The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1913-09-25

Constantine called the Council of Nice
to restore harmony and unity. Over
three hundred bishops and two thousand
ministers participated in the Council.
1t decided in favor of the church doc
trine in regard to the Trinity. 1t did
not make the doctrine, it formally deci-
ded what was the church's doctrine,
viz: that the church believed in the
Unity of the Godhead, consisting of the
Father, Son and Holy Ghost. three per-
sons, one in substance and equal in
power.
We could give you numerous passages
to establish this position if space allow
ed. Suffice it to say that John l: l, I'm
the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was
Cod" is absolute proof of the deity of
the Son of God. The omission of the
article should convert the Word into
the abstract, denoting the species
deity"
In verse l, 1.-The Word was God, !"
the Greek verb which is translated 10aS
implies uncreated being, in distinction
from created. The Greek for with
God, d" in the same verse, denotes dis
tinct personal existence of the Logos.
The proposition pros" used here with
the accusative case, implies coexistence.
If Russell had known anything about
Greek he would not make the unpardon-
able blunder in his translation as given
in your paper of August q. when he
says the Logos was a God" There is
no article in the Greek. The omission
of the article have. referred to above.
1t is simply, THE Word was God" But
he really knows nothing about Greek,
so must have gotten some one to trans
late it for him. 1t would have been
well had he gotten one who could give a
correct translation or who could at least
give an honest one. Russell himself
does not know the language though he
poses as schOlar-a specialist who is
able to teach the recognized teachers of
the age. To show | am not unfair in
my statement, let me refer to his expe-
rience in his suit against Rev. Ross, Of
Hamilton, Ontario. When on the wit
ness stand in the court at Hamilton,
Ontario, where he had sued Rev. J. j.
Ross for libel because he had published
a pamphlet exposing his (Russelps)
false teaching, under oath, Russell, in
answer to the question of the attorney.
do you know the Creek" replied,
ooh, yes" Here he was handed copy
Of the New Testament in Greek and
asked to read the letters Of the alpha
bet as they appeared on the top of page
447. He did not know the alphabet.
Now asked Mr.. Stanton, ARE you
familiar with the Greek language"
mo, - said Russell without blush. He
then had to admit that he knew nothing
about Latin and Hebrew, and neither
had ever taken course In philosophy
or systematic theology, and had never
attended any of the higher schools of
learning. Let me quote further from
that trial: Now, as to his ordination.
Remember that this self-stvled Pastor
is still under oath and that ne SAYS, 1.-THE
oath is sacred" 1t is indeed sacred to
him. Is it true that you were never
ordained?' asked his counsel cit is
not true" replied Mr.. Russell But the
counsel for the defense took him in hand
and the court had to require Russell to
answer yes or no. Now" said Mr.
Stanton, you never were ordained by
bishop, clergyman, presbytery or coun-
Gil, or any body of men living" He
was compelled to say, Il never was. B"
Yet this man give himself forth all over
the world as fully accredited minister
of the Gospel. What low standard of
morals he must have! What scared
conscience he must possess! He swore
he would tell the truth, all the truth
and nothing but the truth, and that I'M
der the eyes of Almighty God. But how
artfui he is even under oath in devising
falsely! In other words, what fabri-
Gator"
/ need not comment on the foregoing.
/ If any one doubts the truth of what is
here stated, if they will send 10 cents to
Mr.. c. c. Cook, $50 Nassau street, New
York, and ask for Some Facts and
More Facts About the Self-Styled Pas
tor Charles T. Russell" they will get
. the booklet that will open the eyes of
I any reasonable person in regard to the
founder of this new cult-a cult that is
misleading in the extreme and endang-
ering the salvation of its advocates.
In your issue of June 18th, Russell
/ tries to answer my questions which |
had asked Mr.. Weber to answer. He
I prefaces his reply by taking slam at
his good wife. He says Ham lies I'M
der misrepresentation of facts when he
states that my wife got divorce; what
she did get was a separation. He af-
! firms she got no divorce. He says ''she
separated herself because she came I'M
der the suffragette influence and be-
cause would not give her all the liber-
ty she desired in my journal. She has
become as desperate as the British suf-
fragetts, only she is fighting me and
not the public. Having no real grounds
for an action at all, her attorney made
up the one of cruelty, the chief charge
of which was that at one time when
lea ing home for journey l refused to
kiss her. saving she was not worthy of