The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1916-02-09

PEOPLES FoRUM.
"Pastor Russell Replies to REV.
Mr.. yoIlfff."

aPastor Russell Replies to REV.
Mr.. JoIliff."
Editor Virginia:
Sir,--Under the above caption in
your iasus Of Sunday. March .. there
appears IN article by G. r. Russell. In
reply to . sermon preached BY me on
q recent Sunday night on the eenerai
subject OF Russellisrn. In that ser.
mon took the position that Russeti-
issu was ct variance with every funda-
mental doctrine Of the Christian faith,
ana proceeded to demonstrate the
same BIZ quotations from the gentle
rnan's published works, giving pags
and volume from which the same was
done. or wrongful construction placed
upon tho same. II he Wishes TO know
from whence drew my concluasons
he can verify the cleArness Of them
by reference TO his own publications.
But do not need to rofer to any
thing further than this reply" TO
substantlate every statement made a.
to Mr. Russelrs fundamental errors
OF doctrine 20 far a. scriptnral Christ
ianity In concerned A Close analysis
OF this statement records the fact first
Of all that he In an anti TrtnitArian.
He plants tbs doctrine sf tbs Trinity
AZ uEtuA A&u~LHdAt ana AhI-4GFhf-
tural. In this he stands with that
commended for HIS doctrine with In
finitely more scholarship and learn
ing than either Mr. Russell or his sa-
teliites have ever displayed. And this.
dispute the statement that IN his faith
and teachings, he follows strictly the
text of the Bible. Perhaps Mr.. Rus
sell can explain the plain meaning of
Christ In his final commission to the
disciples (Matt. 2S:1aD. in which He
commands to baptize in the name of
the Father and Of the Son and of the
Holy Ghost" ThiE is no spurious
passage. Westcott and Hort. and all
the great manuscripts contain IT, The
Revisers. both English and American.
retain 1t. Here 10 Trinity of per-
SONS In whose name disciples are to
DO baptized. Perhaps he can also ex-
plain what Christ meant when He
said II and My Father are one" What
he further meant when he said 10
Philip IN answer to his question. Lord.
show US the Father and il sufficeth
u.s.? John 14:7-s). Jesus saith
unto him. have 7 been 40 long time
with you, and vet hast thou not known
Me. Philip? He that hath seen Me
had seen tho Father. ana how sayeth
tnuu, tneu, snow Us inc Eathery'
Perhaps Mr.. Russell can explain any
of these statements and Christ
promise of the Paraclete, the Gem
| forter. in John 17:7-i5. on some
! other basis than that of great
Trinity of persons In the God-heasd.
but the scholarship and character OF
tie Christian world p,r many gent
rations has found pleasing and COM
fort In this great doctrine.
Nor do l think that they will sur
render 1t lightly at the dictum Of q
man who has accumulated sufficient
ignorance of the Greek language to
perpetrate such a translation of the
text John Il as Mr.. Russell gives
us. 1t is unfortunate for his theory
of the separate identity Of the Word OF
God that he should have selected that
pa ssage. Nothing could be more em-
phatic than both the original and the
, translated passages In the establish
ing the unity Of the Word with God.
1t is distinctly and definitely stated
that the Word was God; not god.
but God This il further strength
ened by the passage. verses -.
where the Word II declared the au-
thor of all created things and bless-
ings,
But why 20 furthsrg In this
reply" you have Russell's Christ; q
= s. "a