of power.” Which of the claimed successors of the apostles can prove his claim by having seen Jesus Christ, and by performing miracles, wonders and deeds of power?—Gal. 1:1; 1 Cor. 9:1, Knox; 2 Cor. 12:11, 12, Cath. Confrat.

Regarding the early so-called successors of the apostles, Catholic authorities admit little knowledge of them, “however dim may be the figures of these early pontiffs.” Also that “the dates are but approximate before 220.” (A Short Story of the Popes) In view of these facts, how can it be claimed that the line has continued without interruption? It cannot. Otherwise it would not have been necessary for the Catholic Church, on January 19, 1947, in its new edition of Annuario Pontificio, to list six changes in the list of popes. Thereby they admitted that a list, which was supposed to establish direct connection with the apostle Peter and had been used for many centuries, was actually mistaken in six respects, two of the popes being found to be actually nonexistent and four antipopes. Yes, these “successors to St. Peter” were such dim figures and their dates so approximate that it was hard to draw the line between those that actually existed and those that did not.

This new list was said to have been the result of two centuries of research. The very fact that such research was felt to be necessary shows serious doubts in regard to the claims made. And if the facts were so tampered with in an effort to show an unbroken line of successors that six nonpopes were listed, what assurance is there that further investigation might not find still more gaps? No wonder that the scholar Scaliger so sarcastically commented on the claims of Peter’s having been in Rome, why he was so indignant with dishonest argument and quotation, and why as long as he lived the apologists of the church of Rome were on the defensive.

The facts further show that the ever-increasing claims to superiority and jurisdiction on the part of the bishops of Rome during the first three centuries were “promptly and emphatically denied in all parts of the Christian world.” The Council of Nice A.D. 325, at which the pope of Rome was not even present, granted the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria metropolitan rights over the churches in their provinces “since the same belongs to the bishop in Rome.”—McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia, Vol. 7, p. 628.

Truly the Scriptures, the facts of history and sound reasoning combine to prove that Peter is not the rock on which Christ built his Christian congregation, that he was not the first “bishop” of Rome, that neither he nor any of the other apostles had successors, and that there has not been a continuous line of such from Peter’s day down to ours. Hence the answer to our question, “Do the apostles have successors?” must be an emphatic and unequivocal No!

Few Young Russians Go to Church

● William Benton, publisher of The Encyclopædia Britannica, recently visited the Soviet Union. In his report he said concerning Christendom’s religions in Russia: “Of the influence of religion I shall say only that the regime’s slightly more tolerant attitude today does not mean that it is relenting in its militant atheism; it may only mean that, in Russia, religion no longer worries the Party. I saw very few Russians under age 60 in church. Khrushchev said not long ago, ‘Religion is still the opiate of the people, but we are strong now and not afraid of it.’”—Britannica Book of the Year for 1956.