Page images
PDF
EPUB

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

66

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

words to stand as they are: there is a plain distinction between "God" and our Saviour, to the entire exclusion of the latter from Deity. Again I shall refer you to—

2 COR. i. 3.

Blessed be God, EVEN THE FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort.

And 2 Cor. xi. 31. The GOD AND FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

These sentiments are mine. I bow my knee, with the Apostle, to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I own, with the Apostle, that he had a God and Father. I believe the express testimony of Scripture on the subject. I receive it in its plain, simple, obvious sense and meaning. I leave it to others who believe in creeds, to puzzle themselves with essences, subsistences, hypostases, and plurality of persons, distinctions, or somewhats! My creed requires no such aids. It is that indicated by the Scripture phraseology

in

EPH. i. 3. Blessed be the GOD AND FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ.

And in EPH. i. 17. [In my prayers] that THE GOD of our Lord Jesus Christ, the FATHER OF GLORY, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him.

Surely no distinction can be more marked in itself, or more consistently preserved, than that which these passages make, between our Lord Jesus Christ, and that Supreme Being who is called his "GOD," and his "FATHER." To the same effect is

COL. i. 3. We give thanks to God, even THE FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you.

Where it is to be observed, that instead of "even," the received version reads "and:"-to give a plausible ground for prayer to the Trinity. But this makes perfect nonsense of the passage. I say, this makes nonsense of the passage; for suppose the term God to mean the three persons of the Trinity, the verse will read thus: "We give thanks to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost,— AND TO THE FATHER!-which would be absurd.

1 PET. i. 3. Blessed be THE GOD AND FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to his abundant mercy, hath begotten us again unto a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

1 THESS. i. 3. Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope, in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of GOD, EVEN OUR FATHER.

These last two texts plainly show, that the distinction between Christ and God, which it was my object to prove, is carefully preserved by the Sacred Writers.

1 THESS. i. 9, 10.** Ye turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God; and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, who delivered us from the wrath to come.

I shall now turn your attention to—

SOME PASSAGES IN WHICH CHRIST TEACHES THAT GOD THE FATHER IS THE ONLY OBJECT OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP.

MATT. vi. 16. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify YOUR FATHER who is in heaven.

MATT. vi. 8. YOUR FATHER knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask him.

I also refer to that prayer, commonly called the Lord's Prayer, (MATT. vi. 9, &c.) which, I do think, is an address to "THE FATHER" exclusively, notwithstanding the authority of Mr. Bagot's assertion to the contrary. Again we read in

MATT. vii. 11. If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall YOUR HEAVENLY FATHER give good things unto them that ask him?

Here it is plainly taken for granted, that OUR HEAVENLY FATHER is the person to whom prayer ought to be addressed. I do not agree with Mr. Bagot, that the word Father is equivalent to Creator. If indeed that criticism be admitted, it would be destructive to his own theory.

The same principle, that the Father alone is the object of religious worship, is assumed in

MARK Xi. 25, 26. When ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any; that YOUR FATHER who is in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses.

Our Lord does not say, Forgive your brethren, that "GOD THE FATHER, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost," may forgive you your trespasses; but "THE FATHER"-"your Father who is in heaven." The Father, therefore, is the object of worship. To the same conclusion we are led by

LUKE xi. 1, 2. As he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. And he said unto them, "When ye pray, say, OUR FATHER WHO ART IN HEAVEN!" This is the same mode of address which occurs in the Lord's prayer, but taught on another occasion; for it appears from the circumstances related in the context, that this could not be the form delivered in connexion with the Sermon on the Mount. This prayer sanctions the principle which I before laid down, that, according to our Saviour's instruction, prayer is to be addressed specifically to the Father. This was the form which our Saviour taught, “OUR FATHER who art in heaven;" but who, I would ask, taught that form of prayer which is offered up by orthodox congregations, and which forms a part of established Liturgies; and which is addressed to "God the Son," and "God the Holy Ghost," and to "the glorious Trinity, three persons and one God?" Who taught it I know not; but I am sure it was never taught by our Lord Jesus Christ.

JOHN XV. 16. I have chosen you, ** that whatsoever ye shall ask THE FATHER in my name, he may give it you.

[ocr errors]

I presume this passage sufficiently explains the text upon which Mr. Bagot laid so much stress, If ye ask any thing in my name, I will give it you." If Scripture be explained by Scripture, and pas

sage by passage, those places in which ambiguities may be found by those which are direct and plain, all difficulties will vanish. Here THE FATHER is to be asked, because he alone can grant.

I shall even refer to the 26th verse of this chapter, the same which Mr. Bagot quoted:

JOHN xvi. 26. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you: for the Father himself loveth you. I find I made a mistake in the reference, this not being the text to which Mr. Bagot adverted; but it is as express as the other: it tells against his own cause, and overturns the argument built on those texts which he delivered yesterday with such rapid volubility; for it shows that the Father, not Christ, is the being to whom petitions are to be addressed. Farther

CHRIST HIMSELF ADDRESSED PRAYER TO THE FATHER, AND TO THE FATHER ONLY.

And this, it must be allowed, is a circumstance which bears directly on the question at issue between us. Hitherto I have been strengthening Mr. Bagot's first proposition against himself; but I now proceed to draw the net a little closer around him, by bringing in those proofs which will plainly and directly establish my own second proposition. And I have indeed done so in some degree already, by the distinction which I have shown to exist in the language of Scripture, between God and our Saviour; but the texts to which I now refer, will establish the point even more directly.

JOHN xi. 41, 42. Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, Father! I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people who stand by, I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.

Can words be more express? Can these words be reconciled with the opinion which makes Christ himself the hearer of prayer, and the person who is alone able to grant petitions? If Christ were God, why should he pray at all? It will be said, as has been said, that Christ had no need of praying for himself, and that he did so only as an example to others; but that assertion is dishonourable to Christ. It would make his example to be the example of hypocrisy. I do not believe that such a charge lies against our Saviour; for I am sure that our Lord never prayed but in spirit and in truth, and for blessings actually desired. Our Lord declares to his disciples

in

JOHN xiv. 16. I will pray THE FATHER, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever.

These words represent the Father as the being to whom our Lord addressed prayer, and looked for blessings.

JOHN Xvii. 1. These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, FATHER! the hour is come: glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee!

JOHN xvii. 5. And now, O FATHER! glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

« PreviousContinue »