66

than I." When Mr. Porter quoted the latter clause of the text, he omitted altogether the former clause, "If ye love me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto my Father ;" and by doing so, he left an impression upon the meeting, that the clause, "My Father is greater than I," is the primary and prominent sentence in the text; whereas, it is evident from its being connected with the preceding part of the verse by the word "for," (which is a small word of three letters, the grammatical use of which is, to marry one part of a sentence to another,) that it is a subordinate part of the passage, the meaning of which is qualified by the words which go before. I shall now explain the passage upon this principle: and, first, I request you to observe, that Christ does not say, My Father was greater than 1," in reference to his pre-existent glory; nor, "My Father will be greater than I," in reference to the glory which he was to resume after his exaltation: but he uses a style of expression which shows, that he refers to the present time,―to the time of his humiliation in the flesh. The Apostles had been expressing regret at the announcement of his immediate departure, and this passage contains a soft rebuke of the selfishness of their feelings. We may paraphrase it thus: "If ye really loved me on my own account-if the regard and affection you profess to entertain, were purely disinterested in its nature; so far from evincing sorrow at the prospect of my departure, you would rejoice that I shall leave this state of temporary degradation, that I shall cease to be the man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, and that I shall resume that original and essential glory which I enjoyed with the Father from eternity. For, as long as I continue in my present state of humiliation, my Father is greater in glory than I; but when the days of my flesh shall terminate, I shall then be glorified with the Father's own self, with that glory which I had with him before the world was created." This is obviously the correct paraphrase of the passage; for no other interpretation of the words, "For my Father is greater than I," could justify or attach any force to the interesting appeal which the Saviour makes to the love and affection of his disciples. This text, therefore, when rightly understood, affords no objection against the Deity of the Saviour; but refers only to that temporary condition, during the continuance of which, he made himself of no reputation."

MR. PORTER.-Mr. Bagot has told us, that the term "infinite,” as applied to the works of creation, is a term of quantity; and that the same term, as applied to the power exerted in creation, is a term of quality. I beg therefore to ask him, if, when applied to power, it be a term of quality, what is the particular description or quality of power which it denotes? Does it denote moral power, or physical power, or metaphysical? Or, if none of these, what other sort or classification of power ?

MR. BAGOT.-I consider that I have explained myself in a sufficiently satisfactory manner to the meeting. I will not be drawn into any metaphysical subtleties or disquisitions. I look upon the subject of our discussion to be simply a question of fact, to be established by the production of testimony.

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; I 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 ACTS 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.

In

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. 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 term 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 (gooxuvnral) shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth," (προσκυνήσουςι τῷ Πατρὶ).

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

σουσι,

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 be 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 I 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."

el

But I still further say, that the structure of the Greek will not admit of the translation which he has proposed. When the verb EXEC 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 Taλew, 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 aúróv); for whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord (ös av Eixaλésηrai) 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. (i Πατέρα ἐπικαλεῖσθε).

Mr. Porter yesterday asserted, that Kugs 'Indou, in the prayer of STEPHEN in Acтs 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 Kuge roữ '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 peripbrastical 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: Igos 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 Sgovos, 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?