The Lancaster ledger. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1852-1905, 1894-02-03
[For the Ledger.
A Il Z No 3 Replies Rev Mr.
RatchfOrd Again.

NSSV upou biiS luISiliSSuCc VI
your readers by replying 70 Bro,
Ratchfords reply IN the LEDGER Of
Jan. 9th. 1t must be evident to
all your thoughtful readers that
he is in tight place. His many
scfl 1tTre quotations are good for
many other arglinGn sI but wholly
pointless upon the question az i,;G Issue.
Some of my strongest points be
has prudently omitted to touch
upon and other points, which he
has noticed, he has partly misrep>
resented His reply is made up
in good measure Of reassertion and
incorrect and misleading state.
ments, can prove it can not
take up your space. Mr. Editor
TO prove what say by going over
III article seriatim. 1 will lust
take a few examples 10 illustrate
the whole.
Brother r, had in a former ar
TIC e offered the argument that in
this Christian dispensation, the
second person Of the trinity could
be acceptably worshIpped only by
the Eame Jesus or by some N T
name. replied that his argument
was clap trap and sopb;stry and
that 'he Lord Jesus could.be acceD.
tab'y worsbiped and praised by
any name of His by which He is
revealed in the scr,p.ures. Now
brother r., would leave the inn
preston that l regard the name
Jesus as clap trap &c. Nay, Nay,
reverence that holy name as
much as any person My point
was that Jesus is worshiped and
praised not only by the use of this
name but by other names such
as are found in the p.alms. How
does Brother r.. defend his former
position? Merely by reasserting
that Christ must be praised official
" or by His official name Jesus
Thirst, and, by asking why / baptizs
IN the name Of the Father and son
and not merely IN the name of the
FATHER. l baptize in the name OF
the Father and son because God
thro' Christ, has tod me to do so.
And II he had told me.in the N T
to praise Christ officially. or had
gwen me by His spiri, sonps in
which Jesus was praised by His
official name. then / would so
praise Him. 1t is just at this point
that B other r., reasserts without
replying. Where is HE proof for
the assertion that Christ il TO be
officially praised or praised under
a ceita'n name? His Bible quota.
tions merely show that Jesus is the
only official mediator before God
and man and that He will one dav
be wor d honored. But let Broth
er r, give us the N T authority
where it says, Christ rs to be
praised by any certain name or
names. Let him explain why it j.
that, ifhis assertions are true. God
did not give us some officiai songs
in the N I by which Chri.t might
be officially prai.ed. This omissirn n
in the tight of the fact that He
once gave official praise soug4 to
dis Church. means something. To
me it means that the psalms of
the 0 Tare suli enjoined apon the
Church Of God to be used in prais-
ing the triune God. These are
the points l press and they stand
like detying Gibralters before
Brother X.
Take sample or so displaying
his ignorance He says, II am vii,
ling to admit that Christ NAV have
sung them Che p.alma) Mp to the
time when the Covenant of works
passed out of date which Broth.
er r, intimates later On was at
the day OF Penteco.t Shades O:
John Calvin! Just listen to that
and from a trained PRESBYTERIAN
preacher The "Cove: ant of
works" going out Of date at the
dav Of Pentecost ! WHY our Sab
bath School scholars know better
than that They will tell you that
the "Coyenant Of works" fell thfo'I
as soon az Adam sinned and the