Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

Bagot lays so much stress. Strange that the only correct phraseo. logy for describing the most important and fundamental doctrine of the Bible, should be found but in one solitary context, from GENESIS to REVELATION! Strange that the Sacred Writers knew so little about the language which they ought to employ, for expressing their own doctrines, or, rather, the heaven-taught doctrines which they were commissioned to record! Pity that some champion of modern orthodoxy had not been at their elbow as they wrote, to correct the inaccuracies of their style, and to instruct them in the phraseology which it was proper to employ !

On this passage of Scripture, however, now before us, it is worthy of remark, that several learned men have been of opinion, that by the "Word," we are not here to understand the person of Christ, but the wisdom of God which dwelt in him.

-in

But, leaving this observation out of view altogether, and allowing the common translation to stand unaltered, the phrase, "The Word was God," no more proves his Supreme Deity than the language, "This is my body, this is my blood," proves the doctrine of Transubstantiation and as all Protestants think themselves justified in explaining the latter phrase to mean, "This represents my body and my blood," because the sense of the passage and the nature of things require it; so are we bound to explain the last clause of this 1st verse of John in a similar sense, if we would avoid fastening on them a contradiction and an absurdity. Let it be observed, that although the same word, God, occurs twice in this verse, the phrase is not the same in the original. In the first instance, the noun has the emphatic article which limits its signification, so that it can denote no other than the Supreme Being. In the latter instance, it stands alone; and, of course, may be construed in a wider sense-a sense similar to that in which it is so often applied to Judges, Prophets, and Magistrates ;—as in Exod. vii. 1, where it is given to Moses; in Exod. xxi. 6, where, in the original, it is given to the ordinary civil Judges; in 1 SAM. ii. 25, "If one man sin against another, the Judge (Heb. the God) shall judge him;" 1 SAM. xxviii. 13, "I saw Gods (literally, a god) coming up out of the earth." It is freely allowed, that in all these instances the context and circumstances of the case sufficiently show that the Supreme Deity is not meant and the same, I do contend, is the case in the verse before us; for when it is affirmed in the clause preceding, that the Word was with the true God,-and the same declaration is repeated in the clause which follows,-how can we, without violating the first principles of criticism, for one moment imagine, that the Word is the same God with whom he is?-the more especially, when the suppression of the article in the second clause manifestly marks the transition from the particular to the more general signification of the term God! And this conclusion is rendered still more imperative when we read, in the 3d verse, that the creation effected by Christ (whether moral or material, is nothing to the purpose) was effected by him as an instrument in the hands of the Most High; for here, as elsewhere, and in all the passages where creation is ascribed to Christ, it is said to have been effected by him, i. e. through or by means of

him; such being the proper meaning of the phrase, dia with a genitive, not

6.

I know it will be said, as it has been said, in opposition to this view of JOHN i. 1, that it is incorrect to argue for any distinction between the meaning of the word God in the two clauses, founded on the absence of the article in the second instance; since, in the latter clause, the term occurs in the predicate of a proposition, of which the subject has the article; and, therefore, as we are told, according to the Greek idiom, does not admit of its insertion. To show, however, that the Greek language does admit of the construction in question, I adduce the following passage from the writings of EUSEBIUS, a Greek himself, who spoke the Greek language vernacularly, and wrote for those who spoke it-who was a man of high rank in the court and confidence of the Emperor Constantine, and was also Bishop of Nicomedia; one of the prelates who sat at the Council of Nice, and one of the most learned of all the ancient Fathers. This eminent individual says, upon the passage now before us: "The Evangelist clearly indicates the nature of the Word, by subjoining nai Beds nv • Aóyos, [and the Word was a god,] although he might have said, xai o Oeds v ỏ Aóyos, [and the Word was the God,] with the addition of the article, [before sós, in the Greek,] if he had thought that the Father and the Son are one and the same, and that the Son is God over all."

Such is the opinion of the learned EUSEBIUS. Let those who think Bishop MIDDLETON a better Greek scholar, adhere to his authority!

Another text on which Mr. Bagot seemed to lay considerable stress, is JER. xxiii. 5, 6, where he says our Lord is called, "Jehovah our righteousness;" and this being a divine title, our Saviour must be God. Grant the inference; and turn to JER. Xxxiii. 16, where we read : "In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." Here, then, if there be any soundness in Mr. Bagot's logic in the former case, the city of Jerusalem is proved to be the Supreme Being.

And here I cannot help recalling to your minds Mr. Bagot's declaration, that on this principle he would be ready to maintain the proper Deity of ISAIAH and of PETER, if he found the same terms were applied to them in common with God, as he thinks is the case with respect to Christ and the Father. Now I hold him to the spirit of this declaration; and I do so the more readily, because it will serve to show the force and cogency of those ingenious inferences which have been so much relied on in this discussion.

In the passage from Isaiah which I read to you a few minutes since, we find (ver. 4) that it was Isaiah who spoke to Ahaz. But in a subsequent verse (10), it appears that it must have been God himself who uttered the words; for we read there, that "JEHOVAH spake yet again to Ahaz," clearly implying that it was he who had spoken before. Here then the performance of the same act is ascribed to Isaiah and to Jehovah; consequently, on Mr. Bagot's principle, ISAIAH IS JEHOVAH! and he is bound to maintain his proper Deity!

You will remember that Mr. Bagot, after showing that the term Saviour is applied to Christ in Scripture, referred to Isa. xliii. 11, "I am the Lord, and beside me there is no Saviour." The inference, —or deduction,-or conclusion is, that Christ is Jehovah : of course he has a proper Deity. But in NEHEM. ix. 27, we read—

And in the time of their trouble, when they (the children of Israel) cried unto thee, thou heardest them from heaven; and, according to thy manifold mercies, thou gavest them SAVIOURS, who saved them out of the hand of their enemies.

If there be any force or cogency in the former argument, all the persons who were SAVIOURS to the children of Israel, must have been divine incarnations, and each possessed of a proper Deity of his own!

Again, in GEN. xlviii. 21, Joseph says, "GOD will bring you out of this land.”—But in Exod. xxxii. 7, "The LORD said unto Moses, Go! get thee down! for thy people which THOU broughtest out of the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves." The same work is thus ascribed to Moses and to God; and therefore MOSES is perfect God and perfect man.

The same inference follows much more strongly from Exod. xv. 26;-a passage which, I fearlessly assert, is more conclusive of the DIVINITY OF MOSES, than any that has been adduced in proof of the proper Deity of the Word:

And HE [i. e. MOSES] SAID, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I AM THE LORD THY GOD! ̧

Had such a declaration as this proceeded from the lips of Christ, how convincing a proof of his Supreme Deity it would have been held to be! Again we read in—

MATT. xix. 4, 5. He who made them in the beginning, made them male and female; and said, "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh."

"He who made them in the beginning" undoubtedly was God; and to him most distinctly is the sentiment ascribed by our Saviour. But we find in

GEN. ii. 23, 24. And Adam said, * Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh. In this passage, the words are with equal distinctness attributed to Adam. Hence, by this "syllogism," as Mr. Bagot would call it, ADAM is identified with THE SUPREME BEING! I leave it to yourselves to decide, whether this argument does not prove the proper Deity of Adam, as forcibly as many of those passages adduced by Mr. Bagot prove the proper Deity of the Word.

In EXOD. iii. 14, God said unto Moses, "I AM THAT I AM!" and in 1 COR. XV. 10, the Apostle Paul says of himself, "By the grace of God, I AM THAT I AM." Thus the same thing is asserted of Paul, which is elsewhere spoken of Deity; the clear inference being, that he is God, if Mr. Bagot's mode of making out doctrines be correct.

"All power is given unto me," says Christ; and this we are required to receive as a proof of his omnipotence. "I can do all things through

Christ which strengtheneth me," says St. Paul, in PHIL. iv. 13;a manifest confirmation of the former argument.

"THOU KNOWEST ALL THINGS: thou knowest that 1 love thee!" said Peter to our Saviour; thus, as Mr. Bagot tells us, ascribing to him omniscience. And the Apostle John says, in his general Epistle to all Christians, "Ye have an unction from the Holy One, AND KNOW ALL THINGS" (1 JOHN ii. 20); so that all the members of the Church of Christ in the time of the Apostle, were incarnations of the Deity.

Christ will judge the world: therefore, says Mr. Bagot, he is God. But the twelve Apostles are to judge the twelve tribes of Israel, according to our Saviour's own words in MATT. xix. 28. And the Apostle Paul declares, with express reference to the Church at Corinth, "The saints shall judge the world:" therefore they have also a proper Deity of their own!

Thus by Mr. Bagot's sublime logic, we find that the city of Jerusalem is God,-and Adam is God,-and Moses is God, and the Prophet Isaiah is God, and the many Saviours of the people of Israel are God, and the twelve Apostles are God, and the members of the Church at Corinth are God,-and all the Christians in the days of the Apostle John are God! Mr. Bagot will, no doubt, be greatly obliged to me, for supplying whatever desire he might feel for additional persons in the Godhead. If I have not found out the two whom he named in that capacity, I have discovered one of them; and I hope he will allow, that I have done my best to furnish him with a respectable number of substitutes for the other. Let Mr. Bagot go on let him produce some more of his wire-drawn inferences; increase the number of these most logical deductions ad infinitum; and then either admit, that all the persons referred to have each a proper Deity of his own ;-or else have the openness and manliness to avow, that all his scriptural allusions, and inferences, and fine-spun deductions, are but empty, flimsy sophisms,—NOT WORTH

A RUSH!

MR. BAGOT.-I wish to put to Mr. Porter two questions.

MR. PORTER.—The rules only allow the privilege of asking one, and I will answer no more.

MR. BAGOT.-Then I will propose my two questions in the form of one.

MR. PORTER.—If so, I shall answer only one of them.

MR. BAGOT.-I wish to ask Mr. Porter, whether I did not yesterday, at the close of the meeting, offer him a list of all the texts quoted in my address, which he declined?

MR. PORTER.-Most unquestionably you did and I declined your offer, simply because it would have taken all the time between the close of yesterday's proceedings, and the commencement of today's, to hunt out and compare so many references; even without deducting any portion for sleep, and other necessary refreshment.

MR. BAGOT.-You may have them still, if you please.
MR. PORTER.—I thank you; but I can do without them.

THIRD DAY.

MR. PORTER.-My friends, such of you as were present yesterday, will recollect that I brought forward several texts, embodying the main points of the Scripture doctrine of religious worship.

The first class of texts to which I adverted, as supporting my views on the subject, were those in which GOD, THE FATHER, is represented by Jesus Christ as the only object of religious adoration.

After adducing a number of examples containing the express declarations of our Saviour to this effect, I next adverted to a class of passages which proved that our Saviour addressed his own prayers to God, the Father, only.

From the influence which the precept and example of Christ ought always to have upon every person who is a member of his church, and professes to be his disciple, I argued that we are also bound to address our worship to God, the Father, only; since we overstep his express command, and go beyond his repeated and intelligible example, when we offer up prayers to any other person or being than God, the Father. When we do so, we deviate from our adherence to that authority with which, as Christians, we are bound to comply. Upon these two classes of texts, therefore, I might rest the whole of my argument relative to the proper object of religious worship under the Christian dispensation. I am quite sure, that, to any well-regulated mind, the reasons already adduced would be decisive on the subject. If men were not unfortunately under the influence of feelings imbibed in early education; if they were not imbued from their childhood with prejudices and prepossessions which have grown with their growth, and strengthened with their strength, until they have become part and parcel of their mental constitution; if it were not that, in many cases, they regard those opinions which they have long cherished as so sacred and venerable, that even to question them, and to bring them to the test of the declarations of Scripture, is often contemplated as something that is impious and awful;-I am satisfied, that the express teaching of Christ-the doctrine of our Lord and Saviour, sanctioned by his uniform example, would be, as it ought to be, decisive on the point.

But I have not yet done with my argument on this part of the subject. It is now my duty to lay before you a number of texts which will show what was the influence of Christ's language and uniform example upon those persons with whom that teaching and example would carry the most religious weight. I allude to his own immediate disciples, who were inspired by the Spirit of God; and who were raised up and qualified for the situation of teachers and expounders of that Gospel which Christ came to promulgate. I shall now, therefore, advert to a number of-

N

« ForrigeFortsæt »