affirming that the Gentiles could be saved without the Law of Moses. The letter allowed no diversity on that subject (no “unity in diversity”) and condemned men for binding where God did not bind. The silence of inspired men in not having spoken what the Jews were teaching was held sacred-“to whom we gave no such commandment” (Acts 15:22-32). Along with the books of Romans and Galatians, inspired men sought to stop the mouths of false teachers on this subject-even to the point of charging them with preaching “another gospel” (Gal. 1:6-9). This inspired revelation was the basis for maintaining unity with God and His true family. Those who continued to “dissent” and appeal for “tolerance” and “brotherly diversity” were granted no concessions or compromises, neither in heaven nor on earth. They were fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4). They had broken the unity, they were out of the fellowship of God and the saints (Rom. 16:17-18).

Another issue which arose was this one: can we know exactly when the day of Christ is at hand? Paul dealt with the coming of Christ in 1 and 2 Thessalonians. He cautioned the brethren to “be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand” (2 Thess. 2:2). It is very possible that the error being taught on that subject contributed to the attitude and conduct of those who were “working not at all, but are busybodies” (3:11). At any rate, those who were not working and all others were obligated to “line themselves up” with God’s revelation rather than expecting God’s revelation to make room for their false ideas. “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” Those who failed to do this did not have the Father or the Son; those who separated themselves from God were to find themselves separated from the family of God on earth: “And if any man obey not our word by this, epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:14). Unity was based on conformity to God’s revelation. It was possible to know whether a man held “the traditions” and obeyed “this epistle,” because the revelation was adapted to man’s understanding. Paul left no room for diversity based upon such skeptical expressions as, “Whose interpretation of the ‘traditions’ or ‘epistle’?”

Several factors contributed to a serious threat to the unity of God’s people at Corinth. If all the problems and issues at Corinth could be boiled down to one question, it would be, “What shall a divided, weak church do?” There were problems over preachers, several moral and ethical issues, some doctrinal questions, differences over how to conduct public worship, and questions about such mundane affairs as marriage and feasts. Early in the first letter Paul referred to the unity shared by saints in Christ “the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord”-and then immediately issued a clarion call for brethren to maintain that unity with the Lord and one another. “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:9-10).

Paul’s letters made plain that he did not mean for them to just “get together” they best way they could find. The solution to each of their problems and questions was attention to the inspired letters of Paul. He assured them that what he has taught and was still teaching them was also taught by Timothy, whom he was sending to them and “who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church” (1 Cor. 4:17). Paul commanded them to sever from fellowship one man, said they were not following Christ unless they followed Paul’s example, and announced divine “condemnation” could be expected upon those who did not receive his teaching (1 Cor. 5:3-5; 11:1; 11:34). He was not writing mere helpful “suggestions,” but “the commandments of the Lord” (14:37). Nothing was said about part of his writings being “gospel” and part being “doctrine”-with conformity required in one and diversity allowed in the other-but appealed for obedience to all of his writings without distinction: “stand fast in the faith” (16:13). In the second letter, he commanded those who had submitted to the first; they had been sorry, repented, and made correction in keeping with Paul’s instructions. Concerning those who “have sinned” without making correction, he warns that he will arrive shortly and, “I will not spare.” Therefore, all at Corinth were admonished, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves.” If they were not in obedience to Paul’s instructions, they were not in obedience to Jesus Christ himself and therefore would be rejected (“reprobates”) (2 Cor. 7:8-11; 12:20-13:5). The basis of Approval, Acceptance, and Unity was the inspired message!

The brethren at Colosse, and others, were faced with a number of questions which are dealt with in Colossians. “Shall we make concessions to human philosophy, keep the Old Law, worship angels, be ascetics?” Before dealing with these and other matters, Paul reminded the Colossians of their hope and where they learned it “the hope which is laid up for you in heard before in the word of the They must “continue in the faith and be not moved away from the exalted Christ, then spoke of “Christ in you, the hope of glory; whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom” (1:5, 23, 27-29). Notice that Paul used terms like the word, the truth, the gospel, the faith, warning, teaching without distinction-whenever he was teaching and whatever he was teaching, he was preaching Christ.

In Christ as revealed in Paul’s letter was “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” They must continue in Paul’s teaching, all of it. “As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: rooted and built up in him, and established in the faith, as ye have been taught …. And ye are complete in him” (2:3-10). This would exclude human philosophy, the Old Law, along with all “the commandments and doctrines of men” (2:8-23). Also, the brethren must live pure and holy lives, setting their mind “on things above, not on things on the earth” (chapts. 3-4). In other words, they were to hold fast the Divine Revelation. They were not to compromise or concede anything to the forces of error. Maintaining unity in God’s family depended upon strict adherence to the Inspired Message. That was the only way they could abide in Christ, maintain their hope, and be “complete in him.”

Truth Magazine XXI: 37, pp. 585-587
September 22, 1977