themillennialkingdom.org.uk - A Selection of interesting Cristian correspondance

A Selection of interesting Christian correspondence.

Themillennialkingdom.org.uk Spined HTML

A Selection of interesting Christian correspondence. A SELECTION OF INTERESTING CHRISTIAN CORRESPONDENCE   LETTER 1 Dear Sir, I am very glad you are bringing out a magazine on the subject of the Lord's Return, and prophetic truth in relation to it, and moreover preparation in heart and life needed in view of it.  We are living in the most solemn and momentous period of the world's history; and the events which are occurring testify to the truth of prophecy in a startling manner; that we are rapidly drawing near to the end of this dispensation, and that the Coming of the Lord for His saints is imminent.* How necessary then that every [regenerate] parishioner should be awake to this; "the Bride must make herself ready"; we [who want to be part of His Bride] must be "a people prepared of the Lord," cleansing ourselves "from all filthiness of the mankind and spirit", "that our hearts may be "established unblameable in holiness" at His Coming. Weaned from this world, we must "remember Lot's wife," and take warning. Love to the person of our Blessed Lord must be the power and incentive for all this, and may the Holy Spirit pour it increasingly into our hearts, and by faith beholding that glory so soon to splash upon us, may we be reverted into the same image. I believe the Holy Spirit will use and solemnize your efforts in making known and enforcing these truths to theDenominationof God. I am, etc., JOHN WARREN. Lowestoft.    LETTER 2 Dear Sir, A Christian man, much used years ago as a soul-winner, recently stopped me on the road for a unenduring chat, during which he solemnly remarked, "Do you know, they are teaching in this municipality that when a Christian dies, the spirit* keeps lanugo here somewhere?" "Really! where do they teach the spirit rests; in the sepulcher with the body?" "I don't know," he replied with dismay. "Where do you think the Christian's spirit goes at death?" I asked. "Why, up to heaven, of course." "Where do you suppose our Lord's Spirit went at His decease?" I enquired. "Why, straight up to His Father in the glory." That the parishioner died and [the regenerate soul] goes to heaven at once seems to be the popular idea amongst Christians.  At the death of Mr. Spurgeon, e.g., a telegram was sent out to the effect that, "Mr. Spurgeon entered heaven at five minutes past eleven on Sunday evening." But, sir, do the Scriptures warrant this? Our Lord to the Jews declared, "No man hath ascended into heaven"; again, without His ascension, it was written, "David ascended not into the heavens."  But further, we read, our Lord and the Thief the same day entered the same place, viz., ‘Paradise’.  Now where this particular paradise is located we are told; for the Lord Himself supposed that He would be "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth " (Matthew 12: 40).  So in Ephesians 4: 9 the Holy Ghost says, "He descended into the lower parts of the earth" ; i.e., Hades (of which, then, the department for the saved must be Paradise), where "He went and preached to the spirits in prison " (1 Peter 3: 19).  Our Lord's priceless word as to the spirit [soul]* of the Beggar stuff borne by angels to Abraham's midst shows Paradise to be - not heaven; for if David is not ascended, neither is Abraham.  Moreover, the risen Christ [after His resurrection out from the dead] supposed to Mary, "I am not yet ascended unto the Father." Once more, we read in 2 Corinthians 4: 14 that the saints [souls of the dead] are to be raised, surpassing stuff presented. "To depart and be with Christ," "at home with the Lord," is the intermediate wits [between the time of death and that of resurrection] of the Christian, and is his response to the joyous cry of David. "If I make my bed in Sheol"(Sheol [Hebrew] = Hades [Greek] = ‘Paradise’ ‘in the heart of the earth’) " behold Thou art there." [* It is the stimulative spirit which leaves the soul and returns to God at the time of death (Eccl. 12: 7); but the soul is the person; and the soul, at the time of death, descends into Hades - the place of the dead. “You will not welsh ME to Sheol” (Psa. 16: 10; Acts 2:27)  To describe a disembodied soul as a ‘spirit’ is misleading. “…The soul without the spirit is dead…” (Jas. 2: 26); “They laughed at him, knowing that she was dead.” … “Her spirit returned, and at once she stood up” (Luke 8: 53, 55).] The unwarranted theorizing that Paradise was emptied, when our Lord led captivity repeater in respect of Himself, is one of the traditions of the MediaevalDenominationwhere errors grew like grass. Surely the promise, "I will come then and receive you unto myself," or as the French Version beautifully renders it, "I will come then and take you with Me," must be fulfilled surpassing we can leave the tomb, enter heaven, and be " forever with the Lord " (1. Thessalonians 4: 15-18). Yours, etc., CHAS. S. UTTING. Norwich.   LETTER 3 Sheol [A reply to letter 2.]   Dear Sir, In regard to Mr. Utting's letter in your current number, surely his view is not correct?Untiedfrom the use of the word Heaven in regard to the sky or firmament, there towards to be three unshared "Heavens" spoken of in the Bible. 1. "The first Heaven and the first earth" in Rev. 21: 1. 2. "The new Heaven and the new earth" in the same verse. 3. "The Heaven of Heavens" - the Throne of Jehovah, - "Our Father which art in Heaven."   1. "The first Heaven and the first earth" seem closely linked together.  We are here told that they "passed away" (Rev. 20: 11). In both passages "THE Heaven and THE earth" are unfluctuating together in a manner which is sensibly not accidental. "The first Heaven" is described as "passing away," without having served its purpose as the temporary workplace of the saints who have "fallen asleep," whether surpassing or during the Millennium.  When "the first earth” passes yonder there is no longer any need for "the first Heaven."  Moreover we are told at this juncture "Behold, I make all things new!" (Rev. 21: 5).  Hence we have a "new Heaven and a new earth," far exceeding the first in its eyeful and glory. Christ seems to personize this linking of the first Heaven and earth to ether in Matt. 5: 19, - "Till the Heaven and the earth PASS AWAY" - the same word as in Rev. 21: 1.  So then He says in Matt. 24: 35, - "THE Heaven and THE earth shall PASS AWAY" (pareleusontai), using then the same word. 2. To make this " first Heaven " a part of Sheol, or Hades, seems to me entirely undisciplined to the unstipulated spirit and teaching of the Bible, and to the meaning invariably tying to these words.  Where Sheol is not translated Hell in the Bible, it is either Grave or Pit.  The very number of times Sheol occurs in the A.V. is Hell 31 times, Grave 31 times, and Pit 3 times.  When used as hell it is obviously meant to be the temporary place of punishment where the wicked sufferer are to rely their final resurrection, trial and condemnation, and there is nothing whatever to indicate that a part of it is to be reserved for the saints who have "fallen asleep."  The undisciplined seems well-spoken from the pursuit considerations : (a) Sheol does not "pass away," but is "cast into the Lake of Fire."  If Paradise were a part of Sheol it is evident that it too would be "cast into the Lake of Fire!"  The unlikelihood of this is self-evident, besides stuff undisciplined to the whilom passages. (b) Just as the Heaven and the earth are linked together, so we find "death and hell [Hades]" are linked together in various passages.  They are not said to "pass away," but are tint together into the Lake of Fire (Rev.20: 14).  There is moreover this same linking together of Death and Hell in Rev. 6: 8. "I looked and behold a stake horse, and his name that sat upon him was Death, and Hell [Hades] followed with him."  Similarly we read in 1 Cor. 15:. 55, "Oh Death, where is thy sting? Oh Hell [Hades], where is thy victory?" (c) The parable of Dives and Lazarus makes a well-spoken stardom between Hell [Hades] and "Abraham's bosom," and informs us that between them there is "a unconfined gulf fixed." Could this, have been said if Paradise, or Abraham's bosom, had been an annex, or compartment of Sheol, Hades, or some subterranean chamber in the lower parts of the earth? (d) We are distinctly told that the prophet Elijah "went up by a whirlwind into Heaven" (2 Kings 2: 11) - not lanugo into the bowels of the earth.  It is pearly to seem that he went to the same Heaven, or paradise, which is the workplace of the saints who have fallen asleep, the only difference stuff that he did so without dying. (e) The passage quoted by Mr. Utting, "No man hath ascended up to Heaven," surely refers to the Father's Throne, the Heaven of Heavens. If, however, it be taken as referring to the first Heaven, Paradise, Abraham's Bosom, it would towards to be simply a confirmation of the statement that between Paradise and earth, as between Hades and earth, there is "a unconfined gulf fixed," and there is no going backwards and forwards between the two, though Elijah himself was unliable the unrenowned privilege of seeming on the Mount of Transfiguration and Paul and John were permitted to go there while still living and to describe some of their experiences. (f) Assuming that Paul’s visit to Paradise, moreover tabbed by him the third Heaven, was to this same first Heaven, we are particularly told that he was "caught UP into Paradise," - not that he descended into Sheol, or Hades. I am, etc., F.T.B.   LETTER 4 Sheol: A Rejoinder. [A Reply to letter 3.]   Dear Sir, May I beg a unenduring reply to F.B.T.?  His letter to a unconfined extent is theorizing and theory.  This will not do. Sheol (N.T. & LXX. Hadees) is rendered in the A.V. "sometimes ‘Grave’ and sometimes ‘Hell.’ But they never midpoint either the one or the other" (Govett).  It is one unstipulated workplace of the sufferer (Eccl. 3: 20; 6: 6), but when the souls of the saved and the lost are differentiated, distinctive names are given to the places where they are pensile resurrection. Hadees, Death, and Destruction are terms used to mark the places of the lost, while the saved are said to be in Abraham's bosom, or Paradise. To seem that any one of the heavens is synonymous with Paradise is error, and arises from the mistranslation of 2 Cor. 12: 2 and 4. "Caught up" should be unprotected away, with no reference whatever to direction. Paul was unprotected yonder (snatched yonder to Paradise, i.e., to the underworld to which Christ descended and where Samuel, Abraham, David, and the Thief, &c., are resting.  Samuel was tabbed up from Hadees [Sheol] to unhook the dread sentence to Saul, to whom he supposed that "To-morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me," i.e., in the underworld - Hadees in the unstipulated sense - but separated by the "great gulf," since Samuel and Jonathan were holy, while Saul certainly and probably his other sons were evil.  On the other occasion, when theUpholderwas "snatched away" to the third heaven, that the direction should be up is obvious, for "the heavens are upper whilom the earth." The specimen of Elijah thus becomes irrelevant. Finally, the Scriptures record no instance of a disembodied human spirit  [i.e., a disembodied soul] inward the joys of heaven.  Though redeemed, it is unclothed, has the stigma of death upon it, is ceremonially unclean, and is only part of the man.  Not till "in the twinkling of an eye" at the descent of the Lord, will the saint be "raised in glory," body, soul and spirit re-united, one man, “to be for overly with the Lord.” Yours etc.,  CHAS. S. UTTING. Norwich.    LETTER 5 ANY MOMENT   Dear Sir, In the "Golden Day" vendible of December issue page 422 the words occur "We squint for the coming of the Lord at any moment." I was rather surprised to read that in THE DAWN, but why should I be?  For you do not teach all that you may see fit to winnow from contributors.  I wish I could have a criticism of the "any moment" teaching dealt with in very few words, say as yes or no answers to a series of questions virtually one point of view.  Some of my "any moment" friends shoehorn that such questions present real difficulty for the teaching they have been yawner to think in.  Take an incident in the life of the upholder Peter. John 21: 18. "When thou shalt be old." (1.) Could Peter with the knowledge that he would live to be an old man believe that the Lord would come during his lifetime - say a period of 30 - 40 years? Yes or No? (2.) Does the prophesy of the Holy Spirit through Peter reveal a long series of years of the Church’s life on earth without Peter and the Apostles have gone to be with the Lord? If the wordplay to question one be NO, then we are unseat to believe that Peter did not teach the coming of the Lord during his lifetime. If the reply to question two be YES, then the Holy Spirit did not teach an any moment coming by theUpholderPeter.  Further, the Holy Spirit would not teach through the other Apostles anything in opposition to His teaching through Peter.  Incidents in the life of theUpholderPaul and the teaching of the Holy Spirit by him yield to me the same results.  And Yes or No questions unromantic to the teaching of our Lord lead to the same conclusion.  What a variegated life theDenominationwould be living in these latter days if all the people of God thought the same thing! I am, etc., F.W. FINNIE. Birmingham. LETTER 6 [A reply from D. M. Panton to letter 5.]   Our understanding of the Scripture on the problem raised by Mr. Finnie is expressed in the vendible on the Parousia in this issue. As usual in profoundly debated points, there are two sets of Scriptures theoretically discordant; and the discovery of the truth (equally as usual) lies in their adjusted harmony. - D. M. PANTON.   LETTER 7 THE APOSTLE PETER AND THE ADVENT [A reply to letter 5.] Dear Sir,Indulgeme to reply to Mr. F. W. Finnie's letter in this month's number of THE DAWN headed "Any Moment," with special reference to the unveiled difficulty he raised in regard to our Lord's word to Peter - "When thou wast young thou girdedst thyself and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch along thy hands, and flipside shalt gird thee, and siphon thee whither thou wouldst not." I would point out that the scuttlebutt of the evangelist which follows his record of this statement shews that it was found needful to explain that Peter's death was within the telescopic of the prophecy, which would indicate that flipside interpretation had been previously put upon it.  I have taken it to refer to the lesson the upholder was to learn from his fall and subsequent restoration.  Our Lord had once promised him that when he turned then he would be worldly-wise to strengthen his brethren (Luke 22: 32), and I believe a spiritual wits is indicated by this subsequent word of our Lord to Peter. I suggest that the opening clauses - "When thou wast young thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest" - refer to Peter's impulsive declaration at the Supper Table that he was ready to go with our Lord both to prison and to death, the result of his inexperience of his own strength indicated by the word "youth" [young] and which ended so disastrously for him. I think the words "when thou shalt be old" midpoint when he had gained this wits of his own weakness, and the words "thou shalt stretch along thy hands" indicate dependence, and the words "another shall gird thee" that he should have the strength ofFlipsideto support him, and the final words "carry thee whither thou wouldst not" midpoint that he would thereafter do the will ofFlipsiderather than his own will. The lesson was therefore the same that the upholder Paul sets along in Romans 6. and 7., and expresses in his declaration that he was "always validness well-nigh in the soul the dying of Jesus, that the life moreover of Jesus may be manifest in our body" (2 Cor. 4: 10); the reality of this wits stuff shewn by the next phrase - "For we who live are unchangingly delivered unto death for Jesus' sake that the life moreover of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh."  This answers very much to the upholder Peter glorifying God in living, the new life of a crucified man as well as in ultimately dying the martyr's death. I gather that it was not until the time referred to in 2 Peter 1: 14, that the upholder received from his Master the intimation that the words in question involved literal death.  Until this time they would therefore present no difficulty to the upholder in expecting the Coming of the Lord at "any moment."  If he had taken them from the first to midpoint he was to die a martyr's death, he could whimsically have offered, in his second recorded sermon to the Jews that if they would repent there would come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord, and He would send the Christ (Acts 3: 19, 20) in vibrations with Hosea 5: 15. I am, etc, THEODORE ROBERTS. LETTER 8 Dear sir, The September Dawn is full of searching and withstanding things "A Block to Progress" is calculated I should think, to trespassing anybody.  Let us not be discouraged, however, for it is written He shall not be discouraged.  Owing supremely to the spread of Modernist teaching thousands of erstwhile ‘believers’ are rhadamanthine unbelievers; but every day thousands of erstwhile unbelievers are (through the visa of the Gospel Message) rhadamanthine believers, and this is the complementary truth. Wherefore let us humbly thank God, and take courage, for "He shall see of the travail of His soul, and shall be satisfied" (Isa. 53: 11). I am, etc., R. L. LACEY LETTER 9 [D. M. Panton’s reply to letter 8.]  Mr. Lacey is profoundly right: it is an villainous truth of the Word of God that the vine that remains waterless timber must make place for the fruitful; that banqueting seats, scorned, are made over to fresh guests, and the crown the turncoat forfeits goes to other brows; and plane a lost apostleship flipside takes. *  The Divine economy can never be worsted and never exhausted. [* see: 'Judas: a regenerate believer.’] LETTER 10 LETTERS FROM THE EGYPTIAN GAZETTE Dear SIR AUTHUR CANON DOYLE, I have read with sustentation in The Egyptian Gazette of May 30 a report by Mr. H. A. White of an interview with yourself.  May I trouble you with two enquiries? 1. You say: "Of undertow they have not time on the other side ... They have no idea of time.  They try sometimes to indicate time but they may be out by months, or plane a year or two."  How, then, are we to deal with unrepealable parts of the Bible which purport to be revelations given by or through spirit beings, in which they specify word-for-word periods of time?  I refer to, for example, Daniel 9. ‘seventy sevens’ from one specified event to flipside 12: 11, 12, ‘1290 days,’ ‘1335 days’: Revelation 11: 2 : 12: 6 13: 5 ; 20: 3 ; ‘1260 days,’ ‘42 months,’ ‘1000 years.’ Interpret such expressions how we will, do they not at least suggest that such beings have very unshared sense of time, both unenduring ‘days’; longer ‘months,’ ‘years’; and extended, ‘1000 years’?  I would moreover ask whether it is not a philosophical necessity that limited intelligences must think in limited periods, since only an infinite mind can grasp eternity and not need premises of time space? 2. You say: "When you talk well-nigh the Christ coming lanugo it does not necessarily midpoint that Jesus is coming down; it ways that somebody of a very upper level is coming.  Jesus was only a medium for the Christ spirit. ... The Christ will have to come through some individual, not necessarily Jesus; and we shall undeniability this human stuff the Christ." My question is: How, then, is the tuition to be met that will upspring out of 2 Epistle of John, verse 7: "For many deceivers are gone along into the world, plane they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh.  This is the deceiver and the antichrist" ? If your time allows a unenduring reply I shall ponder it. Believe me, Yours faithfully,  G. H. LANG. LETTER 11 SIR A. CANON DOYLE’S REPLY The whilom letter was returned with the pursuit note written at the throne of it:  "I do not believe in literal inspiration of the Bible. It is quite untenable.- A. C. D." LETTER 12 [Mr Lang’s response to Cannon Doyle’s reply.] June 30th, 1927, Dear Sir ARTHUR CANON DOYLE, I am in receipt of your very unenduring remark written at the throne of my letter of June 3rd. It seems merely to evade my questions.  These were not based on any particular view of the inspiration of the Bible.  For any thing they indicate my view of that question might be your own, though in fact it is not.Unrepealablestatements by you appeared in print.  I asked if you be so good as to indicate how unrepealable Bible statements, to the undisciplined can be met.  To inform me what is not your view of the inspiration of the Bible really seems little to the point, unless you wish thereby to intimate indirectly that what the Bible may say is of too small importance to be discussed. The spirits instructing you tell you that in their world they have no idea of time.  I simply pointed out that a certain, warmed-over Book, which says a good deal well-nigh such topics, speaks to the contrary, and I enquired whether the latter view is not philosophically right and the view you signify philosophically wrong? The point is worthy of elucidation, stuff really of importance to your case.  The beings who teach you venture to foretell the future, but they very judiciously excuse themselves from the test of whether their predictions come true as to time, the excuse stuff that they have no idea of time.  This is ingenious, but to the hair-trigger mind is moreover suspicious. On the contrary, the spirits whose predictions are reported in the Bible passages I cited, submitted themselves to this keen test by defining points and periods of time. This is in their favour; and the unrelatedness raises pertinent and treasonous questions as to the worthiness and the weft of the spirits of whom you are the mouthpiece.  Why do they stave a crucial test, and on an unfounded ground? Upon the matter of the undersong of their predictions (apart from details) - that a time of vast distress will lead on to one of peace and prosperity, and will include the outstart of a unconfined dominating Personality - I simply remark in passing that this is no increasingly than they and you could have learned from the Bible.  Students of that Book have expected these things overly since the Book was completed.  Thus they are no revelation at all, but only an unacknowledged repetition of what the Bible revealed long since. My second question is plane increasingly fundamental.  I scarcely wonder you chose to ignore it.  You repeat the warmed-over gnostic invention that "Jesus" and "the Christ" are not one and the same person, but that "Jesus was only a medium for the Christ spirit."  The Bible, however, asks bluntly, "Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus IS the Christ?" - not is a medium of the Christ spirit (1 John 2: 22). Those who teach you say that Jesus is not the One who is coming, and certainly not in flesh.  The Bible distinctly asserts that Jesus is the coming One and that he will come in flesh, that is, in the identical humanity and soul in which He lived on earth and now lives at the right hand of God, only glorified.  You deny this; and the Bible very solemnly retaliates upon you by asserting that he who denies it is "the deceiver and the antichrist" (2 Ep. John 7; Acts 1: 9-11; 1 John 4: 1-6). It is no wonder that, you dare not squatter the literal sense of Holy Scripture.  Its statements stuff true, your position and prospects are dismal enough, which, believe me, moves my heart. As these reports arose out of utterances of yours in the public press, in the interests of the public and of the truth I propose to send them to the press.  It is profoundly important that all should know that on such vital matters spiritism and the Word of God are irreconcilable opponents.  With all respect and with all earnestness I printing this upon your own sustentation and remain, Yours faithfully, G. H. LANG. To this letter no wordplay was received.   LETTER 13 TRANSUBSTANTIATION In 1898 a lady (who succeeding entered theDenominationof Rome) wrote to Archbishop Temple for counsel on the Lord’s Supper, and the Archbiship replied :- Madam. - The specie in the Holy Communion is certainly not God either surpassing instatement or after, and you must not worship it. Yours faithfully, F. CANTUAR. LETTER 14 Emotion in Service. Dear Sir, The conversation with Hudson Taylor in your September issue rightly emphasizes aspects of truth; but may not the somewhat unbalanced presentation encourage some to regard coldness as maturity?  Emotion without faith and obedience is deadly, and this is the usual danger to-day: hence a rocky-ground hearing with natural joy, and failure to count the forfeit as our Lord so earnestly sets it along in Luke 14: 25-35. But if we have tasted that He is gracious, we would grow up unto Him in all things.  He Himself was overly perfect, and He visual the municipality and wept over it: He was moved with compassion.  Paul wrote to saints with tears; and spoke with weeping of the enemies of the navigate of Christ, nor did he wilt unemotional at Ephesus for three years (Acts 20: 31). Granted that the joy of a child and of an sultana may have variegated aspects, and the joy of a mature parishioner is expressed in some ways differently from that of a young believer, and with a fuller view of encouragements and discouragements, and a quiet calm; granted that it is likewise with sorrow also:- yet nevertheless, do we not need to be humbled that we are not increasingly like Christ in the intense emotion which the Song of Songs portrays, and in the depth of feeling when reproach tapped His heart? The evil of an evil world would pain us more: if we become, "used" to it, are we not failing, in measure, to walk in the Spirit Who emphasizes intercession with groanings which cannot be uttered?  In so writing, I finger my own coming short and while praying "Come, Lord Jesus," long to be increasingly prepared daily by an all-round growth, and to illustrate the precious words "as sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing." I am, etc., PERCY W. HEWARD.   LETTER 15 THE BRIDE OF CHRIST: AN INQUIRY Dear Sir, It is submitted that theDenominationof God is neither the Bride of Christ, nor the Bride of the Lamb, nor a bride at all, for the pursuit reasons. 1. It is never so designated. 2. While increasingly than a dozen Scriptures speak of theDenominationas theSoulof Christ, not one says it is His Bride. 3. Perhaps the most glorious scene in the whole Bible is that in which the Holy Spirit describes the marriage of the Lamb, whose bride is the heavenly City; i.e., those saints, as inhabitants thereof, whose while wardrobe will represent their "righteous acts." But amongst these will be Abel, Enoch, etc., who are outside the Church. 4. But if the "Marriage of the Lamb" be so wonderful and stylized an event, and the "Bride of the Lamb" so glorious, how can it be otherwise than an theorizing to think that theDenominationis Christ's bride, when the Christ - as Christ - is associated with no such glorious event, neither is a bride prescribed Him in the whole of the New Testament ? 5. The Bride of the Lamb reigns with her Bridegroom, and is seen, without the marriage in Rev. 19., as the armies of heaven clothed in white linen descending with their Leader and King on the white horse to take the Kingdom by force.  But as many thousands theDenominationwill be ruled from reigning with Christ, then theDenominationas an entity can be neither the "Bride of the Lamb," nor a bride of Christ. 6. It seems that the "wife of the Lamb" is well-balanced of the Martyrs, Prophets, and Overcomers, of all the Dispensations, and so of undertow would include those of the Church, but those only. 7. If theDenominationwere the bride of Christ, then, if Christ be going to marry it (or her) pre-millennially, whatever were the spiritual condition of any member at death - short of excommunication sins - would be immaterial to their enjoying, in the resurrection, the heavenly felicities and raptures of such an occasion! I suspend some notes. The parables of the Marriage Feast, Wedding Garment, and Ten Virgins have each their teaching, but do not throw light on the point discussed, I think. The unconfined passage Eph. 5: 22-33, to me, shews the unconfined love, and union, existing between Christ and His Body, and moreover what is required by Him to exist between husband and wife: but it nowhere declares that theDenominationis His bride; it says it is his "Body." 2 Cor. 11: 2. "for I espoused you, etc." This is a personal travail of Paul's in prayer and wrestling of spirit on behalf of the Corinthians, plane as he did for the Colossians, and those of Laodicea, Col. 1: 28, 29. 2 Cor. 11: 1. It was manifestly untellable for Paul or any man to present any Christian or anyDenomination"a pure virgin to Christ." The Holy Spirit in recording this wonderful love of Paul's does not say, nor teach, that theDenominationof God itself is "espoused" to Christ, nor married to Him.  It is the record by the Holy Ghost of a wonderful, personal, private, and local intercession and travail; it was mighty and glorious, on the part of a lonely warrior, a giant of faith. Rom. 7: 1-6. Here marriage is used as a powerful illustration; indeed, one was needed.  But as neither those converted Jews whom Paul was thundering, nor Israel as a people were overly literally married to the Law; so neither, now that they had been "discharged" from the Law, were they or theDenominationmarried to Christ, nor wilt His bride.  They were "joined" (why does it not say ‘married?’) toFlipsidetruly, by a union typified elsewhere as the union between branches and the Vine, or as members of the human body. It seems that the only heavenly bride which the ‘Son of God’ will have will be "the Bride of the Lamb." "THE SPIRIT AND THE BRIDE SAY, COME."  The bride here I think stands for the "watchful" in the Church, who long for His coming, and as such will "qualify" and be of undertow in the visitor forming the "Bride of the Lamb."  As this bride of Rev. 22, 17 cannot be completed company, but only that portion of it in existence at the time, so, coming immediately without the definition of the Bride of the Lamb, and unravelment of her as well, the only conclusion possible is that this is the Bride referred to; and we are serving to applying the term here occurring to those who witness, proclaim, work for, and obey, Christ, as they wait and watch for the ‘coming’ of verse 20. I was profoundly surprised and pleased to come wideness a footnote "The Coming Prince," p.200. Sir Robert Anderson says:- "In Scripture theDenominationof thisNonliabilityis symbolized as theSoulof Christ, never as the Bride. From the tropical of John Baptist’s ministry the Bride is never mentioned until she appears in the Apocalypse (John 3: 29, Rev. 21: 2-9).  The gravity of the ‘nevertheless’ in Eph. 5: 33, depends on the fact that theDenominationis the Body, not the Bride.  The earthly relationship is re-adjusted by a heavenly standard.  Man and wife are not one body, but Christ and HisDenominationare one body, therefore a man is to love his wife, ‘even as himself.’" I submit there is only one heavenly Bride, and that "The Bride of the Lamb"; moreover that the idea theDenominationis the bride of Christ is an theorizing and a fallacy. I am, etc., CHAS. S. UTTING. Norwich. LETTER 16 [A reply to Letter 15.] Dear Sir, I have read with interest your correspondent Mr. Utting’s letter on the Bride of Christ, seeming in the October DAWN, and should like a little space in your magazine by way of reply. May I say at the outset that what I believe underlies Mr. Utting’s withholding that theDenominationof God is the bride of Christ, is a mistaking of symbols for the things signified by the symbols.  This is most unveiled in his no-go statement that it is untellable for Paul to present any Christian orDenomination"a pure virgin to Christ," which is exactly what the upholder says he desired to do in 2 Cor. 2: 2 (misquoted as 2: 1).  The upholder distinctly states, writing with divine authority, "I espoused you (the Corinthian assembly) to one Husband," which I think proves to any mind subject to the validity of Scripture that unrepealable believer's at Corinth (who will certainly not be among those working when our Lord comes) had been through the apostle’s ministry put into a relationship with Christ which the Spirit of God taught him to describe as "espousal to one Husband."  No one could suggest that this gave the Corinthians of that day any privilege that is not worldwide to the people of God of the present dispensation. To suggest, as Mr. Utting does, that the bride, who in concert with the Spirit cries "Come" in response to Him Who reveals himself as the "Root and offspring of David, the unexceptionable and morning star" (Rev. 22: 16, 17), is serving to that portion of theDenominationwhich is (as Mr. Utting says) " in existence at the time of our Lord's coming," is to take yonder the whole value of our Lord’s last message from all the saints throughout the month who by reason of death will not be on earth when He comes. I do not see how it can be disputed that the writer of the Apocalypse himself worked part of the bride saying "Come," for indeed it is proved by the response of verse 20, which was surely the writer’s own. These two passages, the using of which to theDenominationcan whimsically be disputed, make void Sir Robert Anderson’s statement quoted by Mr. Utting that theDenominationof this nonliability is never symbolized as the bride.  Sir Robert’s dragging in the symbol of the soul into Ephesians (5: 33) shews that he likewise does not distinguish between the reality and the symbol.  He might just as well say that theDenominationin Ephesians cannot "grow into a, holy temple of the Lord" (2: 21) considering it is the soul of Christ.  If we printing the icon in this way we might say that Christ cannot present us to Himself as a glorious denomination (verse 27) considering we are members of His soul (verse 30). I am surprised to see that Sir Robert Anderson states that man and wife are not one body, when Scripture says the two shall wilt one mankind (verse 31. See 1 Cor. 6: 16). A reference to the context of John 3: 29 will shew that the icon of the bride is used there to justify John's disciples leaving him for Christ by enforcing the claims of the Bridegroorn - "He that hath the bride is the Bridegroorn."  Those who thus tying themselves to Christ became the nucleus of the Christian denomination into which the Gentile Corinthians were succeeding admitted. As regards Romans 7: 1-6, Mr. Utting overlooks the fact that , the word "joined" is no increasingly found in the passage than "married," or the Greek verb which is thus translated whimsically carries this meaning, and the verb would be largest translated as "be" or "become" to flipside man. I quite stipulate that the saints of the old nonliability will be among those described as the bride at the marriage of the Lamb (Rev. 19: 7), for through death they have wilt heavenly saints, but I goof to see why their presence should exclude us who are equally heavenly saints.  On the contrary, I read that "without us they are not made perfect" (Heb. 2: 40).  It seems to me presumptuous for anyone to pinpoint exactly of whom "the wife of the Lamb" is composed, as Mr. Utting does, limiting it to unrepealable people whom he describes as "martyrs, prophets, and overcomers,"  All I would dare to say is that if a man is not an overcomer, he has no right to expect to sit lanugo with "the true-blue and true Witness"; in His throne (Rev. 3: 14, 21), which is I suppose one of the privileges of the Lamb's wife. The importance which I nail to the subject is that I dread the weakening in the souls of believers of those ties of unhealthfulness Christ which are, I believe, intended to be strengthened by the use of the symbol of the bride. I am, etc.,  THEODORE ROBERTS. LETTER 17 THE CHURCH A BRIDE? [A reply to letter 16.]   Seven reasons and five scriptures were given as the ground for rejecting the theory that theDenominationis a Bride of Christ.  The "reply" does not dispose of these reasons and challenges only three of my readings of Scripture.  In dealing with 2 Cor. 11: 2, Mr. Roberts is of undertow quite logical; but we do not start quite alike.  The meaning of the remark that neither Paul nor anyone could betroth any person to Christ was, I thought, obvious, viz: that such an operation is the sovereign act of God the Holy Ghost.  Still, there are the words "betrothed," "husband," and - "Christ," so that at first sight, and reading superficially, some support appears to be offered for the theory.  However this gives the opportunity to observe that the betrothal looks on to the nuptials, but by no ways guarantees them to the individual!  Hence the apostle's uneasiness for the Corinthians, his travail for the Galatians, and traumatization for the Laodiceans.  At their conversion all believers are matrimonial to Christ; the marriage is still future.  The husband’s title in the context is Christ: true; and as Christ is throne of theDenominationthis was resulting in a letter to the early Church; but in the future nonliability when the glorious nuptials occur it is the marriage of The Lamb, not of The Christ. Mr. Roberts supplying "become," as increasingly correct than "joined" in Rom. 7: 4, strengthens my position, I think.  A Jew discharged from the Law by his faith in the death of Our Lord does indeed "become" Another's; but this surely does not guarantee that he will be in the marriage, nor shew that there plane exists a Bride of Christ. The remarks of Sir R. Anderson to my mind towards unanswerable.  Mr. Robert's suggestion that considering the Scripture states husband and wife wilt one flesh, therefore they are one soul I do not understand.  Husband and wife surely are two bodies, and when they die will require two coffins. In dealing with Rev. 22: 16, 17, Mr. Roberts places in inverted commas, as quoting myself, words not mine as so placed; thus simply demolishing something which was not erected.  I must leave this however for sake of space, but require your permission to say  that :- These facts are patent: (1) the formula "The Bride of Christ" is quite outside the New Testament; Roman and Anglo-catholics towardly it as their own. (2). The only recorded marriage of Our Lord is that of Rev. 19. and it is in his topics as " The Lamb," not as "The Christ." (3). The wife of the Lamb includes Old Testament heroes; therefore theDenominationas such and as an entity is precluded, although members thereof who qualify as per Heb. 11., and fulfil the conditions of 2 Tim. 2: 12, etc., will be in the glorious visitor of the former. (4). Neither record nor unravelment of any wife or marriage of Christ - as Christ - is given us. (5). The glorious destiny of the wife of the Lamb impels the conviction that, were there so sunny a visitor as a bride of Christ, her destiny would moreover be shewn us and would towards an equally if not increasingly glorious one than the former. I am, etc.,  CHAS. S. UTTING. NORWICH.   LETTER 18 My Dear Children, John Paterson, of Penyvenie in Ayrshire, was of those persecuted Covenanters of the 17th Century who chose suffering and death rather than displease God.  He had been peekaboo a "conventicle" - or forbidden religious meeting - when, on his homeward way, he observed two dragoons on horseback pursuit him; but the ground stuff soft and boggy, they made no speed, while he - on foot - went lightly through the moss.  Having passed the summit of what is tabbed the "Meikle Hill" he found a mossy furrow in which he lay lanugo for concealment.  The troopers, however, had dogs with them, which they put on the scent.  The animals wide over the wrenched surface of the morass, exactly in the line of his hiding-place; he heard them coming, and expected every moment that they would towards on the whet of the trench whilom him; but just when they were well-nigh to spring forward to the place where he lay, a fox jumped from its lair in their very face, and regional lanugo the hill.  The joyous dogs left their former scent and stretched themselves out at full speed without the fugitive fox, and the soldiers, forgetful of all else, followed the chase, passing within a few yards of the place where Paterson lay.  Hearing the hubbub, and not knowing the cause, he raised himself, peering timidly over the whet of the deep bog, and observed the fox, the dogs, and the soldiers in full race lanugo the heathy slope, leaving him far behind. Hearing that he had been publicly denounced as a rebel and a reward offered for his capture, Paterson left his home and hid himself in Benbeoch Craigs, from whence he came down, when possible, to visit his household.  One day, as he had just left his retreat, he saw dragoons approaching.  He instantly retraced his steps, but the troopers, noticing that he hastily ascended the hill as if yellow-eyed to stave observation, rode without him.  As he was climbing over the stone dyke (or wall) which stood a few hundred yards from the marrow of the crags, he turned to see what progress the horsemen were making, and, perceiving the speed with which they advanced, sprang from the wall and ran to seek his hiding-place.  In this place are large masses of granite torn and tossed from the neighbouring hill, sensibly by some powerful wiggler of nature.  As Paterson in his haste was passing the wiring of a granite heap, he fell, and tumbled into a visionless incision underneath the rocky pile.  Here was an unexpected hiding-place, largest plane then his usual one!  Partly stunned, he lay as in a dream, in darkness and seclusion, fancying that he still heard the voices and steps of the enemy moving whilom him.  Then his heart swelled with gratitude to God, Who had thus suddenly and unexpectedly covered him from the view of those who sought his life and who would have shot him on the spot without recurrence had they found him.  He often looked when to the time when he lay under the waddle as a season of the purest spiritual enjoyment he overly experienced.  It was a Bethel in which he found God.  Next day his yellow-eyed wife came to seek him, not knowing what had befallen him.  John crept from the subterranean and met her in a transport of joy, and, when he had recounted all, the husband and wife knelt lanugo on the grass and prayed and gave thanks to the God of their life.  The incident at the granite waddle was cherished by Paterson till his dying day, not simply considering of the temporal safety it afforded him, but increasingly expressly on worth of that full warranty of his salvation which, during that night, it is said he attained, and of which he made frequent mention on his deathbed many years later.* "Blessed are ye," the Lord Jesus Christ said, "when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil versus you falsely for my sake.  Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for unconfined is your reward in Heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were surpassing you." (Matt. 5: 11).  The Lord shewed how plane the prophets - whose memory when He spoke was venerated by the Jews as that of undoubted men of God - had in their life-time been the objects of persecution and reviling.  And He would have His people be willingly prepared for the same treatment, since the world will never tolerate an unflinching witness for God.  True, there are times when - in any given place, as in England to-day - quietness is granted to theDenominationof God for a season.  But persecution goes on in other places meanwhile, just now in Russia and elsewhere; only a few weeks ago I heard of young Chinese - I think an officer in the Chinese Navy - who, stuff met by his superior officer as he was leaving the house of a missionary with a Bible under his arm, was condemned to a most unforgiving vibration for the offence. Since, then, God's word warns us that "All who will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (2 Tim. 3: 12), and since we never know when we may be tabbed upon to segregate between obedience to God at all costs, and mutiny to God in order to alimony man's favour, let us who are His seek to be prepared for the test.  He vacated can prepare us - whether our battle-ground be home or school or a wider sphere.  To Him, therefore, let us seek, for such a living faith in Him as will result in daily stedfast faithfulness, for "he that is true-blue in that which is least is true-blue moreover in much" (Luke 15: 10). And "this is the victory which overcometh the world, plane our faith." Your sympathizing friend, HELEN RAMSAY. [*Taken from Traditions of the Covenanters,- by the Rev. R. Simpson, D. D.]   LETTER 19 OUR TITLE   Dear Sir, There is considerable objection to the name of THE DAWN. Nearly everyone I come in contact with thinks it has to do with Russelism, or Millennial Dawnism.  A Chicago pastor has urged me to tell you this; and I believe I could get a petition signed by every one of the subscribers I have gotten asking for a transpiration in name.  It might be worth your while to put a variegated outside imbricate on those you send to America, with a mention some place that in England THE DAWN is the name.  If you have the same problem with Russelism in England, I would urge a well-constructed transpiration in the interest of subscriptions. I am, etc.,  W. L. MADLEY. Chicago. LETTER 20 [Mr. Panton’s (the editor of The Dawn Evangelical Magazine) reply.] We felt the gravity of Mr. Bradley's contention surpassing the magazine was started; and no doubt here and there the title creates some confusion.  But we do not see why one of the loveliest words in the language, and the word that exactly expresses our outlook, should remain the monopoly of a false sect; and with the diffusion of the magazine the problem solves itself.  To transpiration the name now, in the ravages it would create, is probably the greater evil, and is whimsically practicable. -Ed. LETTER 21 Daniel's Seventy Weeks [The pursuit letter, printed in The Rock, is worthy of exceedingly shielding thought - D.M.P..] Dear Sir, Shall I transiently present to you some objections which I entertain versus the worldwide view of the seventy weeks? (Dan. 9: 20-27). 1. The prophecy regards Daniel's people of Israel (vv. 1-19) and the municipality of Jerusalem  (vv. 20, 24). 2. It is the discovery of prophetic truth made by an sweetie-pie (vv. 21, 22).  Now angels are specially vicarious to aid Israel. The first notice of an sweetie-pie occurs in connection with Hagar's trouble, (Gen. 16: 7; 21: 17).  And Hagar represents the covenant of Sinai, (Gal. 4: 25). 3. The Jews are the people of the letter (2 Cor. 3.), and the prophets of Israel are first to be interpreted literally.  Only if literal interpretation introduce witlessness may we turn to figurative. "Weeks," then, are to be taken literally, of seven days each (Lev. 12: 5; Num. 28: 26; Jer. 5: 24; Dan. 10: 2, 3). 4. It is a prophecy, I suppose, of the false Christ, who shall upspring to deceive Israel.  He is spoken of in Daniel 8., surpassing the seventy weeks, and without them (Dan. 11.). He shall make a covenant with Israel for one week, and in the midst of the week shall unravel his covenant, causing the sacrifices of the Temple to cease, and setting up the "abomination of desolation" on the Temple (vv. 27); at which moment Christ's Jewish disciples are to flee with headlong speed out of Jerusalem (Matt. 14: 16-24). 5. The literal half-week is seen in Revelation 11: 7-11, when the two "prophets," Enoch and Elijah, are slain at Jerusalem by the false Christ.  For three days and a half their sufferer persons lie in the wholesale place of Jerusalem (the Haram es Scheriff). 6. "TheSwabbedOne" slain at Jerusalem is not the true Christ. Only in this chapter, and here twice over, is the Hebrew word translated "Messiah the Prince," and "Messiah." This it is, I believe, which has led so many to suppose the prophecy to be uttered concerning our Lord. Instead of "but not for himself" it may be rendered "and no one for him."  The law of Genesis 9: 6 shall not be workaday in his murder.  When swabbed kings were cut off, David slew the slayers (2 Sam. 1: 4). 7. Has the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem yet been given?  I think not. (1) Cyrus commanded the rebuilding of the Temple of Jerusalem (Ezra 1: 2-4). (2) Nehemiah was vicarious to build the wall of Jerusalem; apparently, as security for the Holy House then built (see Neh. 2: 8, 17; 6: 1, 2, 15). Will the Lord's people search and see? R. GOVETT.   LETTER 22 [Comments by D. M. Panton on letter 21.] We are not inviting a discussion on the Seventy Weeks, for it is exactly one of the subjects that are illimitable and interminable - a sure proof that the certainty often unsupportable on the subject does not exist: but it is due to Dr. Hospers to have an opportunity of meeting the "Objections"; and we welcome a word from our Hebrew brother in Tangier.  Later, we may handle the criticisms, if our position so kindly sent us by our correspondents, criticisms which it would be an intellectual pleasure to meet; but, for spiritual reasons, we are loath to swizzle the space, and are inclined to think that an over-indulgence in this type of discussion - dealing with an so-called mystical figuring - has helped to bring prophecy into disrepute.  Our readers have had the three main views placed surpassing them.  For the bewildering maze of figurative interpretations - the literal interpretation can be but one - we would then refer the impartial student to Lange on Daniel; a maze of which one in ten writers on the Seventy Weeks seems to be aware, nor one in a hundred to see the paralyzing uncertainty into which plunges his own theory.  We are no enemy to ascertained facts, but we demur to theories, so unproved as to be innumerable, stuff pressed on theDenominationas facts. - D. M. PANTON.   LETTER 23 [A response to letter 22 above.] Dear Sir, Your kind notice of my vendible on the Seventy Weeks carries your editorial reminder that I did not refer to your "Objections" (THE DAWN, Feb. 15, p. 518).  I am not without having the last word, but I take your remark as a tacit invitation to have these met, if possible.  Surely we are without the truth.  I had placed my main reliance upon the thetical side of the matter, and once my vendible was long enough.  Allow me, then, to notice the objections in the order in which you gave them. 1. We must be shielding well-nigh laying lanugo our own conditions what prophecy ought or ought not to say, and we may not determine the manner in which this should be done.  May we demand that a "prophecy so startlingly evidential" should be referred to then in the New Testament?  Would not this be pursuit the Modernist principle which reasons on similar lines in regard to unrepealable doctrines, as the Virgin Birth, not given often enough? 2. Neither does it seem proper for us to say that there may not be a gap in the 70 weeks.  Nor does the Holy Spirit need to inform us of such a gap in so many words.  There are other cases in which He jumps over a period of 2000 years; as, Luke 4: 17-21, "syllable of explanation" there either.  And how often telescopes the two Advents without telling us so!  God may do any "unique thing" He pleases. 3. That there should be a gap in the 70 weeks is not necessarily an untruth.  It is whimsically correct to underpin that there is not the remotest hint of such a thing.  Indeed? the fact that 70 weeks were marked off into 7 and 62 and 1 weeks is most word-stock in that direction. 4. This objection is purely an exegetical one.  The fulfilment of the items of Dan. 9: 24 at the end of the 70 weeks does not prove anything well-nigh the undertow of the 70 weeks as such.  That is to say, plane if granted that these items are fulfilled at the end of the last week (however short or long), it tells us veritably nothing as to the whence of these 70 weeks, or their course. 5. Is it "fatal to the ordinary view that, in a mathematical prophecy, such as this, in which its sole evidential value rests on an well-judged and demonstrable fulfilment, no try-on concerning plane the firstOutstartdates, which ought to have been obvious, has overly been reached"?  Here then human requirements are posited.  Theoretically, we would say, such and such ought to be so.  But here we run up versus the age-long psychological problem: Why do not all people see unwrinkled - plane the most learned? Why will not everybody think logically?  Why does not everybody love to do the right thing plane though wits constantly proves how the wrong acts bring damage? etc. "Demonstrable fulfilment," "obvious," - perhaps.  But let us consider the realities of life and very experience.  At this late date, the honest Editor is but subtracting flipside variation to the large number, and by what token may he underpin that he has found it?  Why he and not another, plane though the matter should have been plain unbearable to all - plane though plain as mathematics?  Thus we all flounder in a bog of subjectivism and would save ourselves with an wrong-headed gesture, meanwhile looking wise.  We dare say that the thetical presentation of the matter is the only unscratched undertow to take. 6. "A prophecy which puts numerical limits to the sin of Daniel’s people, Daniel is said to have understood (Dan 10: 1)." To be perfectly accurate, this "understanding" of Daniel does not pertain to the vision concerning which our controversy relates; it refers to what follows, what occurred at flipside time.  But plane then, we must be cautious well-nigh pressing the measure of this "understanding."  He was immensely comforted as he learned of the near tideway of the Messiah and the eventual salvation of his people. 7. May we plead that "Daniel's dates lie veiled till they are unsealed, so withdrawing all evidential significance in the figures?"  In answer, we refer to paragraph 5 above, and add that there is often in Scripture a stratum of relativity with which we must reckon.  Though things are overly so plain, it overly remains to us a process of seeking.  We are informed, but, as were the disciples concerning Jesus’ death and resurrection, still we do not fully understand.  Much was revealed to Daniel, but the revelation to theUpholderJohn was needed to siphon our knowledge further.  Somehow these figures have immense value to us however much all may be struggling to make use of them. I am, etc., G. H. HOSPERS, D.D. New York. LETTER 24 [A reply to letter 23 above.] Dear Sir, Both numbers of THE DAWN (Feb. and May), are surpassing me, and I read your vendible on the Seventy Weeks, the Objections, and the criticism to both. As there are so many theories that are wide now-a-days on variegated subjects of Scripture, as a rule, I stave censure.  I find I have whimsically time to succeed all the writing that lies often surpassing me.  I could not however pass over this subject of the Seventy Weeks without making a few remarks in the hope that they might throw some light on such an important subject. And I can only spare time to touch on a few points. Let me say, first, that I am a Hebrew by birth, and that I have been working among the Jews, as the Lord's servant, for over twenty years.  This subject has been referred to hundreds of times in our arguments with the Jews, and of undertow I have had to make a tropical viewing of the passage. Hebrew students should notice a stardom between the usage of the word "weeks" in Daniel, and the usage of it in the other parts of the Old Testament.  A shielding viewing will reveal that the word translated "weeks" has a masculine and a feminine form.  Where the feminine is used, it is a well-spoken reference to weeks; and where the masculine is used, it refers to a "heptad," a word which stands in the same relation to 7, as the word "dozen" to 12.  A 7 of years; a 7 of days; and may be used for a 7 of anything else.  Now, the masculine form is found only in Daniel, and the feminine in every other place in the Old Testament where the word is used, and where the meaning is distinctly weeks, and could not be taken for any-thing else. This of undertow differs from the statement in THE DAWN for February, page 488, where we read, "Throughout the Old Testament this word is never used of any but weeks," and then the conclusion, is come to that in Dan. 10: 2, "It is explicitly stated that the word uses consists of days." Rather than think that Dan. 10: 2 confirms the usage of the word in the previous chapter, I believe it does state exactly the opposite.  Why say in the tenth installment "weeks of days," if the usage of the word in the previous installment ways moreover days?  As a matter of fact, it would be out of place, unless he wants us to understand the use of the word in the previous installment is not "of days." I say therefore that Daniel in the ninth installment understood that the sweetie-pie was speaking to him of 70 sevens of years, and lest we should misplace the 3 sevens of the tenth installment with the 70, he distinguishes them by subtracting "of days."  It stands then that the use of the word in the masculine by Daniel ways a "seven," and not an ordinary week. Looking at the ninth installment now, we are told that Daniel understood by books the number of the years of the captivity in Babylon, a reference no doubt to Jeremiah's writings.  The time was drawing near when Jer. 29: 10 was well-nigh to be fulfilled, when God would then show favour towards Jerusalem.  The knowledge of this led him to confession and prayer, and his faith was answered.  Not only was he told respecting the unescapable restoration of Jerusalem, but instruction was vouchsafed plane of events to take place in the last days, when Jerusalem "shall not be plucked up, nor thrown lanugo any increasingly for ever." Jer. 31: 40. Daniel had made inquiry well-nigh the 70 years of the captivity, the wordplay came in a period (of years naturally) extending to 70 sevens. (One is reminded of a similar wordplay in Matt. 18: 21, 22).  As if the sweetie-pie had said: You want to know what is going to be your people's destiny without the 70 years.  It is unswayable that 70 sevens increasingly of years (or 70 times over) are to pass over them and the holy municipality surpassing "the transgression is finished, or shut up," etc. (verse 24).  And the prophecy sets out, not from the release of the people, but from the edict to restore and to build Jerusalem, and extends to the wearing off of the Messiah, the destruction of the restored municipality by the Romans, and then to a period when the Jews would go when to Jerusalem, and make a covenant with Antichrist, the Roman prince, whose end would be at the time of the consummation of the prophecy. And we notice that a semester is made, undoubtedly for our guidance, of the 70 sevens, into 7, 62, and 1; three unshared periods indicative of variegated events that would take place.  The first period was to start with "the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem."  It took sensibly 7 sevens (49 years) to build the municipality and the, sanctuary (See John 2: 20, 46 years to build the Temple). Then 62 sevens (434 years) are mentioned that would elapse without that, till the wearing off of the Messiah. Now with the rejection of Him came the rejection of Israel as a nation.  That rejection brought of necessity an interruption to the fulfilment, not only of this prophecy, but of all the prophecies in the Old Testament that have any using to the last days, when Israel is found then in the land, yet in unbelief.  And Daniel's last period of 1 seven (7 years) is a unshared reference to the last days, to the time of the consummation, when that that has been "determined shall be poured upon the causer of poignancy (Heb.)," the Antichrist. Parenthesis of Time. In your "Objections" 2 and 3 you state that the inserting "2000 years between the last two weeks without the remotest hint of any such thing in the passage," would make the prophecy "an very untruth." Do we find in the Old Testament any other prophecies permitting of such an insertion of 2000 years without the slightest reference to it in the passage?  Yes. Isa. 61: 1, 2, was referred to by our Lord in Luke 4: 18, 19.  In comparing the two passages we find that our Lord quoted only half of the verse of Isa. 61: 2, and He said, "This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears," a reference no doubt to this nonliability of grace which His first coming ushered in. "The Day of vengeance" of the same verse is still pensile His Return. See Isa. 34: 8 ; 63: 4 ; Jer. 51: 6, etc. We take flipside prophecy, Isa. 9. If you examine thoughtfully the Hebrew of verse 1 you will see both advents mentioned therein without any reference to a long period between. Micah 5: 2 is as we know a reference to His first Advent.  But verse 3 tells us that "He will requite them up until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth."  These last words are undoubtedly a reference to Isa. 66: 7-9, to Israel's restoration. Verses 3 and 4 of Mic. 5. personize this.  So, this "until" of verse 3 is lasting 2000 years. TheUpholderPeter (in 1 Pet. 2: 11 and 12) does tell us that the prophets were not given well-spoken light as to the things which they did testify with reference to the first and second Advents of Christ.  But what God kept secret from them, none could have discovered until He was pleased to reveal it unto us. One increasingly remark. Reference has once been made the May magazine to your statement in page 487. "The marked sparsity of the vendible would be strange, if not impossible, unromantic to Christ."  And Dr. Hospers is right in saying that both the Hebrew and the Greek indulge of the use of the word as a proper name.  But may I add that we have in the Hebrew Bible that the definite vendible "the" is very commonly dropped without the Hebrew word "ad" ("until" or "even").  Examples of this we find in Ex. 12: 10, "until (the) morning" - twice repeated in the verse. 1 Sam. 2: 5, "even (the) barren." I am, etc., M. BARKEY. Tangier. ------- [To be unfurled (D.V), as and when I select increasingly interesting correspondence - WHT.]