DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9552#0607
TO THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 83
and they might contend, that if the association, in the
rite of baptism, of the names of the son and Holy Ghost
with that of the Father be supposed to prove their divi-
nity, .it is clear that Fire also, being associated with the
Holy Ghost in the same rite, must likewise be considered
as a part of the Godhead." He keeps all these argu-
ments out of view, and, according to his usual mode of
reasoning, repeats again in his reply what he thought the
purport of Heb. i. 10, Rev. ii. 29, and has recourse again
to the angel of Bochim, &c, which, having no relation to
the subject in question, and having been often examined
in the preceding pages, I shall pass by here. His only
remark concerning this last position is, that "had the
passage'' (respecting belief in God and his servant Moses)
"quoted from Exod. xix. 31, been that formulary, instead
of being a part of a narrative, the omission in the baptis-
mal rite of the clause 'his servant,' would have been fatal
to his objection. If, then, the phrase 'his servant,' marks
the inferior nature of this messenger of God, the omis-
sion of it in the circumstances just mentioned, unavoid-
ably proves the equality of the Father and the Son," &c.
In the first place, it is too obvious to need proof, that
every circumstance mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures,
even in the form of narrative, if approved of God, is
worthy of attention, though not stated in the formulary
of a religious rite. But, in the second place, the passage
quoted by me from 2 Chronicles, is a commandment
enjoining belief in God and his Prophets, even with the
omission, so much desired by our Editor, of the term
"his servants," Does this formulary, I ask, with the omis-
sion of the term "his servants," prove the equality of the
and they might contend, that if the association, in the
rite of baptism, of the names of the son and Holy Ghost
with that of the Father be supposed to prove their divi-
nity, .it is clear that Fire also, being associated with the
Holy Ghost in the same rite, must likewise be considered
as a part of the Godhead." He keeps all these argu-
ments out of view, and, according to his usual mode of
reasoning, repeats again in his reply what he thought the
purport of Heb. i. 10, Rev. ii. 29, and has recourse again
to the angel of Bochim, &c, which, having no relation to
the subject in question, and having been often examined
in the preceding pages, I shall pass by here. His only
remark concerning this last position is, that "had the
passage'' (respecting belief in God and his servant Moses)
"quoted from Exod. xix. 31, been that formulary, instead
of being a part of a narrative, the omission in the baptis-
mal rite of the clause 'his servant,' would have been fatal
to his objection. If, then, the phrase 'his servant,' marks
the inferior nature of this messenger of God, the omis-
sion of it in the circumstances just mentioned, unavoid-
ably proves the equality of the Father and the Son," &c.
In the first place, it is too obvious to need proof, that
every circumstance mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures,
even in the form of narrative, if approved of God, is
worthy of attention, though not stated in the formulary
of a religious rite. But, in the second place, the passage
quoted by me from 2 Chronicles, is a commandment
enjoining belief in God and his Prophets, even with the
omission, so much desired by our Editor, of the term
"his servants," Does this formulary, I ask, with the omis-
sion of the term "his servants," prove the equality of the