believing all that God has written too?'  Our answer must be qualified.  Yes,

in all sincerity you believe that you do accept without alteration all that

God has written, but unless you divide rightly the Word of truth, you will

discover this to be impossible.  Let an example suffice.

We believe that in promising, in the Sermon on the Mount, that `The

meek shall inherit the earth', the Lord meant what He said.  We also believe

that Abraham -- and those blessed with faithful Abraham -- will be blessed in

the heavenly Jerusalem.  We believe, further, that the church of the Mystery

will be blessed `in heavenly places far above all'.

If `B' believes that the church in the Gospel according to Matthew is

not to be distinguished from the church in Ephesians (and he has practically

said so, as will appear), then he cannot, even though he would, accept each

of these three distinct spheres of blessing as written.  We, on our part,

would say, that realizing there are three spheres of blessing (1) The earth,

(2) The heavenly Jerusalem, and (3) Heavenly places far above all, we leave

each company where God has placed them without confusion and without

The chief item, however, in this criticism is found in the statement

that the word `dispensation' is not used in Acts 28, and that neither is

there any clear indication of this most important fact.

First of all we acknowledge that the word is not found in Acts 28, but

we certainly believe that there is a `clear indication' that a dispensational

change had come, and this from two sources, viz.  (1) the last chapter of

Acts itself, and (2) from the epistles written during the two years of

imprisonment with which Acts closes.

A dispensation is marked by certain characteristics, and if these be

set aside, we have negative evidence of a change.  If, further, this be

supplemented by positive testimony, as we find in Ephesians 3 and Colossians

1, then we have all that can be reasonably asked for.

We open the last chapter of Acts, and observe that the miraculous gifts

of Mark 16 are still in force.  We are certain that `B' is no quibbler, and

the fact that after Paul in Acts 28:3 -6 fulfilled the reference to `taking

up serpents', he did not supplement it by drinking something `poisonous',

will not be used by him to invalidate our claim that Mark 16:17 -20 was in

force.  The deadly disease of dysentery was healed by Paul, and then other

diseased persons in the island were healed in the same way.  Here, then, is

one feature, characteristic of the Pentecostal dispensation.  We believe the

`shall follow' of Mark 16:17 to be as true as the `shall be saved' of Mark

16:16.  We have never had `these signs' following, yet we are not perturbed.

On the other hand, he who claims the Gospel of Mark as true for himself, has

no evidence of salvation unless he has these specified Pentecostal gifts.

The next dispensational feature is found in the fact that while Paul

had expressed his longing to see the believers of the church at Rome, there

is no record in the Acts that he visited them; on the contrary, the close of

the Acts gives prominence to his calling together the chief of the Jews.

`The Jew first', means just what it says -- `First in time, and first in all

things'.  To limit the word `first' to time, and deny any reason or meaning

to it, is to allow little credit to the apostle's perspicacity, quite apart

from the question of inspiration.  We can, however, best consider this

feature later.