\a vv> - 
 
 „H Ij tttcr 
 
 of G(nqntv0 
 
 RESPECTING THE METHODS AND LANGUAGE TO BE 
 ADOPTED IN DEALING WITH MONOTHEISTIC 
 UNBELIEVERS. 
 
 i 
 
 to 
 
 CQtsstomtms 
 
 BY 
 
 TOWNSEND STORRS, M.A., 
 
 Formerly Missionary in North India. 
 
 1887. 
 
 ELLIOT STOCK, 62, Paternoster Row, London, E.C. 
 
]l^ELOVED BRETHREN IN CHRIST, 
 
 Will you suffer me to address to you a few words, 
 as one who has himself had the privilege of labouring in 
 the Mission-field for some years, and who, though no 
 longer thus engaged, would still count it his highest honour 
 to be permitted once more to go forth and preach among 
 the heathen the unsearchable riches of Christ. Increased 
 knowledge of His salvation — not only in its glories yet to 
 be revealed, but in the present blessings it bestows on the 
 believer — makes me long the more to join again the ranks 
 of those who are declaring its glad-tidings to the nations 
 who know them not. But the Lord has other work for 
 me to do. 
 
 Permit me, then, as one whose very life and joy is the 
 Gospel you are preaching, and who loves you for that 
 Gospel’s sake, to say what is on my heart concerning a 
 subject which you will allow to be one of great moment, 
 and to ask of you a candid and unprejudiced hearing. This 
 only do I desire — that you will bring my words to the test 
 of the Holy Scriptures, to the authority of which I, with 
 you, implicitly and loyally bow. 
 
 It is necessary, however, to offer one word of caution as 
 to the manner in which we proceed to apply these Scriptures 
 to any proposition which is brought before us. It is not an 
 uncommon habit, when anything is proposed to us which 
 seems in any way to contradict our previous ideas or 
 practice, to treat it as an impertinent intruder, and to turn 
 
2 
 
 A Letter of Enquiry 
 
 to the Bible with the sole and anxious purpose of proving 
 the proposition wrong. But this is not the act of a 
 thoroughly honest mind — set upon kuow’ing the truth. 
 Such a mind proceeds to the enquiry in the spirit of 
 candour, patience, and humility, with the question — “ Is 
 this right or wrong?” So far only as we are true, can we 
 expect God to lead us into the truth. As He sends 
 
 delusion” upon those w 7 ho wish to believe a lie; so will 
 He send “the Spirit of Truth” into the hearts of those 
 w T ho in simplicity say to Him, “Speak, Lord; for Thy 
 servant heareth.” 
 
 Many of you are labouring among Jews and Moham- 
 medans, and are encountering among them difficulties and 
 opposition such as fall to the lot of no other Missionaries. 
 None of the brethren are entitled to more lively sympathy 
 or more earnest prayer on the part of those at home than 
 are you. For my own part I can say, ‘ I have you con- 
 tinually on my heart.’ It is to those of you who are thus 
 engaged that I principally, though not exclusively, address 
 myself. 
 
 The rejection of our message we may patiently endure, 
 when that rejection arises from the hatred of truth and 
 love of sin which are inherent in human nature, as it so 
 often does in the case of the self-satisfied and worldly- 
 ftiinded Jew and Mohammedan ; and by the help of God, in 
 spite of indifference and opposition, we may joyfully per- 
 severe in the proclamation of the free grace and love which 
 are in Christ, knowing that it is ours only to witness, that 
 it is God’s to overcome. 
 
 Nevertheless, continued want of success should lead us 
 carefully to consider whether there is anything in ourselves, 
 or in our mode of delivering the message entrusted to us, 
 
Addressed to Missionaries. 
 
 3 
 
 which is a stumbling-block to those to whom we are sent. 
 And there are many of us who have reason to enquire 
 whether our lives correspond to the Gospel we preach, 
 and whether we ourselves are examples of that devotion to 
 the will of God, and that unselfish love to men, which are 
 its natural and proper outcome. 
 
 But this is not the question to which I desire at this time 
 to draw your attention : rather I invite you to consider 
 with me whether our methods of setting forth Christ before 
 unbelievers are Scriptural, and whether there is on our part 
 any exaggeration or perversion of Scripture teaching which 
 tends to alienate from the truth the very ones we are 
 seeking to lead to Him who is “the Truth.” I believe 
 that this is the case in several particulars. At the present 
 time I propose to bring before you two kindred subjects, in 
 one of which I think we have diverged from the simple 
 method, and in the other from the simple teaching of the 
 Lord’s first 'witnesses. 
 
 One special difficulty lies in the way of the reception of 
 the Gospel by either Jew or Mahommedan — the acceptance 
 of the doctrines (l)of the Divine nature of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and (2) of the Trinity, both of which seem to them 
 directly to contradict that one truth which they hold so 
 dear, and which in the case of the Mahommedan may 
 be said to be the sum and substance of his religion — I mean 
 the truth that ‘ God is one.’ 
 
 I. 
 
 With regard to the Divine natuee of Christ, the 
 teaching of the Scriptures is so clear that we cannot 
 entertain for a moment — even in the hope of allaying the 
 bitterest prejudice — the idea of abating our testimony to 
 
4 
 
 A Letter of Enquiry 
 
 Jesus as the Son of God. With such declarations before 
 us as those of John i. 1, where the Lord is spoken of as 
 tie tic as well as npug tov titbv ; or of Philippians ii. 6, 
 where He is said to have been “ in the form of God,” 
 as well as to have taken “ the form of man”; or of 
 Hebrews i. 3, &c., where He is described as being the 
 effulgence of the glory of God and the very image [or 
 impress] of His substance, and is addressed in the words 
 of Psalm xlv. 6, “ Thy throne, 0 God, is for ever and ever ” ; 
 
 - — we cannot doubt, or fail to teach, His true Divinity. 
 Verily, He is the only-begotten Son, through whom all things 
 were created — visible and invisible — and by the word of 
 whose power they are upheld (Col. i. 16 ; Heb. i. 2). He it 
 is to whom has been given all honour and glory, and who 
 has not only redeemed man and become the Head of His 
 Church, but is destined to restore harmony throughout God’s 
 universe — in ‘‘heaven and earth” — by the eradication from 
 His kingdom of all that offends ; laying the foundation of that 
 restoration in His death upon the cross — when He gave 
 Himself a sacrifice for sin. See Matt, xxviii. 18, Luke xxiv. 
 26, John i. 29, xii. 32, Acts iii. 21, 1 Cor. xv. 27, Phil. ii. 
 6-11, Col. i. 20, Heb. ii. 8, xii. 2, Rev. v. 8. 9, xvii. 14, xix. 
 16, xxi. 5, xxii. 3. To Him — as our Redeemer, Advocate, 
 and coming King — be glory for ever ! 
 
 But while holding fast the truth that Jesus is the only- 
 'begotten Son of God, it is important that in speaking of 
 Him before unbelieving audiences, we should follow, as far 
 as possible, the examples of the Apostles themselves. 
 
 Now we find that their usual method of preaching Christ 
 was not, if we may judge by the examples given us in the 
 Acts of the Apostles, to begin by declaring the Godhead of 
 Jesus, but by proclaiming Him as the man, whom God had 
 raised from the dead and through whom was preached to 
 
Addressed to Missionaries. 
 
 5 
 
 them repentance and remission of sins, and by proving Him 
 to be the Messiah for whom the Jews were looking.* We 
 shall see this more clearly by glancing at one or two 
 examples of Apostolic preaching. 
 
 (1.) If we turn to the first proclamation of the Gospel — 
 that on the day of Pentecost — we find that the Apostle 
 Peter, while declaring that it was the risen and exalted 
 Jesus who had poured forth the Holy Spirit, the effect of 
 whose presence they beheld, speaks of His resurrection 
 and exaltation as the work of God, and so far from making 
 mention of His Divine nature, calls Him “ Jesus of 
 Nazareth, a man approved of God." v. 22. 
 
 (2.) Or pass on to the next chapter, where the same 
 Apostle is addressing the multitude in the temple. Here 
 again we have no allusion to the Divinity of Christ. The 
 Apostle indeed calls the Lord “ The Prince of Life ” ; but 
 he begins his address by saying, “ The God of our Fathers 
 glorified his servant t Jesus” (R.V.),; and he closes it with 
 the words, “ Unto you first God, having raised up his 
 servant, sent him to bless you.” 
 
 * There is apparently one exception to this custom, of the Apostles, 
 when in the synagogue of Damascus Paul “proclaimed Jesus that He 
 is the Son of God ” (Acts ix. 20, R.V.) But there is little doubt that 
 the Jews were wont to speak of the Messiah under this appellation, 
 and that the Apostle was not declaring the Divine nature but the 
 Messiahship of Jesus. This Jewish idea of ‘the Son of God,’ we learn 
 from Justin Martyr, was that He was a man born from men, but 
 selected by God for the office of Messiah on account of His eminent 
 virtues . — ( Justin Martyr, Dial. 267.) 
 
 f With regard to the translation of the word rraW in both these 
 passages, whether it be ‘ servant ’ or ‘ child,’ it may be remarked that 
 it is quite distinct from the word e'iov — son, and does not necessarily 
 imply close relationship or even dignity. 
 
 $ I have quoted the R.V. throughout. 
 
6 
 
 A Letter of Enquiry 
 
 (3.) Again, if we look at the celebrated address of the 
 Apostle Paul in the synagogue of Antioch (Acts xiii.) we 
 find him saying, “Of this man’s (David’s) seed hath God 
 according to promise brought unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus,” 
 and four times declaring that ‘ God had raised up Jesus from 
 the dead ’ (vv. 30, 33, 34, 37); but there is no allusion to 
 His dignity as the Son of God. 
 
 (4.) Once more let us listen to the same Apostle, as he 
 addresses heathen philosophers at Athens (Acts xvii). He 
 thus concludes his brief discourse : — “ But now he com- 
 mandeth men, that they should all everywhere repent, 
 inasmuch as He hath appointed a day, in the which He will 
 judge the world in righteousness by the man ( kv dvlpi) whom 
 he hath ordained ; whereof he hath given assurance unto all 
 men, in that he raised him from the dead.* 
 
 The least we can infer from these examples is that these 
 two chief Apostles — Peter and Paul — in setting forth the 
 Gospel delivered to them, did not begin by presenting to 
 their hearers a doctrine, which would at once have suggested 
 a difficulty and led to controversy, but by giving proofs of 
 the Divine mission of the Lord Jesus in His resurrection 
 from the dead; and by proclaiming Him as God’s chosen one 
 — exalted to be Saviour and Lord of all, through whom the 
 remission of sins was bestowed on all that believed. (See 
 Acts ii. 38, iii. 19, v. 31, x. 43, xiii. 38.) By thus declaring 
 the facts of His death and resurrection, and the blessings 
 which flow forth to the world from these facts, they prepared 
 men to accept Him in His exalted character as the Son of God. 
 
 We cannot avoid controversy, as they did not ; but we 
 need not court controversy, as they did not. If we follow 
 
 * See also Peter’s address to the household of Cornelius. — Acts x. 34. 
 &c. ; also Acts xvii. 1-3., xviii. 5, &c. 
 
Addressed to Missionaries. 
 
 7 
 
 in some measure the simplicity of their methods, vve shall be 
 rewarded by attaining something of their success, provided 
 we, like them, are men filled with the Holy Spirit. We may 
 rest assured that when men have accepted Christ as the 
 author of their salvation, they will readily acknowledge His 
 Divine nature, as of the one Mediator between God and man. 
 Thus if we begin at the right end, and without referring to 
 the Deity of Jesus, we preach Him as having died for our 
 sins and risen again for our justification, our object will be 
 attained in the confession by many lips that “Jesus Christ 
 is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” 
 
 I commend this question to your careful consideration. 
 Kemember ever that our object is not to induce men merely 
 to believe a doctrine, but to accept the person of Jesus as 
 the Saviour of sinners. 
 
 II. 
 
 But let us proceed to the still more serious difficulty of 
 the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 
 Here again I would urge the extreme importance of 
 keeping close not only to the meaning, but as far as possible 
 to the very terms of Scripture. ‘ The nature of God ’ is a 
 subject too solemn for any speculations of our own, and too 
 far beyond our comprehension for us to adopt any language, 
 for which we have not the surest warrant. It cannot be 
 necessary, and it certainly is not safe, to venture beyond the 
 bounds of Scripture terminology in a matter like this. The 
 Apostle Paul, referring to his own proclamation of the 
 Gospel, says, “ Which things also we speak not in the 
 words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit 
 teacheth.” If then the Apostles expressed themselves in 
 words ‘ which the Holy Spirit taught them,’ what more do 
 
8 
 
 A Letter of Enquiry 
 
 we want ? As soon as we go beyond these, we are in danger 
 of using * words which human wisdom teaches.’ With such 
 an assertion before us we can need no further argument to 
 prove the importance of adhering closely to Scriptural 
 language on this subject. 
 
 Thus alone are we free from all responsibility, when our 
 message is rejected. We are in no way answerable, when 
 men refuse to believe the plain assertions of our Lord and 
 His Apostles ; nor are we bound to give an answer to every 
 objection which may be made to these assertions : but when 
 we use terms which are not found in any part of the Bible, 
 or draw inferences which are not drawn in the Scriptures 
 themselves, we incur grave responsibility indeed. 
 
 This very term, “ the Trinity,” is nowhere to be found in 
 the Bible or even in the writings of the first two centuries of 
 the Christian Era. It was first adopted, as far as I can 
 gather, by Gregory Thaumaturgus, who lived about the 
 middle of the third century. When the Apostles, and the 
 Christians of the age succeeding them, never used such a 
 term, it cannot be either necessary or desirable for us to 
 use it. 
 
 But in reality when we come to compare ordinary 
 Christian phraseology (especially as we find it expressed in 
 our liturgies and hymns) with the language of the Bible, we 
 meet with the most striking differences — such as should 
 suggest the question whether we have not diverged seriously 
 from the simple doctrine as well as from the simple language 
 of the Lord and His Apostles. Let me point out two or 
 three patent examples of this. 
 
 (1.) Here for instance we have a remarkable fact. 
 
 Nearly every Christian doxology gives ‘glory to the 
 Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.’ Such is 
 4 the gloria ’ which is used alike in nearly all Church-of- 
 
Addressed to Missionaries. 
 
 9 
 
 England and Nonconformist services : such also is the 
 doxology which begins with the words, “ Praise God from 
 whom all blessings flow,” and ends with, “ Praise Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost ” ; and that which concludes so many 
 sermons, “ Now to God the Father, God the Son, and God 
 the Holy Ghost ” ; and those which we find at the end of so 
 many of the Prayer-book collects. 
 
 But when we turn to the Scriptures themselves, we find 
 nothing corresponding to these doxologies ; for all ascrip- 
 tions of praise throughout the New Testament are 
 addressed 
 
 (a) to the Father, as in Rom. i. 25, and xvi. 25 — 27 ; 
 Eph. iii. 20 ; 1 Tim. i. 17 and vi. 15, 16 ; Heb. xiii. 20, 21 ; 
 Jude 25; Rev. iv. 11, and xix. 1 ; or 
 
 ( b ) to the Son, as in Rev. i. 5, 6, and v. 9-14, &c. ; or 
 
 (c) to the Father and the Son, as in Rev. vii. 10, &c. ; 
 but none to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, — glory being 
 given by the New Testament writers not ‘ to,’ but ‘ in ” 
 the Spirit. 
 
 (2.) So too when we come to the prayers and hymns 
 in use among the disciples of Christ at the present day, 
 we discover the same discrepancy. 
 
 Thus while among ourselves prayers and hymns abound 
 which are addressed to the Holy Spirit, we have no instance 
 of such prayers in Holy Scripture, but rather read of 
 ‘‘praying in the Holy Spirit” as in Jude 20, and in 
 Eph. vi. 18. 
 
 We look through our hymn books, and find but few hymns 
 addressed to the Father : whereas in the Bible, with the excep- 
 tion of such words as those of Stephen in Acts vii. 59, 60, 
 where the Lord appears to His d3 r ing servant, or of Paul in 
 Acts ix. 5, &c. where Jesus stays, in his career of persecution 
 and blasphemy, him whom He has marked out as His 
 
10 
 
 A Letter of Enquiry 
 
 chosen messenger to the Gentiles, (see also 2 Cor. xii. 8, 
 and Rev. xxii. 20), prayers are addressed to the Father ; 
 for thus our Lord and His Apostles both taught and 
 practised. See Matt. vi. 6, &c.,xviii. 19; Luke iii. 21, xi. l,&c.; 
 John xiv. 16, xvi. 23, xvii. ; Acts iv. 24, &c. ; Rom. i. 8-10, 
 xv. 13 ; Eph. i. 15 — 17, iii. 14 ; Phil. iv. 6; Col. i. 3 and 12; 
 1 Thess. v. 23, &c. 
 
 Where, we may well ask, is a prayer to be found in the 
 Bible corresponding to that with which the Litany opens — 
 “ 0 God the Father, . . . O God the Son, . . . O 
 God the Holy Ghost, ... 0 holy, blessed, and glorious 
 Trinity, three persons in one God,” &c. ? or where the 
 equivalent of the hymn-book expression, “ Three in one, and 
 one in three ” ? We may seek to justify such expressions 
 on the ground that they have been consecrated by 
 long usage in the services of the Church, and that they 
 serve to teach elementary lessons in theology : but we 
 cannot defend them as being in conformity with Apostolic 
 language, nor can we deem it an essential part of human 
 worship to offer to God a metaphysical definition of His 
 own Divine nature. 
 
 In connection with this subject of modern Christian 
 terminology, has it never occurred to you as strange that we 
 so often hear the words, “ God the Son,” in place of the 
 Scriptural expression, “the Son of God,” and “God the 
 Holy Ghost ” instead of “ the Holy Spirit of God.” ? 
 
 (3.) Or we might take the benedictions with which so 
 many of the Epistles close, or the greetings with which 
 nearly all open, and point out the same dissimilarity. 
 
 With the exception of the one benediction of 2 Cor. xiii. 14 
 — “ The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, 
 and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost be with you all,” 
 which clearly proves the close association with the Father, 
 
Addressed to Missionaries. 
 
 li 
 
 in government and grace, of the Son and the Holy Spirit — 
 we have the beuedictions in such terms as that of Gal.vi. 18 
 — “ The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, 
 or of 1 Thess. v. 28, or 2 Tim. iv. 22, or Heb. xiii. 20, 21, 25. 
 
 So with the greetings, with the exception of Rev. i. 4, 
 where we have the remarkable and somewhat difficult 
 addition — “ From the seven Spirits which are before His 
 throne,” all are in the name of the Father and the Son. 
 How seldom, on the other hand, do we, in our day, hear any 
 benedictions but the one exception, or others supposed to 
 be modelled after its example, as that which runs, “ The 
 blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the 
 Holy Ghost be amongst you,” etc. 
 
 With such a marked difference between Scripture 
 phraseology and that which passes current among Christians, 
 it behoves us seriously to consider whether these differences 
 do not betoken some deflection from the doctrine of the 
 Sacred Scriptures. I am fully persuaded that they do ; and 
 I crave your patient and unbiassed heariug while I seek 
 briefly to set forth what I am convinced is :he teaching of 
 those Scriptures on this solemn and important subject, — 
 teaching w’hich, if it does not remove, certainly diminishes 
 the difficulty of setting forth the truth to Monotheistic 
 unbelievers. 
 
 Let me be quite plain, and say at once that the doctrine 
 of the Trinity, — while it conveys no doubt the truth of the 
 intimate union between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 
 which is manifest in the command to “ baptize into the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ” 
 (Matth. xxviii. 19), in the benediction of 2 Cor. xiii. 14, and 
 indeed in the teaching of the whole of the New Testament, — 
 at the same time forms a conspicuous departure from the 
 
12 
 
 A Letter of Enquiry 
 
 model of Apostolic language, and leads to perplexity and 
 misunderstanding as to the nature of the Deity. 
 
 This is not the unity of the God-head — that the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Spirit are different Persons forming one 
 Being (as body, soul, and spirit make up the one Christian 
 man, or as thre^ sides make up one triangle), in which case 
 each Person would only be a portion, an incomplete part, of 
 Deity ; nor this — that they are but different phases of one 
 Being, in which case we should be compelled in the opposite 
 direction to explain away numberless passages of Scripture, 
 and be landed in the mistakes of the ancient Patripassians 
 and Sabellians, and modern Swedenborgians. 
 
 THE UNITY OF THE GOD-HEAD, according to the 
 teaching of the Bible, CONSISTS IN THE SUPREMACY 
 OF THE FATHER — as the origin and end of all things. 
 The Father is the one God. His is the essential Deity ; 
 the being, life, authority of the Son are derived, and 
 His position is subordinate,— as the very name “ Son ” 
 indicates, while at the same time manifesting unity of 
 nature. See Matth. xxviii. 18, John v. 26, vi. 57, x. 29, 
 &c. 
 
 This may appear a bold statement to make in the face of 
 the traditions of many generations ; but I am persuaded 
 that in spite of the general use in public of unscriptural 
 phrases of the nature I have been indicating, there has ever 
 been a wide-spread acceptance among God’s true children of 
 Scriptural modes of thought on this subject. 
 
 Let me proceed at once to bring before you, as briefly as 
 may be, the teaching of the Scriptures. 
 
 1 . 
 
 The Father is with all distinctness declared to be the 
 “ ONE God,” “ THE ONLY GOD.” 
 
Addressed to Missionaries. 
 
 13 
 
 a. Our Lord’s language is unequivocal, as when quoting 
 Deut. vi. 4, 5, He says, “ Hear, 0 Israel, the Lord our God, 
 the Loud is one” (Mark xii. 29) Those who listened 
 to these words could only understand Him to refer to Him, 
 whom He was wont to call His Father : nor am I aware 
 that it has ever been asserted that in them He spoke of the 
 Trinity, including Himself — in His own divine nature — and 
 the Holy Spirit. 
 
 But in His prayer in John xvii., He expresses Himself 
 beyond the possibility of misunderstanding. There He 
 thus addresses His Father in verse 3, “ This is life eternal, 
 that they should know Thee the only true* *• God, and 
 Him whom Thou didst send, even Jesus Christ.” 
 
 b. The language of the Apostles is no less distinct. 
 
 The Apostle Paul, for instance, speaks thus in 1 Tim. ii. 5, 
 “ There is one God, one Mediator also between God and 
 man, Himself man, Christ Jesus.” Here the “ one God ” 
 can only mean “ His Father; ” for we can only imagine a 
 Mediator between parties distinct from Himself, His special 
 fitness for the office arising from a participation in the nature 
 of both. 
 
 But, as if for the very purpose of defining the unity of 
 God, and rendering doubt on this subject impossible, the 
 same Apostle says in another place (1 Cor. viii. 6), “ Yet 
 to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all 
 things, and we unto Him ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, 
 through whom are all things and we through Him.” 
 I confess as I gaze at a passage like this, I stand amazed at 
 the ingenuity which has managed to exchange the language 
 
 * The word here used for “ true ’’ is the same as that in John xv. 1, 
 
 *• I am the true Vine ” — not “ true ” as opposed to “ false,” but 
 
 (t\i]Qivo r 7 “true,” i.e. “the original,” “real,” “actual,” “true in the 
 highest sense.” 
 
14 
 
 A Letter of Enquiry 
 
 and doctrine of the first two centuries for those of later 
 ages. “ There is one God, the Father.” — Could anything 
 be clearer? 
 
 Eph. iv. 5, 6. “ One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one 
 
 God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and 
 in all.” The Apostle is impressing upon the Ephesian 
 Christians the fact of the unity of the Church, and in doing 
 this reminds them that they are one body, indwelt by one 
 Spirit, and animated by one hope. In the Gospel one Lord 
 Jesus had been presented to them, whom they had received 
 by one faith — sealed upon them by one baptism ; and thus 
 they had been admitted into the family of the one God the 
 Father of all. We have in this and the preceding verse 
 the mention of “ one Spirit,” and “ one Lord,” and 
 then as distinct from both, “ one God and Father of 
 all.” 
 
 1 Tim. i. 17. “ Now unto the King eternal, incorruptible, 
 
 invisible, the only God, be honour and glory for ever and 
 ever. Amen.” 
 
 1 Tim. vi. 15, 16. “ Which (i.e. the appearing of Christ) 
 
 in its own times He shall show, who is the blessed and 
 only Potentate .... who only hath immortality .... 
 whom no man hath seen, nor can see : to whom be honour 
 and power eternal. Amen.” 
 
 When we compare with these two last verses the 
 statements of John i. 18 and 1 John iv. 12, which tell us 
 that “ No man hath seen God at anytime, the only-begotten 
 Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared 
 Him,” no doubt can remain that the Father is “ the only 
 God — the invisible,” “the only Potentate — whom no man 
 hath seen,” to whom glory is thus given. 
 
 In Rom. iii. 30, “ If so be that God is one,” the language 
 is scarcely less distinct ; for the whole context — especially 
 
Addressed to Missionaries. 
 
 15 
 
 vv. 22, 24, 26, of this chapter — compels us to conclude that 
 ‘ God ’ here refers to the Father. 
 
 Lastly in John v. 44, the Lord says to His hearers, “ The 
 glory that cometh from the only God ye seek not.” [The 
 margin says, “ Some ancient authorities read * the only one:’ 
 this would not affect the force of the passage. The transla- 
 tion in the A.V. “God only” is undoubtedly incorrect. 
 See Alford in Zoo.] He has just been speaking of His 
 Father in whose name He has come, and adds immediately 
 afterwards, “ Think not that I will accuse you to the 
 Father.” * 
 
 “ Let all these passages have their due weight and no 
 longer will doubt be possible that the Father is the “one 
 God,” “ the only God,” according to the Scriptures. 
 
 2 . 
 
 Then we have a number of passages in which the 
 Father is spoken of as “ the God of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ,” or in terms of like character. 
 
 * We might have addSd a reference to 1 John v. 20 — “ This is the 
 true God and eternal life ” ; but there is not, as in the other instances 
 we have adduced, the expression ‘ one ’ or ‘ only God.’ The word 
 “ This ” can only speak of the primary subject of the previous sentence, 
 which is “ Him that is true,” i.e., the Father. The words, iv ry i>l<p 
 tii’Tou—“His son.” shut up the reference to the Father. Compare with 
 this John xvii. 3. “ I own,” says Dean Alford on this passage, “ I 
 
 cannot see, after this saying of our Lord — “ That they might know 
 Thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent,” — 
 how any one can imagine that the same Apostle can have had in these 
 words any other reference than that which is given in those.” See, 
 however, Alford's more lengthy note on these words. 
 
 In Gal. iii. 20, we have the expression — “ God is one.” Here, 
 however, it would seem to mean that ‘ God is one of the two parties ’ 
 between which Christ is the mediator, and to have no special 
 reference to the unity of Gcd. 
 
16 
 
 A Letter of Enquiry 
 
 a. Under this head, notice first that on three distinct 
 occasions the Lord Jesus either addressed His Father, or 
 spoke of Him, as “ My Gop.” On the cross He cried out, 
 “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” 
 (Mark xv. 34.) After His resurrection He said to Mary 
 Magdalene, “ I ascend unto my Father and your Father, 
 and my God and your God.” (John xx. 17.) But not 
 in the agonies of crucifixion only, or even in His risen might ; 
 in His glory also, as one seated with His Father on His 
 throne, He speaks of His Father as ‘ His God.’ Thus 
 in His message to the Church of Sardis He says, “ I 
 have found no works of thine fulfilled before my God ” 
 (Rev. iii. 2) ; and in v. 12 of the same chapter, addressing 
 the Church of Philadelphia, He four times repeats the same 
 expression, “ He that overcometh I will make him a pillar 
 in the temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no 
 more, and I will write upon him the name of my God, and 
 the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which 
 cometh down out of heaven from my God, and mine own 
 new name.” 
 
 How is it that our Lord thus, on three different occasions, 
 calls His Father ‘ His God ’ ? He cannot be referring 
 merely to His human nature ; for that would render His 
 language meaningless. For instance, no satisfactory ex- 
 planation can be given of His words to Mary Magdalene — 
 ‘i My Father and your Father, my God and your God ” — 
 on the supposition that He spoke only as man, and did not 
 mean to infer that God was His Father and God in a sense 
 distinct from that in which He was the Father and God of 
 His disciples. Manifestly He spoke not merely as man, but 
 as the Divine So7i. Nor can we imagine Him to have 
 referred only to His humanity, when from His exaltation 
 in glory He again said of His Father, “ My God.” We 
 
Addressed to Missionaries. 
 
 17 
 
 can only understand such language on the ground that He 
 wished to emphasize the supremacy of the Father. This is 
 the natural and obvious meaning of His words. 
 
 b. Perhaps even more remarkable than these passages 
 in which the Lord Jesus Christ calls His Father ‘ His God,’ 
 are those in which the Apostles do the same. Of the 
 language of both we confidently affirm that they are only 
 consistent with the truth that the Father is, in the highest 
 sense, the “ one ” and “ the only God.” 
 
 What clearer statement can there be thau that of 
 Eph. i. 17, where the Apostle uses the expression “ the 
 God of ouk Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory ” ? 
 
 But we have, besides this, several passages in which 
 very similar words occur. In no less than six — Rom. xv. 6, 
 2 Cor. i. 3, xi. 31, Eph. i. 3, 1 Pet. i. 3, Rev. i. 6, — the 
 expression is used, “ the God and Father of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ.” In all these passages the R.V. has 
 translated the words as I have quoted them, though in three 
 out of the six passages the A.Y. has the rendering, “ God, 
 even the Father,” &c. But even if this latter translation 
 be correct (neither the English nor American Revisers think 
 so), you will perceive that the Father is spoken of as God, 
 as distinct from our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 (c.) Here are other passages which as distinctly state the 
 truth I am insisting on. Look at them carefully, and allow 
 that they mean what they say. 
 
 1 Cor. iii. 23. “All are yours, and ye are Christ’s, and 
 Christ is God’s.” 
 
 1 Cor. xi. 3. “ The head of every man is Christ, .... 
 
 the head of Christ is God.” 
 
 1 Cor. xv. 28. “ Then shall the Son also Himself be 
 
 subjected to Him that did subject all things unto Him, that 
 God may be all in all.” 
 
18 
 
 A Letter of Enquiry 
 
 3. 
 
 If we seek to enumerate the passages in which the 
 Father is spoken of as God in contradistinction to Jesus, as 
 Lord, or Christ, or Son, we may well say that time and 
 memory fail us, — they are so numerous. 
 
 a. Take for instance the opening verses of the Epistles. 
 This distinction between the Father as God and Jesus 
 Christ as Lord is manifest in the greetings of 11 out of the 
 14 Epistles of the Apostle Paul. Thus taking the Epistle to 
 the Romans as an example (for they are almost word for 
 word the same), we read, “ Grace to you and peace from 
 God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” In the 
 openings to the three Epistles which are exceptions to this 
 rule, we find expressions equivalent to these, or perhaps 
 even more striking. Thus in Col. i. 2, while the greeting 
 runs, “ Grace to you and peace from God our Father,” the 
 Apostle adds, “We give thanks to God the Father of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 3). So also the first Epistle to 
 the Thessalonians is addressed “unto the Church of the 
 Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus 
 Christ” (v. 1). In Heb. i. 1, 2, we have, “God . . . hath 
 at the end of these days spoken to us by His Son.” 
 
 The same distinction may be observed in the other 
 Epistles. The Epistle of James opens with the words, 
 “ James, a servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ.” 
 The Apostle Peter in the first Epistle, addressing the 
 brethren “of the Dispersion” uses the expression, “According 
 to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of 
 the S'pirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of 
 Jesus Christ ’’ ; and in his second Epistle, after using the 
 words “ Our God and Saviour Jesus Christ,”* he goes on 
 
 * See however the marginal translation, “Our God, and the Saviour 
 Jesus Christ.” The American revisers say, “Let the margin and the 
 
Addressed to Missionaries. 
 
 19 
 
 with words in which the contrast, we are speaking of, 
 is manifest, “ Grace to you ... in the knowledge of God 
 and of Jesus our Lord.” The opening words of the second 
 Epistle of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the book of 
 Revelation present the same contrast. 
 
 b. What is true of the greetings of the different Epistles 
 is true also of the rest of their contents. Let it suffice to 
 quote a few passages in illustration of this. 
 
 1 Cor. i. 30. “But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who 
 was made unto us wisdom from God.” 
 
 1 Cor. xii. 4, 5, 6. “ Now there are diversities of gifts, 
 
 but the same Spirit. And there are diversities of ministra- 
 tions, and the same Lord. And there are diversities of 
 workings, but the same God, who worketh all things in 
 all.” 
 
 2 Cor. xiii. 14. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the 
 love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with 
 you all.” 
 
 It is particularly worthy of notice that both in this and 
 the previous passage, in which the union between the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is so strikingly manifested, 
 the Father is called God, as distinguished from the Lord 
 Jesus, and the Spirit. 
 
 Gal. iv. 6. “ Because ye are sons, God sent forth the 
 
 Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, 
 Father.” 
 
 text change places.” The A. V. has it, “ God and our Saviour Jesus 
 Christ.” It would seem to me that the language of the very next verse, 
 “of God and of Jesus our Lord,” compels us to take the translation 
 of the margin, with which Alford agrees. The omission of the article 
 before ouirijpoT, which is the cause of the translation in the text of 
 the R. V., is sufficiently accounted for by the addition of the words 
 It/itou Xptorov in apposition after it. 
 
20 
 
 A Letter of Enquiry 
 
 Eph. iii. 10, 11. “ The manifold wisdom of God, according 
 
 to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus 
 our Lord, &c.” 
 
 Eph. v. 20. “ Giving thanks ... in the name of our Lord 
 
 Jesus Christ to God, even the Father.” 
 
 Col. iii. 17. “ Do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, 
 
 giving thanks to God the Father through him.” 
 
 1 Thess. i. 9, 10. “ Ye turned unto God from idols, to 
 
 serve a living and true God, and to wait for His Son from 
 heaven.” 
 
 1 Thess. iii. 11. “ May our God and Father himself, and 
 
 our Lord Jesus, direct our way unto you.” 
 
 Heb. ii. 3, 4. “ How shall we escape, if we neglect so 
 
 great salvation ? which having at the first been spoken to us 
 through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by those that 
 heard ; God also bearing witness with them ... by gifts of 
 the Holy Ghost,’’ &c. 
 
 Jude 21. “ Praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves 
 
 in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ.” 
 
 1 Peter iii. 18. “ Christ also suffered for our sins once . . . 
 that He might bring us to God.” 
 
 In not one of these or any of the almost innumerable 
 passages like them, is there any authority whatever for 
 supposing that the word “God” can refer to the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Spirit, considered as one. Such a supposition 
 would be contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture, and 
 bring in the utmost confusion of thought. They all alike 
 declare the “ principatus of the Father.” 
 
 c. Again we might refer to those passages in which the 
 Lord Jesus Christ is called, as in Col. i. 15, “ the image 
 (eiKw v or visible representation) of the invisible God,” or as 
 in Heb. i. 3, “ the effulgence of His glory and the very 
 
Addressed to Missionaries. 
 
 21 
 
 image ” (or rather “ impress,” as in the margin, Greek — 
 Xapamjp), or as in 2 Cor. iv. 4, “ the image of God.” It can 
 scarcely be necessary to point out that the Lord Jesus 
 cannot be spoken of as the image of Himself, or as the 
 impress of His own substance, and that the word “ God ” in 
 these expressions can only refer to the Father. Such 
 passages speak for themselves. 
 
 d. In connection with this distinction it is right to draw 
 attention to the fact that even in those passages which 
 plainly declare the Divine nature of the Lord Jesus, the 
 supremacy of the Father is kept in view. 
 
 (1) Thus in John i. 1 — “ The Word was with God 
 (s-poe roy Oeor), and the Word was God (0£«e) ” — we 
 cannot ignore the use of the article in the first clause, 
 and its omission in the second.* It might be literally 
 translated, “ The Word was with the God, and the 
 Word was God,” i.e. a Divine Person — partaking of 
 the Divine nature — but not the original Theos or Deity. 
 Origen says in reference to this passage, ‘‘This scruple of 
 many pious persons may be thus solved. We must tell 
 them that He who is of Himself God is 6 6eoe, but that 
 whatever is God besides that underived One (avrodeog), 
 being so by communication of His Divinity, cannot so 
 properly be styled 6 deog the great God, but 0«Je a Divine 
 Person ( 0 >'X ° deog aWci deog k'up«l)~epoy Xiyotro) . ’ ’ With 
 two seeming exceptions, f I am persuaded that this re- 
 mark of Origen is true generally of the language of the 
 New Testament. 
 
 * The alteration which has been made by the Revisers in Isaiah ix. 6 
 is remarkable. It is no longer— “ the mighty God, the everlasting 
 Father,” but “mighty God, everlasting Father,” without the article. 
 
 f The two apparent exceptions are John xx. 28, and Acts xx. 28. 
 With regard to the former it is sufficient to explain the existence of the 
 
22 
 
 A Letter of Enquiry 
 
 (2) Again in Heb. i. 8, where the dignity of Christ as the 
 Son of God is dwelt upon, the same distinction is main- 
 tained. Thus in the quotation from Psalm xlv. 6, 7, where 
 the Son is addressed as God, it is added, “ Therefore God, 
 thy God, hath anointed thee, &c. ; ” and in that from 
 Psalm cx., where it is written, “ To which of the angels 
 said He at any time, Sit thou on My right hand,” it is 
 Jehovah — “ the Lord,” who speaks to Adonai — “ my 
 Lord.” * * 
 
 article in the words, “My Lord (d icupiuT pov) and my God (d Qeoz pov),” 
 by ‘ the New Testament usage of expressing the vocative by the nom- 
 inative with the article.’ 
 
 The words in Acts xx. run thus : — “ The Church of God (tov 9eov), 
 which He purchased with His own blood.” [The reading of the R.V. 
 and A.Y. I believe to be the true one, though many ancient MSS. have 
 “ of the Lord ” (rou /cvpiov).] Here I am persuaded that the word 
 “ God ” refers to the Father ; for in purchasing the Church witli the 
 blood of His Son, He purchased it with “ His own.” It is no irreverence 
 to transfer the words to the case of an earthly parent, who might say 
 with truth of any acquisition, which had cost the life of his son, that 
 ‘ he had purchased it with his own blood.’ 
 
 * The distinction between Jehovah (translated “ Lord ”) and Adonai 
 — the representative of Jehovah — (translated “Lord”) is frequently 
 observable in the Old Testament. For example, in the vision of Isaiah 
 (Is. vi.), to which the evangelist in John xii. 41 refers as speaking of 
 the Lord Jesus, it is Adonai, whom the prophet beholds sitting on 
 His throne. So too in Malachi iii. 1, it is Adonai of whom it is said, 
 “ The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His temple, even 
 the messenger of the covenant.” This is “ the angel of the Lord,” 
 through whom Jehovah manifested Himself to His ancient saints — as to 
 Abraham (Gen. xviii. &c.), Hagar (Gen. xvi. 7, &c.), Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 
 13, &c., xxxi. 11, xxxii. 24, &c., which compare with Hos. xii. 3, 4 — 
 “ He had power with God and prevailed : yea, he had power over 
 the angel ”), Moses (compare Ex. iii. with Is. lxiii. 9, where it is said 
 that “ the angel of His presence saved them ”), Joshua (Josh. v. 13, &c.), 
 Gideon (Judges vi. 11, &c.), Manoah (Judges xiii.), &c. Speaking of 
 
Addressed to Missionaries. 
 
 23 
 
 (3) Ouce more, in that remarkable passage, Phil. ii. 6, 
 &c., we have this contrast between the Father and the Son. 
 In the expressions, “counted it not a prize to be on an 
 equality with God,” and “ being in the form of God,” 
 it may be noticed that the word “ God ” is here without 
 the article and so is equivalent to a “ Divine Person.” 
 In this case the meaning would be, “ being in the form of a 
 Theos (a Divine Person), he thought it a thing not to be 
 grasped at * to be equal to a Theos, but emptied himself, 
 &c.,” the Apostle in both expressions referring to the Divine 
 nature of Jesus as Son, and not to the Father at all. But 
 even if it should be insisted that the word for “ God ” refers 
 to the Father, still it remains true that the Father 
 as “ God ” is contrasted with the Son. But notice par- 
 ticularly verse 9 of this passage, where it is written, 
 “ Wherefore also God (6 Oeog) hath highly exalted Him,” 
 
 these Theophanies, as they have been called, Canon Liddon in his 
 Bampton lectures on the Divinity of our Lord says, “ The angel of the 
 Lord is certainly distinguished from Jehovah ; yet the names by which 
 he is called, the powers which he assumes to wield, the honour which is 
 paid to him, shew that in him there was at least a special presence of 
 God.” It is because He spoke as the representative of Jehovah, that on 
 nearly each one of these occasions in one verse the angel of the Lobe is 
 said to speak or manifest Himself, in another the Lohd Himself. 
 “ The only-begotten of the Father— He hath declared Him;” so that 
 when the Son speaks, the Father speaks through Him ; when the Son 
 manifests Himself, He manifests the Father who sent Him. “ No 
 man hath seen God at any time ; ” but “ he that hath seen Me,” says 
 Jesus, “hath seen the Father.” 
 
 In no place, however, is this distinction more clearly brought out than 
 in this Ps. cx. of which we have been speaking — “ The Lord said unto 
 My Lord.” The word Adonai seems to have the same relation to 
 Jehovah in the Old Testament which fhov has to d deov in the New. 
 
 * The word here is not dpirayt ] — 1 robbery,’ but apiraypo ^ — ‘ a thing 
 to be grasped at,’ or ‘ seized as prey.’ 
 
24 
 
 A Letter of Enquiry 
 
 and verse 14, “ that every tongue should confess that Jesus 
 Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” * 
 
 4. 
 
 It is only needful to refer very briefly to the general 
 language of our Lord Himself , when speaking of His Father, 
 — language in every expression confirming the truth I have 
 been asserting — that the unity of the Deity consists in the 
 supremacy of the Father. 
 
 a. When He says, “ The Father is greater than I ; ” or 
 when both He and His Apostles speak of God ‘ giving or 
 sending His Son,’ as in John vi. 57, where He says, “ The 
 living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father,” 
 (see also John iii. 16, vii. 29, xx. 21 ; Matt, xxi 37 ; 
 Eom. viii. 32 ; Gal. iv. 4 ; 1 John iv. 10) ; or when He 
 declares that He came not to do His own willl, as in 
 John vi. 38, vii. 28, Heb. x. 5 — 9, &c. ; or that He can 
 of Himself do nothing, John v. 19 — 30; or that His is 
 a derived authority and life, John v. 26, 27, Matt. xi. 27, 
 xxviii. 18, 19; or when He calls Himself or is called “the 
 Son of God,” Matt. iii. 17, Mark ix. 7, &c. ; — in all these 
 places the Father is acknowledged as supreme, and as the 
 origin of the Son’s being, life, and authority. 
 
 If it be again asserted that Jesus Christ in these ex- 
 pressions speaks thus of Himself, or is spoken of, only with 
 respect to His human nature or His mediatorial office, w y e 
 ■can only reply that this is a pure assumption, and that we 
 must at least have some distinct Scriptural authority for 
 thus dealing with these numberless texts. Surely the very 
 expressions * sent,’ * gave,’ &c., speak of a time before the in- 
 carnation, and so before the mediatorial office was assumed. 
 
 * The absence of the artiole before 6cov — “ God ” is accounted for by 
 the 7r arpuT — “ Father” following in apposition. 
 
Addressed to Missionaries. 
 
 25 
 
 I am persuaded that unwillingness to recognize the Divine 
 side of Christ’s nature in such passages as these tends 
 strongly to mere humanitarian views. 
 
 On one occasion we find the Lord saying that the day of His 
 coming not even the Son knew, but the Father only, Matt, 
 xxiv. 36 ; on another, when two disciples came to Him, apply- 
 ing through their mother for exalted places in His kingdom, 
 He replies that to sit on His right hand and on His left was 
 not His to give but to those for whom it was prepared of 
 His Father, Matt. xx. 23. When a young man came to 
 Jesus, calling Him “Good Master,” He replied, “Why 
 callest thou me good: none is good save one, even God.” 
 Luke xviii. 16. Now to say that the Lord was not here 
 considering the question of His Divinity, and gave this 
 reply in order to teach this self-satisfied young man, w-ho 
 looked upon Him only as a human teacher, that human 
 goodness reaches not to God, is quite true as far as it goes ; 
 but it is not a complete or satisfactory answer. Well do I 
 remember how years ago, a brother-Missionary, whom I had 
 accompanied on a visit to a learned Moulvie at Lucknow, 
 urged this as an explanation ; but the Moulvie — not a mere 
 caviller — was not satisfied, nor was I. How could the words 
 of Jesus be true, if, after all, He meant Himself when speaking 
 of God ? How misleading it seemed ! Yes, the Lord must 
 have meant that He, of whom He ever spoke as His Father 
 and even His God, was the only source of goodness, and 
 must have been at least acknowledging that His own 
 goodness was derived. Common honesty compels us to 
 this simple interpretation, which is consistent with all else 
 that the Lord Jesus says of His Father. 
 
 b. But that I may not weary you, just let me point you 
 to the language used by Christ, when accused of making Him- 
 self ‘ God ’ or ‘ equal with God,’ as in John v. 18, and x. 33. 
 
26 
 
 A Letter of Enquiry 
 
 (1.) When in the first of these cases, accused of making 
 Himself equal with God, He says that ‘ the Son can do 
 nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father doing ’ 
 (v. 19), prefacing His words with “ Verily, verily, I say unto 
 you ; ” was He, “ the Truth,” evading the question? or was 
 He, while asserting His unity of nature w'ith the Father as 
 His Son, expressly and purposely acknowledging His sub- 
 ordination to the Father, and the derivation of His every 
 power from Him ? 
 
 (2.) It was just the same in the second case, when He 
 was charged with making Himself God. Has it never 
 struck you how utterly inconsistent His reply is with the 
 traditional language of Christendom on the Lord’s relation to 
 His Father. ‘ If you allow,’ He seems to say, ‘ that the 
 term ‘ God ’ may be applied ( as it is applied in Psalm lxxxii. 6, 
 and “ the Scripture cannot be broken ’’), to those to whom 
 the word of God came (angels — as world-rulers — are, I think, 
 here referred to) ; how much more may I apply the term to 
 myself, ivhom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the 
 world, and call myself the Son of God.’ Surely here there 
 is no assumption of equality with God. If it be argued that 
 the equality of the God-head is manifest in the words, “land 
 my Father a, re one,’’ it is sufficient to point out in reply, not 
 only that the word for “ one ” here is in the neuter gender, 
 tv — meaning “the same thing ” — but that similar language is 
 u§ed by our Lord Himself in ch. xvii. 22 in reference to be- 
 lievers, there comparing the union, which He desired 
 should exist between them, to the union which existed 
 between Himself and His Father — “ that they all may 
 be one ( ev ), even as we are one (eV).” The Lord spoke as 
 the representative of the Father, and the unity which He 
 claimed was the unity not merely of relationship, but of 
 representation, of will and purpose. It is as if I were to 
 
Addressed to Missionaries. 
 
 27 
 
 send my grown-up son on an important errand with full 
 authority as my representative, and he were to say to those 
 who resisted his authority, ‘ It is the same thing whether I 
 speak or my Father ; for I and ray Father are one.’ With 
 reference to the expi'ession which follows later in this 
 chapter — “The Father is in me and I in the Father” — we 
 have only to point out that the same words are used in other 
 places with regard to His union with His disciples, as in 
 John xiv. 20, xv. 4, xvii. 22, 23, &c. If it be said that the 
 Lord’s language in the one place indicates that Jesus is God 
 in the same sense as the Father ; the reply at once arises 
 that it follows from the use of the same words in other 
 places that we are also Christ, in the same sense as He is — 
 which God forbid ! 
 
 5. 
 
 I have said nothing about the Holy Spirit ; for verily — 
 while Holy Scripture seems so decidedly to speak of His 
 personality and of His association with the Father and the 
 Son in the work of redemption and grace, and while He is 
 the special gift from the Father, sent forth by the exalted 
 Christ to lead believers into truth, to bind them together in 
 true unity, and to be in them a power for holiness of life, and 
 for service in the Church and world, by His indwelling making 
 them Divine temples; nay more, being thus the very guarantee 
 of their resurrection to eternal glory, — there is no passage 
 * which speaks of Him as God. In this assertion I am not 
 forgetting that in 2 Cor. iii. 18 we have the expression, 
 “ the Lord the Spirit ” ; but even if these words refer to the 
 Holy Spirit (and I am inclined to think that they do not, 
 but refer to the Lord Jesus, in accordance with 1 Cor. xv. 45, 
 where He is termed “ a life-giving Spirit ”), the term “ the 
 Lord the Spirit ” is quite distinct from ‘ God the Spirit,’ as 
 may be seen from passages like Acts ii. 36, “ God hath made 
 
28 
 
 A Letter of Enquiry 
 
 him both Lord and Christ.” (See also Phil. ii. 9 — 11, and 
 the many passages already quoted, in which God the Father 
 is spoken of as distinct from the Lord Jesus Christ. ) 
 
 It is usual, I know, to quote such passages as Acts v. 3, 4, 
 where Ananias is charged first with lying against the Holy 
 Ghost and then against God ; from which it is argued that the 
 Holy Spirit is the Supreme God : as if it were not enough 
 to understand that in lying against the Comforter whom God 
 had sent, he was lying against Him who sent Him. 
 
 I have even heard such passages as that of Rom. xv. 30 — 
 “ the love of the Spirit ” — quoted as proving the God-head 
 of the Holy Spirit, it being said that ‘ because God loves us, 
 and here the Spirit is said to love us ; therefore, as He 
 manifests this divine attribute, He is God.’ But if He is 
 the witness of God in the hearts of believers, He necessarily 
 manifests His love to and in them. I would, however, here 
 also suggest that “ the love of the Spirit ” is rather that love 
 which the Spirit begets in the hearts of believers, in ac- 
 cordance with Gal. v. 22, where love is spoken of as “ the 
 fruit of the Spirit.” But whether this be so or not, in this 
 passage, as in so many others, the Spirit is spoken of as 
 distinct from the Supreme God — “ I beseech you, brethren, 
 by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, that 
 ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me.” 
 
 'I confess I cannot understand how any one can resist or 
 evade these simple and conclusive reasons for adopting the 
 methods and phraseology of the sacred Scriptures in reference 
 to the nature of God. 1 cannot think for a moment, my 
 brethren, that there is in you — anxious as you are to remove 
 every hindrance to the progress of the Gospel, to the spread 
 of which you have devoted your lives — any desire to resist 
 or evade the truth. But rather, I am persuaded, that many 
 
Addressed to Missionaries. 
 
 29 
 
 of you have never seriously considered the subject, having 
 taken as a matter of course the truth of the traditional 
 teaching which has so long prevailed in the Church, and 
 having studied only those passages which are supposed 
 to lend support to that teaching. If with an honest 
 aud unprejudiced mind you will seek only to know the truth, 
 I have no fear of the result. We may know the truth in 
 this matter ; for our Father in heaven has not allowed His 
 nature and that of His Divine Son to be shrouded in 
 mystery and confusion. The confusion has only been pro- 
 duced by departure from the simple doctrine of the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 It not unfrequently happens that — when a subject such as 
 this is mooted, and anything which runs counter to our 
 preconceived ideas is broached — the exclamation is heard, 
 “ Well, this is a mystery ; we cannot understand matters 
 of this kind, and are afraid of prying into the secrets of 
 God.” And most true it is that no man by wisdom can find 
 out God. But this is of itself a reason why we should be 
 content to take what we have plainly taught us in the 
 Scriptures, and not add to it the result of our own 
 inferences. There are, I believe, six “ mysteries ” mentioned 
 in the New Testament, — (1) the mystery of God’s purposes 
 of grace to the Gentiles (Eph. i. 9 and iii. 3, 9) ; “ the 
 mystery of godliness,” which (whether oe or Otoe be the true 
 reading) relates to the incarnation (1 Tim. iii. 16) ; (3) 
 “ the mystery of iniquity ” (2 Thess. ii. 7) ; (4) the mystery 
 of God’s dealings with Jews and Gentiles, and of Israel’s 
 blindness (Eom. xi. 25) ; (5) the mystery of the marriage of 
 the Lamb, and of the union of Christ and His people (Eph. 
 v. 32) ; (6) the mystery of the resurrection (1 Cor. xv. 51) : 
 but of these six, one only relates directly to the Divine 
 nature — namely, the mystery of the incarnation. But the 
 
30 
 
 A Letter of Enquiry 
 
 particular point which I want you to notice is — that the true 
 meaning of a mystery is a secret thing now revealed, and 
 that the mysteries of the Gospel are those truths which, 
 before it came, remained hidden, but which are now made 
 known to the initiated Christian, thus superseding the Greek 
 and Heathen mysteries, which were secrets kept from 
 the public, but known to the initiated. Those who 
 are willing to follow their Master fully and loyally, will 
 assuredly find that in everything — in this as in every other 
 part of the Christian life — “ He that folio weth Me shall 
 not walk in darkness, but shall see the light of life.” God 
 has given His children a Revelation, not to perplex and 
 mystify them, but to reveal Himself to them in Christ. 
 
 This subject I leave with you, asking you not to 
 speculate or philosophize, but to take the Scriptures as your 
 sole authority. At the very least, do not take upon your- 
 selves the responsibility of using terms which do not occur 
 in Holy Scripture, or of defending doctrines which are not 
 there stated. Beware of the danger of casting stumbling- 
 blocks before men. “ Woe unto the world because of 
 occasions of stumbling ! for it must needs be that the 
 occasions come : but woe to that man through w r hom the 
 occasion cometh ! ” (Matt, xviii. 7.) These words are the 
 Master’s, not mine. 
 
 _ I would only add that it is in no love of differing from my 
 brethren or of dictating to them that I have brought this 
 subject before you. It is because I am deeply convinced of 
 its importance, and because I have an aversion to heresy 
 and a fear of human tradition — which now, as much as in 
 the time of our Lord, “ makes the Word of God of none 
 effect.” When I consider the evil results of these traditious 
 on this particular point — in the alienation of thousands from 
 the truth on the very threshold of enquiry into the claims of 
 
Addressed to Missionaries. 
 
 31 
 
 Christ, and in the strong temptation to Socinianism which 
 they offer — I cannot withhold what I am fully persuaded is 
 the truth of God. Though I have written this by snatches, 
 owing to the pressure of other work, I have written with 
 prayer that I who write and you who read may be honest 
 before God — without desire for man’s approval, or fear of 
 his disapproval. How often have those words of my Master 
 rung in my ears, “ How can ye believe which receive glory 
 one of another, and the glory that cometh of the only God 
 ye seek not ? ” 
 
 The grace of our Lord JeSus Christ be with you ! 
 
 I am, in love and sympathy, 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 TOWNSEND STORES. 
 
 Newington Green Boad, 
 London, N.