Page images
PDF
EPUB

and for this reason he proposed the question, "Why callest thou me good?" &c. And, in fact, there is no denial of his Deity here, on the part of Christ, unless an ellipsis be inserted in the text, so as to read it thus: "Why callest thou me good? I am not good: there is none good but one, that is God;"-or thus: "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God, and I am not God." But I do not want to add to the Word of God. I am satisfied with that revelation which God has imparted, and which is all that now remains of his ancient converse with man. I am satisfied to rest my faith upon that Book, the origin of which I do not attribute to the unaided intellects of Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles; but which I believe to be one compact composition, which has God for its author, truth for its subject matter, and the salvation of man for its great and sublime consummation-a salvation which it was not unworthy of Deity to stoop to accomplish. The object of Christ, then, in proposing this question, was, as I said, to ascertain what views the inquirer held regarding him; whether he really believed that he was entitled to the designation "good;" or whether the young man had accosted him merely in the language of flattery and compliment, with which the Jews in general were accustomed to address the doctors of the law. But this passage is alleged to prove that Christ is not God. As well might we argue, that, when Christ proposes the question, "If David then call him Lord, how is he his Son," it was the Saviour's object to disclaim the appellation of "David's Lord" (for both these passages begin with the same interrogatory form), whilst the Scriptures assert, that he is the root and offspring of David.

But as I have referred to the declaration of Christ, "I am the root and offspring of David," I would wish to know how a created being could be the "root" from which David sprung ?—and how, at the same time, he could be the " offspring' which sprung from David? Surely Christ must have been the root of David by virtue of his Godhead, by which he gave birth not merely to David, but to all that walk upon the surface of the earth; and he must have been the offspring of David, by virtue of that humanity which he assumed in order to enable him to make his soul an offering for sin.

Mr. Porter also referred to JOHN xvii. 3, as a proof of the exclusive Deity of the Father exclusively: "And this is life eternal, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." In reply to his argument from this passage, I make the following remarks:

(1.) God is frequently styled the "true God," in opposition to gods falsely so called (as in 1 CHRON. XV. 3, 8; JER. x. 10; I THESS. i. 9); and as the Father is God, he is, of course, the true God, and the only true God; for surely Mr. Porter does not ask me to deny the true Deity of the Father, as a preliminary to proving the Deity of the Son. That, indeed, would be curious logic.

(2.) It is manifest also from the construction of the passage, that the Father is called "God," not in opposition to a plurality of persons, but in opposition to a plurality of gods; for the words are

ποὺ σε μόνον τὸν ἀληθινὸν Θεὸν (thee only the true God), but σε τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεὸν (thee the only true God), the exclusive particle μόνον (only) not being connected with the word (thee), but with the adjective devov (true); which construction shows, that the Deity of the Father is the "only true" Deity, just as I believe that the Deity of the Son is the "only true" Deity, for he is the true God and eternal life; 1 JOHN v. 20.

(3.) The Son is not distinguished from the Father, in this pas sage, in reference to his higher nature, but in reference to his mediatorial office, as is evident from the structure of the sentence: "Jesus Christ, whom thom hast sent;" and also from this, that this passage is part of a prayer which Christ offered up as the High Priest of our profession.

(4.) Although Christ speaks of himself here in his official character, still there is an index in the passage, directing our minds to a higher contemplation of his nature; for the knowledge of him is placed on a perfect equality with the knowledge of the Father, as the germ and principle of eternal life; and the same Apostle elsewhere defines what this higher nature is, where he says of Christ, "This is the true God and eternal life."

This passage, therefore, only goes far enough to prove the exclusion from Deity of all false gods, but not far enough to contradict the inclusion of the Son in the one Deity of the Bible.

He next quoted MATT. xii. 50, in order to prove the exclusive Deity of the Father exclusively: "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."-But, in order to show that there is nothing referred to the Father here, which is peculiar to him to the exclusion of the Son, I refer to JOHN iii. 13, in which Christ asserts that he was "in heaven," while he was conversing with Nicodemus upon earth; and to JOHN xiv. 15, in which he directs his disciples to do his will, by saying, "Keep my commandments.'

That our Saviour directed his disciples to pray to the Father, when he prescribed for their use that form which is called the Lord's Prayer, is a fact which I readily concede; but I maintain, that he did not direct them to pray to the Father only. What is the meaning of the word "Father" in this prayer? I consider it to be a designation of the Divine Being, as our Father, Creator, and Preserver. But does not Mr. Porter pray to the Father, through the mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ? Let him look, then, to the Lord's Prayer, and will he find the slightest direction to pray through a mediator? Therefore, his argument derived from this prayer, against praying to Christ, would equally contradict the doctrine of praying through Christ as Mediator; since, as I said, there is no allusion whatever in the Lord's Prayer to a mediator. But it is very easy to show, that every clause in the Lord's Prayer is applicable to Christ. For instance: He is "our Father," in the sense of Creator and Preserver (COL. i. 16, 17); he was "in heaven" as to his divine nature, at the time when he prescribed this form (JOHN iii. 13); his name is to be hallowed," for "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow"

(PHIL. ii. 10). His kingdom is spoken of repeatedly in the New Testament, as the object of hope and expectation to his people; and, if we examine the other parts of this prayer, we can easily arrive at the conclusion, that every clause of it is as applicable to the Son as to the Father.

Mr. Porter quoted MATT. xviii. 19: "If two of you shall agree on earth touching any thing they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven;" and he challenged me to produce a similar declaration in reference to the Son. I willingly accept the challenge; and refer him to JOHN xiv. 14, in which Christ says, "If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it." And I would here make this general observation, that whatever principle Mr. Porter advances, in opposition to the Deity of the Son, equally militates against the Deity of the Father; and that I can advance equally decisive proofs for the Deity of the Son, as those which he brings forward in support of the Deity of the Father. And I would also remark, that Mr. Porter's arguments have been founded upon an assumption, that I believe in the existence of two Gods; whereas, my second proposition asserts, that Christ "possesses the same eternity, knowledge, power, authority, prerogatives, and Godhead with the Father, and is one with him in all attributes." Let Mr. Porter, then, admit the Deity of the Son, or let him deny the Deity of the Father. Upon his principles of reasoning, there is no other alternative. He has but this option: let him at once represent the Bible as a system of Atheism, or let him admit the doctrine of the Deity of Christ.

His next quotation was the prayer of our Saviour, recorded in MATT. XXVI. 39: "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt." But this petition, which Christ offered up in the "days of his flesh," affords no objection against his Deity; but is simply a proof of the pure, unspotted, and immaculate holiness of his character. Every person will recoil from sufferings which are the consequence of sin, in proportion to the holiness of character which he possesses. On this principle, when Christ was approaching the hour of his enduring that chastisement which was rendered necessary by the sins of his people, the moral purity of his nature naturally shrunk back from the awful and tremendous infliction. And could we imagine the Father to have been manifest in the flesh in the same sense as the Son was, he would, upon this principle, have shrunk back from the same sufferings, considered as the consequence of sin. Nor has the Son less holiness of nature than the Father; for the angels in glory veil their faces in obsequious homage before the throne of the immaculate Jesus, whilst they cry one to another, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory."

MR. PORTER.-Many of the present auditory are too well acquainted with myself and my sentiments, to require that I should vindicate myself from the supposition of knowingly or willingly either doing or saying any thing that could by possibility bring the Scriptures of truth into contempt, or diminish their authority, as a

rule of faith and a guide of conduct. But there are others, to whom I may not be so well known; and who may perhaps require, in order to remove misconception from their minds, that I should thus publicly and explicitly declare, that in those opinions which Mr. Bagot has pronounced respecting the excellence and value of the Sacred Scriptures, I entirely and cordially concur. Neither is this principle peculiar to myself, as a member of the sect or party to which it is my honour and happiness to belong: my fellow Unitarians, without exception, so far as they are known to me, share in the same sentiments. Let me remind such of you as know it, and inform such of you as know it not, that the very words in which Mr. Bagot has expressed his admiration of the Scriptures, are taken from a Unitarian writer. In the presence of so many illustrious persons, so highly distinguished not only for rank, but for intellectual attainments, it is possible that Mr. Bagot may have forgotten the source from which this quotation was drawn: but I will remind him of the person; a man of some distinction in his day, though, we may well suppose, not of so much consequence, that his name should dwell in Mr. Bagot's memory. It was a certain JOHN LOCKE, a Unitarian, who said, that the Bible had "God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture of error for its matter." Those who concur with LOCKE in other points, agree with him also in this.

There are some other observations of Mr. Bagot's, to which I shall allude. And, first, I shall answer the question which he proposed to me, in asking how I explain that passage which occurs in REV. xix. 12: "He had a name written that no man knew, but he himself." I reply, that I explain the verse exactly in the same way as King James' translators, who were all orthodox men-strenuous Trinitarians every one-I believe most of them decided Calvinists. How did they understand the passage? Did they interpret it in Mr. Bagot's sense? No; for they translated it differently from him, and in a way which every Greek scholar will agree that it readily admits.

Mr. Bagot says, that he is not one of those who wish to add to the word of God. I am happy to hear it; for I think I remember one instance, in which he showed a disposition to do so:-I allude to his unhappy reference to 1 JOHN v. 7. It is well for Mr. Bagot that he was not some unfortunate Unitarian, who quoted such a passage as this. Had he belonged to that sect every where spoken against, and had he put forward in that cause, to prove his positions or to support his statements, texts which are gross, and manifest, and acknowledged forgeries,-oh how the tones of astonishment would have thundered from the pulpit, and resounded on the platform; and how the notes of exclamation would have bristled in the printed page! We should then have heard a great deal about adding to the word of God; and we should have been reminded of a passage in that book of REVELATIONS, of which Mr. Bagot is so fond, where it is written, in chap. xxii. 18

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book,-if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book!

K

I appeal to those who know the state of the controversy, and the manner in which it has hitherto been carried on, if the results I have here stated would not, in the case supposed, have been fully realized.

But Mr. Bagot has not only come forward as a theologian: he must also try his hand at criticism; and the first-fruits of his efforts are, that the word "FATHER," when applied to the Supreme Being, means Creator. The criticism, however, will scarcely answer his purpose; for there is mention in Scripture of the "God and FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ." You will remember that he has put it to me, to produce Scripture proofs that Christ has a Creator;-proofs which I shall furnish in their due time. Meanwhile, it is manifest, on his own showing, that if there is a God and FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ, there must be one who is his Creator. What opinion Mr. Bagot has formed of the understanding of his auditory, I know not; but I should think myself guilty of not only treating the word of God with disrespect, but your intellects with contempt, if I came forward to tell you that every word of the Lord's Prayer applies to the Lord Jesus Christ. This was a prayer which Christ himself taught his disciples;-this was a prayer which he with his own lips dictated to his disciples, and addressed expressly to the FATHER: and yet Mr. Bagot says, that every word of that prayer applies to himself!

I shall not further follow Mr. Bagot into those criticisms to which he had recourse; for indeed it is unnecessary. You have had different specimens of this sort from him; but I mean not further to expose them. If there be a mind so constituted, as to imagine that Scripture ought to be explained in this way, a way which would make its declarations mean any thing, or nothing,—that mind is of such a nature, that I should address myself to it in vain. With that mind, I have no common principle; and my most strenuous exertions would fail to produce conviction. I hope, however, you do not suppose that I pass over the remarks of Mr. Bagot, because I cannot answer them. I pass them over for a different reason: because I am not afraid of their result on any reflecting mind. And now I turn from criticism, so called; now I turn from explanations of the Lord's Prayer, such as you have heard; and from interpretations which make Christ's words, "if you ask any thing in my name," mean, you shall ask me,"—to the plain teaching of God's word, by which alone this question must be decided. I was quoting some texts, wherein the one God is expressly distinguished from the Lord Jesus Christ, in such a manner, that the alleged Deity of the latter is entirely excluded. In addition to the proofs already brought forward, I shall now refer you to—

ROM. xv. 5, 6. Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another, according to Christ Jesus; that ye may, with one mind and one mouth, glorify GOD, EVEN THE FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I do not care whether you adopt Mr. Bagot's criticism, and call it "God, even the Creator of our Lord Jesus Christ," or allow the

« PreviousContinue »