WAKAPATU LAND.

Southland Times, Issue 20525, 29 June 1928, Page 9

WAKAPATU LAND.

To the Editor. Sir, —The letter in your issue of even date over the name of “Play the Game” is to me somewhat amusing, although had I occupied your position I would have felt somewhat annoyed at the imputation of unfairness. If the company has mining rights over one acre and prospecting rights over another hundred your correspondent can rest assure! that the Warden on due application to him will at the proper time grant formal mining licenses to the company over the hundred acres when required.

I note your correspondent is prepared to say that the land at Wakapatu contains some of the finest land in Southland, and states as a qualification for his opinion that there is very little land between the beach and rhe railway line that he does not know. What does he know of the rest of Southland? No doubt some settlers on the coast at Wakapatu have been there 40 years, but the view that their holdings give a passerby makes one think that their sons will be settlers and not pastoralists or other substantial farmers if they remain there another 40 years. Possibly Mr “Play the Game” feels the weakness of his argument and that his request for an apology is quite out of court when he would borrow the glory of “Slim Jim’’ who at least is courteous to a fault in his correspondence.—l am, etc., SENOB. June 27, 1928. SABBATH OBSERVANCE. CROSS EXAMINATION OF MR PASCOE. To the Editor. Sir, —I remind Mr Pascoe that he is under cross-examination and that he is not the judge at all as to what points must be established nor when they must be established, nor am I under any obligation to tell him anything about such points nor to tell him how many questions I propose to ask him nor to give him any list of such questions. Nor is it necessary that Mr Pascoe should see the connection between the questions and the point at issue before I can require him to answer these questions, therefore it is quite beside the point to tell me that I have no need to labour the point until I can prove any particular matter. I am not required at this stage of the proceedings to prove anything at all. What a farcical court it would be if judge allowed witness to call cross-examining counsel to prove part of his own case before the next question could be put! What a novel challenge for a witness to make that the crossexaminer is evading the point at issue. I can assure you Mr Editor on four points: (1) I maintain that there is a very 7 vital connection between S.D.A.-izm and Sabbath (Seventh Day) observance; (2) I maintain that the question at issue can be fully presented only by the consideration of some of the errors of S.D.A.-izm; (3) I maintain that these errors are either involved in the 15 letters in which Mr Pascoe’s case was stated or have been brought under consideration by some statement of Mr Pascoe’s undeY cross-examination. For instance, there is no apparent connection between “soul sleep” and “Sabbath Observance.” There is however a direct connection between the “ecclesia” and “Sabbath observance.” While considering the question of the "ecclesia’’ Mr Pascoe has stated that a revelation was made to the O.T. prophets. Paul says that no revelation was made to them, but that the revelation was made to him and the N.T. prophets, “now,” at the time when he was living. It is open therefore for me to ask Mr Pascoe how this revelation could be made to the O.T. prophets while they are in the condition of slumber to which S.D.A.-izm has consigned them. I give this as an illustration of how Mr Pascoe may open doors into other rooms than that of Sabbath Observance and (4) I maintain that the questions I am asking are relevant to the issue. Mr Pascoe says, ‘There is no occasion to struggle with the Greek over such a simple expression as found in Eph. IH.-5, for it expressly declares that in former ages it was not made known to the sons of men “as” it is now revealed showing very clearly that the former ages had not received light—to the degree that—Paul who had a special revelation had received it. Paul says that the matter of the church was “hid” from the O.T. prophets. Mr Pascoe contradicts Paul deliberately. After I have pointed out the correct translation he coolly and calmly substitutes the words “to the degree that” for the words “to the same extent as” in his previous attempt at translation. In the school where I was taught any scholar committing such an offence would have been promptly hauled out by the classical master and spanked. The Greek word, a conjunction, means plain “as.” If it had been intended to convey the meaning “to the same extent as” the construction and word would have been different. Supposing Mr Pascoe had intended to go to Dunedin but had not been able to fulfil his intention he might reasonably say, “I did not go to Dunedin as I had intended.” Would he mean “I did »ot go to Dunedin to the degree that I had intended.*’ Mr Pascoe may well mention “struggle about the Greek.” After he became aware of the correspondence about Luke XXIII.-43 has he visited any home and expounded that passage to anyone ignorant of the Greek so as to put the comma after the word “to-day”? If Mr Pascoe persists in “his” rendering of Eph. 111.-5 I shall ask you to deal in some way with his ignorance. I wish to clear up this matter of revelation in connection with-the O.T. prophets. Will Mr Pascoe therefore quote any passage from the O.T. revealing that there is only one church body composed of all who exercise faith in Christ?— I am, etc., FRANK SAMPSON.