are in conflict, I understand with the followers of Dr. Bullinger's

dispensationalism in the British Isles'.

In spite of the fact that Dr. Bullinger has actually expressed his

views on the question of 'Universal Reconciliation', the suggestion that 'he

might have been a Universalist' is taken as sufficient to warrant the

inclusion, under the heading of 'Bullingerism', of doctrine, which he, in

fact, repudiated.  'He might have been' -- and then an exposure of

Universalism, under the heading, Bullingerism and Ultra -Dispensationalism.

In view of these facts, we feel it incumbent upon us, for the sake of truth,

and because of the regard in which we must ever hold the name of Dr.

Bullinger, to quote one or two statements of his from Things to Come:

'It is news indeed to hear that we believe in the "Universal Fatherhood

of God, universal restoration", and the "purgatorial process".  Such

charges must come, not from ignorance, but from malice; and is a clear

and open breach of the ninth commandment ... we fear the lie has too

good a start ever to be overtaken and crushed: and it is too good a

weapon for our opponents, to expect them to abandon very readily.  "The

day will declare it"' (Vol. xvi, 84).

'Like most other objectors to our teaching, you will note that they

object to what we have never said ... Pages have been written against

us for teaching so -called "soul sleep" an expression we again say we

have never used.  It is easier to do this than answer what we have

said, and it is more effective of course, because it makes people

believe we have said it' (Vol. xvi, 143).

'A Disclaimer.  Re the advertisement of Unsearchable Riches in our last

issue, it was entirely due to a mistake between ourselves and our

advertising agent.  Some of our friends have felt aggrieved; but we

hope that both they and others will have fuller confidence in us for

the future' (Vol. xviii, 132).

'Reconciliation.  If the word "destruction" has any meaning (see Psa.

145:20), how can what is destroyed be conciliated or reconciled? ...

There is conciliation on God's part toward the sinner in virtue of the

Substitute which He has provided and accepted, but there is an

"everlasting destruction" not some future reconciliation, for those who

refuse to believe Him' (Vol. xix, 11).

This last statement was made in January, 1913, and on June 6th of that

year Dr. Bullinger died.

With the rest of Mr. Hoste's criticism of 'Bullingerism' which leaves

Dr. Bullinger's writings for our own, we are not very much concerned.  The

critic's ignorance of the full scope of our teaching in Things to Come, The

Berean Expositor, and our other publications enables him to point out

apparent discrepancies in the use of the term 'Prison Epistles'.  How either

the First Epistle to Timothy, or that to Titus, can be called 'a prison

epistle' we cannot well understand.  That they were written after Acts 28 and

reveal the state of the church after its inception and before the 'departure'

of 2 Timothy, we have certainly taught.  However, we are not writing this

article to vindicate our consistency, but to illustrate another aspect of the

logical term, 'fallacy'.

The reader should cultivate the habit of 'seeing through' emotional

words such as 'Ultra -Dispensationalism'.  He should refuse to be swayed by

appeals to prejudice or fear.  He should demand that a man be permitted to