Page images
PDF
EPUB

FOURTH DAY.

MR. BAGOT.-Before I proceed to answer the remainder of Mr. Porter's arguments, there are a few positive and affirmative positions into which my two propositions may be subdivided; in support of which, I wish to advance, in a summary way, a few positive and affirmative proofs, in addition to what I have already given:

1st, I believe that we ought to address our prayers to the Divine Being; for which I refer to the proofs contained in the following passages: PHIL. iv. 6, 7; 1 TIM. ii. 1, 2, 3; 1 JOHN iii. 22.

2d, I believe that we ought to direct our prayers to the Father, and to worship him as well as the Son; for proof of which I refer to the example of Christ himself, "in the days of his flesh," who frequently prayed to the Father, not only in public, but in private: and also to the examples of the Apostles, recorded in Acrs iv. 24 to 30, &c.

3d, I believe that we ought to pray through Christ, as Mediator; for proof of which I refer to Rom. i. 8, &c.

4th, I believe that Christ, as Mediator, is subordinate to the Father, who sustains the higher office in the mediatorial plan of the Gospel. This is proved by JOHN iii. 35; viii. 26-28; x. 18 and 32; xii. 49, 50; xvii. 7, 8; Acts x. 38; Rom. xv. 6; EPHES. i. 16, 17; iii. 14, 15; HEB. ii. 9; REV. i. 1; ii. 27. You may perceive that Mr. Porter has been acting as an animated Concordance for me, for which I here take the opportunity to return him my best thanks.

Mr. Porter yesterday alluded to two distinct senses, in which the term "worship" is used in Scripture: 1st, as denoting the homage which is paid to God by his creatures; and, 2dly, as denoting that external respect which we pay to a superior fellow-creature. In these I fully concur; and I also agree with him in considering that the instances which he referred to (in GEN. xxiii. 7; xlix. 8; MATT. xviii. 26; LUKE xiv. 10; REV. iii. 7 to 9; are very clear and satisfactory instances of this secondary kind of worship; but I caution him not to use these instances in order to dilute the meaning of the term worship when applied to Christ, because they will equally dilute the meaning of the same terin when applied to the Father. There is no higher Greek word denoting worship than gooxuvew, which is applied to Christ in HEB. i. 6, and elsewhere; and is the same word which Christ himself uses in JOHN iv. 23, 24, to denote the highest kind of worship, "worship in spirit and in truth," which is given to the Father: "The hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers (gooxunral) shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth," (προσκυνήσους, τῷ Πατρὶ).

Now, upon Mr. Porter's principles, he must admit that gooxunGoud, “shall worship," is here used in its highest sense; and I there

fore infer, from the parallelism of the two passages, that it is also used in its highest sense in HEB. i. 6.

Mr. Porter adduced the instance recorded in DAN. ii. 46, of NEBUCHADNEZZAR worshipping DANIEL. I ask him, in reply, does he mean to confront the act of an idolatrous and heathen king with the command of God the Father, in HEB. i. 6, "Let all the angels of God worship Christ"!!!

He also referred to 1 CHRON. xxix. 20, where on DAVID's commanding the people to "bless the Lord their God," it is added, that "the people bowed their heads, and worshipped God and the king.” I ask him, in reply, does he not know that the Jewish government was a theocracy that God was really their king, and that the words, "God and the King," both refer to the one Jehovah ; and this interpretation renders the obedience which the people gave to DAVID'S command commensurate with what he desired them to do. He only desired them "to bless the Lord their God," but said nothing about worshipping himself.

In reply to my argument from the prayers of STEPHEN, recorded in ACTS vii. 59, 60, Mr. Porter argued that Christ was visible to STEPHEN when he presented these prayers to him. I request you, in reply, to look to the passage; and you will find that STEPHEN had seen the vision in the council-hall within the city, and that it was not until they had cast him out of the city (as stated in ver. 58), that he offered up these prayers. But what difference could the fact of STEPHEN'S seeing Christ make? How does Mr. Porter prove that it is no idolatry to offer direct prayer, and ascribe divine power, to a creature, if that creature be only seen at the time? Surely, if it makes any difference, it is this: it renders the idolatry of STEPHEN ten times worse for if he had seen Jesus (a creature on Mr. Porter's principles) standing at the right hand of God, he should not have diverted and turned away his prayers from the Creator to a creature!!

In order to answer my argument from HEB. i. 6,-"When he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him," Mr. Porter has informed us, that Christ is personally present with the angels in heaven; and that, therefore, they may worship him without idolatry. I ask him, in reply to this, Does he mean to argue, upon this principle, that the object of religious worship should be personally absent? If so, let him mark the consequence which follows, viz: the Father is the object of religious worship to the angels in heaven; therefore, according to Mr. Porter's principles, the Father is not in heaven!!

He has also made a strange assertion, that, when Paul prayed to Christ, he had appeared to him, and was personally present and visible to him. I answer, that he cannot prove this, in reference to Christ's humanity; for there is not a single word in the passage which could lead us to draw this inference:-and I should he sorry that Mr. Porter should become obnoxious to the curse of adding to the word of God; and we are told, that the heavens were to receive

the humanity of Christ, "until the times of the restitution of all things." But, if he means that Christ was personally present as to his superior nature, I fully grant it; because, as I believe in his Deity, I believe him to be, in that respect, omnipresent.

Mr. Porter yesterday told us, that " any Unitarian would gladly worship Christ if he was present, just as he said that Stephen and Paul did." I now ask him, is he willing to abide by this declaration? If so, let him worship Christ this instant; for he has said, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am 1 in the midst of them."

Mr. Porter yesterday pledged his character as a scholar, that ACTS ix. 14,-"those that call upon thy name," and 1 COR. i. 2,— "those that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ,"might be translated: "those that are called by the name," &c. I am sorry he would sell his reputation as a scholar at so cheap a price; for he ought to have known, from a mere historical fact, that this interpretation will not answer for ACTS ix. 14; as believers in Christ were not called by his name until some years afterwards, at Antioch, "where the disciples were first called Christians.”

But I still further say, that the structure of the Greek will not admit of the translation which he has proposed. When the verb επικαλεω signifies to be called by the name of, it is construed with the preposition επι, as in Aces xv. 17 : ἐφ' οὓς ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπ' αὐτούς. And I would add, that the verb Taλw, is used in the Septuagint version of GEN. iv. 26, xii. 8, and xiii. 4, in the sense of praying to and worshipping Jehovah. Also, in Rom. x. 12, 13: "For the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him (εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἐπιnaλovμévous avτóv); for whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord (ös av sinaλéçηrα) shall be saved;" (a quotation from JOEL ii. 32, spoken of Jehovah by the prophet, and here applied to Christ by the apostle ;)—and in 1 PET. i. 17, we find the same word applied to the Father, where we read, "If ye call on the Father," &c. (si Πατέρα ἐπικαλεῖσθε).

Mr. Porter yesterday asserted, that Kúgs 'Indo, in the prayer of STEPHEN in ACTS vii. 59, might be translated, "Lord of Jesus." Alas! alas! did he not know that these words must be rendered in apposition to each other, since there is no article dividing them, and that the phrase "Lord of Jesus" should be Kúge Toũ 'Indoữ ! !

He next referred to REV. i. 4, 5, "From him who is, and was, and is to come, and from the seven spirits which are before his throne; and from Jesus Christ, the faithful and true witness ;" and he argued, that the apostle here refers to seven created spirits, and that I might as well argue for their Deity, as for the Deity of Christ on the ground of his being included in the similar benedictions of Paul: but I ask, how did it happen, that he did not at once see that as the Father and Son are here described by a periphrasis, the consistency of the texts requires that the words, the "seven spirits before his throne," should also be regarded as a periphrastical description of a person?-and it

is evident from the context, that this clause is a designation of the Holy Spirit, in allusion to his manifestations to the seven churches.

The number seven is constantly used in Scripture, to denote completeness or perfection; as in JOB v. 19; PSALM xii. 6; PROV. vi. 16: and in the book of the REVELATION the perfection of God's government is denoted by the symbolic agency of seven angels, seven seals, seven plagues, seven phials; and the perfection of Christ's wisdom is described, in REV. v. 6, by the possession of seven horns and seven eyes: therefore, this is just the book in which we naturally expect to find a symbolic designation of the Holy Ghost, as I maintain that the phrase under consideration is.

He next adverted to HEB. i. 8, in which the Father is represented as saying to the Son, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever!" and he stated, that this passage might as well be translated thus: "God is thy throne for ever and ever." I must, therefore, examine this criticism. The passage in the Greek is as follows: IIgòs de Tòv υἱόν ὁ Ἄρονος σου, ὁ Θεὸς, εἰς τὸν ἀιῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος. And I argue against his proposed rendering of it for the following reasons:

(1.) It would destroy altogether the use for which the Apostle made the assertion, or the connexion of the clause with his general argument. His object in the chapter is to show the superiority of Christ to angels. But Mr. Porter's rendering of the text would destroy this object, since God is, in a figurative sense, the foundation of the throne of every one who sits upon a throne. He is the foundation of the thrones, dominions, and principalities in heavenly places, as well as of the mediatorial throne of Christ.

(2.) It is very easy to understand the expressions-"God is a sun" "God is a shield"-or "God is a rock," to which Mr. Porter alluded; but it would be difficult to understand the expression "God is thy throne," without introducing into the passage, some ellipsis to explain it, which we cannot do.

(3.) If this proposed translation be correct, the word govos, as the predicate of the proposition, should more naturally be without the article.

(4.) As the person who sits upon the throne is greater than the throne itself, his proposed rendering of the text would give to Christ all the prominence and superiority over the Father, which would be blasphemous.

So that I ask, on what principle does he argue for this translation? It cannot be by Licentia Poetica: it must be by some new figure of rhetoric of which I am not aware, and which, until he tells me its proper name, I shall designate Licentia Unitariana!!!

But in connexion with HEB. i. 8, he referred to PSALM xlv. which he applied to Solomon; but, I ask, where was his proof for such application? He quoted, indeed, the title of the Psalm, "A Song of Loves;" but did he not know that the titles of the Psalms are no part of the inspired original, and have no authority whatever?

He yesterday alluded to Bishop HORSELY, which led me to imagine that he had read his works; but had he read the Bishop's Sermons on PSALM xlv., he never would have hazarded so gratuitous, so unproved, and so unproveable an opinion as that PSALM xlv. refers to Solomon. Does he not know, that the "testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" Does he not know that David, in spirit, spoke of Christ ?-and has he not read the last verse of this Psalm, "I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations; therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever;" which never could be applied, in any sense, to Solomon? I beg to inform him, that PSALM xlv. refers to the mystical and spiritual union which subsists between Christ and his Church. He referred to the fact of the Queen being spoken of as accompanied by Virgins that be her fellows, as a difficulty in the Psalm; but let me tell him that the Queen is the Church universal, the Virgins that be her fellows are the different denominations of Christians; for there are different denominations and different partitions between the various denominations which constitute the Catholic Church of Christ. It would, indeed, be a glorious state of unanimity, if no such partitions existed, and that the church on earth were even now, what it shall be hereafter, 66 one fold under one shepherd:" but in the meantime, I say to you, my Orthodox Presbyterian fellow-christians-to you, my fellow-christians of the Covenanting Synod-of the Secession Church -of the Methodist, and Quaker Connexion, and of the Independent denomination, let us now congratulate one and other that the partition walls that divide us are not so high, but that we can even stretch our arms across them, and extend the right hand of Christian fellowship, to those from whom we are thus for a time divided!!

Mr. Porter yesterday argued, that rore Torayhotra, in 1 COR. xv. 28, should be rendered, "then shall the Son be MADE subject." Surely this implies, if it implies any thing, that he is not now subject!!! But I beg to refer him to the difference between the active and passive voices of this verb, which is proved in this very passage, where both occur. υποτασσω is to arrange under; υποτάσσομαι, in the passive, is to be arranged under, or to be subject; and it cannot mean to be MADE subject, unless by superadding a passive signification to the passive!

He argued that the title of "Son of God" implies that Christ is inferior to God. If so, his title, "Son of man," implies that he is inferior to man. Hence Mr. Porter must be something lower than a Humanitarian!!!!

He argued that the subjection of Christ to the Father implied inferiority of nature. If so, he must have been inferior in nature to Joseph and Mary, because he went down to Nazareth, and was subject unto them!!!!

He argued that he that is sent must be necessarily inferior in nature to him that sent him! I beg to say, that the fact is quite the reverse;

« PreviousContinue »