Chapter 11.

CHAPTER 11.

That Divine worship has been, is, and must be paid to him.

1. IN two passages quoted from the 19th and 22d chapter of the Revelation by St. John, at the conclusion of the last chapter, we saw a glorious angel absolutely refusing to be worshipped. “I fell down at his feet to worship him, and he said to me, See thou do it not, I am thy fellow servant.” And again: “I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel,—and he said, See thou do it not, for I am thy fellow servant; worship God.” Instances of a similar kind occur in divers parts of Scripture. Thus, Acts 10:25, 26,” As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him: but Peter took him up, saying, Stand up, I myself also am a man.” And again, chap. 14, when the inhabitants of Lystra were about to offer sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas, “they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, Sirs, why do ye those things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you, that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, who made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein.”

2. Well did these holy men and holy angels understand that Jehovah alone is the proper object of religious worship, according to what is repeatedly commanded in the Holy Scriptures. As, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” Exodus 20:3. “Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord,” Deuteronomy 6:4. “Thou shalt fear Jehovah thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name. Ye shall not go after other gods, (for the Lord thy God is a jealous God among you,) lest the anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth,” ver. 13. Again: “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God: him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name. He is thy praise, and he is thy God,” Deuteronomy 10:20. To these and such like passages, the Lord Jesus undoubtedly referred, when he said, “It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve,” Matthew 4:10.

3. Now, notwithstanding this, it is certain, first, that the same God who gave the above precepts concerning the proper objects of Divine worship, hath commanded his Son to be worshipped: secondly, that he hath accordingly been worshipped, and that both before and after his incarnation, both while he was on earth, and after his ascension into heaven; and, thirdly, that not one instance can be produced in which he hath ever refused the worship addressed to him.

First, God hath commanded him to be worshipped: as by David in the 45th Psalm: “He is thy Lord, and worship thou him.” “Worship him all ye gods,” Psalm 117: or as it is expressed, “when he bringeth his first begotten into the world, he saith, Let all the angels of God worship him,” Hebrews 1:6. But this is still more clearly and fully declared by our Lord himself, John 5:19, in a passage which is the more remarkable, as it contains an answer to the Jews, who, the historian tells us, “sought the more to kill our Lord, because he had not only broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his own (idion, proper) Father, making himself equal with God.” Even to them upon such an occasion as this, among other things, Jesus said, “What things soever the Father doth, these doth the Son likewise. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will: for the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son; that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father: he that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father who hath sent him.” See also to the same purpose, Philippians 2:9-11, compared with Romans 14:11.

4. Now that this was a proper religious worship and honour, which was commanded to be given to the Son of God, is plain, secondly, from this consideration,—that such a worship and honour was actually paid to him by those who undoubtedly understood the meaning of the Divine command. This appears from innumerable passages, both of the Old Testament and the New. It has been proved, that all the appearances of God made in days of old to the patriarchs and prophets, were made in his person, “no man ever having seen the Father at any time.” Now, it is certain, they all worshipped the person that appeared to them. Jacob worshipped him at Bethel, “Jehovah is in this place, (said he,) and I knew it not. And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven. And he took the stone which he had put for his pillow, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it: [an act this of religious worship.] And he called the name of that place Bethel, [that is, the house of God.] And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me and keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father’s house in peace,—then shall the Lord be my God, and this stone which I have set up for a pillar, shall be God’s house: and of all that thou shalt give me, I will surely give the tenth unto thee,” Genesis 28:12-19. Here again, in this prayer and vow, and promise, is every mark of religious worship. In like manner, he worshipped him at Peniel. For he “said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me,” Genesis 32:25; which certainly implied prayer, with faith in his power, and love, and faithfulness. Moses worshipped him at the bush, and put off the shoes from off his feet, in token of his respect for the very place where so glorious a person had manifested his presence, hiding his face also in sign of the holy shame and confusion he felt. Isaiah worshipped him, (compare Isaiah 6:5, with John 12:13,) and said, “Wo is me, for I am undone, because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips, for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.” Nay, and what is more, he assures us, he saw and heard the seraphim also worshipping him, and crying one to another,” Holy, holy, holy, is Jehovah of hosts, the whole earth is full of his glory!”

5. And as Divine worship was paid to him before his incarnation, when he appeared as the angel, or envoy Jehovah, or the “angel of God’s presence,” in whom his name, that is, his nature, is, so also, after his manifestation in the flesh, when he was God-man. Many instances of this occur in the Gospels: as, “Jesus heard that they had cast him out, [viz. the blind man, whom he had restored to sight,] and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? And he answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe, and he worshipped him,” John 9:35. Now this act of worship was grounded on his faith in the Lord Jesus as the Son of God, the promised Messiah, and was attended with a confession of it; and, therefore, must imply more than such homage and respect as may be paid to men of high rank and character. It must imply religious worship, in which grateful and devout affections, to the benevolent author of so great a mercy as he had received, were felt in his heart, and manifested by the prostration of his body at the feet of Jesus. This appears from the case of the lame man healed at the beautiful gate of the temple, who, though suddenly and wonderfully restored by Peter and John, and full of joy and gratitude for so extraordinary a deliverance, yet did not attempt to worship them on the account. The reason of this plainly was, he knew Peter and John were but mere men, and had not healed him by their own power or holiness, having heard them say, “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.” Hence though, no doubt, he was thankful to them as the instruments of the cure, and, in token of this, held them, (as we are told,) yet knowing that they were not the proper authors thereof, instead of worshipping them, the sacred historian informs us, he praised God.

6. Nor is that the only instance of Christ’s being worshipped because of his mighty works. Many more occur in the history the evangelists have given us of his life. Thus, “When the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with the waves, the wind being contrary, in the fourth watch of the night, Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer, it is I, be not afraid. And when they [viz. Christ and Peter] were come into the ship, the wind ceased. Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God,” Matthew 14:22, 23. It seems, from these instances, that their ideas of the Son of God, or true Messiah, included something Divine, as immediately upon their discovering that Jesus was he, they worshipped him.

7. Sometimes he was worshipped by those that applied to him before the cure was wrought, as by the ruler, “who came and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is now dead; but come and lay thine hand on her, and she shall live,” Matthew 9:18. And by the woman of Canaan, who “came and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me,” Matthew 15:25. And, methinks, when it is considered that these outward acts of prostration of the body were accompanied with petitions for that help which God alone can afford, it can hardly be doubted whether they implied proper religious worship: “Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David,” verse 22, “Lord, help me,” verse 25, “Lord, save me!” Matthew 14:30. But if this be doubted, surely, when there arose “a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves, and the disciples came to him and said, Lord, save us, we perish, and he arose, and rebuked the wind and the sea, and there was a great calm;” surely (I say) on this occasion, prayer was addressed to him for such deliverance as God alone can give. And, as the persons who applied to him, by making such a request, manifested that they believed our Lord to be more than a mere man; so by his granting their request, he gave full proof that he was indeed the God of nature as well as grace, having sovereign power even over the winds and the waves, the most unruly of all the elements.

8. But whether these be acknowledged to be instances of proper prayer, addressed to Christ while on earth or not, certainly that recorded Luke 17:5, must be allowed to be such. “Take heed, said Jesus, to yourselves: if thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times a day, and seven times in a day turn again unto thee, saying, I repent, thou shalt forgive him.” The apostles, struck with the propriety and importance of this precept, and convinced of their own inability to observe it, without more grace, and especially more faith, immediately say to the Lord Jesus, “Lord, increase our faith.” And the Lord, not in the least offended with them, nor rebuking them for addressing such a prayer unto him, replied, “If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea, and it would obey you.”

9. And if his disciples worshipped him, and called upon his name, while he was on earth, in his state of humiliation, they did this much more after his resurrection from the dead, and ascension into heaven, when he entered into his state of exaltation. Of this we have abundant proof, both in the Acts of the Apostles and in the epistles. I shall refer to particular passages, when I have just mentioned the instances, recorded by St. Matthew and St. Luke, which occurred between his resurrection and ascension. “As they went, (says the former of these evangelists,) Jesus met them, saying, All hail! And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.” And again: “When they saw him, they worshipped him,” Matthew 27:9-17. To the same purpose, St. Luke 24:50, “He led them out as far as Bethany, and lift up his hands and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them and carried up into heaven, and they (wroskunhsantev auton, having worshipped, or rather) worshipping him, returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple blessing and praising God.” They worshipped him, therefore, after his resurrection, before and at his ascension; and that they continued so to do, appears beyond a doubt, from the proofs now to be produced.

10. The passage quoted above from the ninth chapter of the Acts is full to this purpose: “Lord, said Ananias, I have heard by many of this man [Saul] how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem; and here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call upon thy name,” touv epikaloumenouv to onoma sou. And lest we should suppose that it was the practice of only a part of the first Christians to call on the name of the Lord Jesus, or that they did this only in some particular places, we find this same person who had persecuted and destroyed those that called on the name of Jesus, describing all real Christians every where by this title in the beginning of his first Epistle to the Corinthians; and distinguishing them hereby from all other people. For he inscribes his epistle unto “the Church of God at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that, in every place, call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.” From these passages it appears plain, beyond contradiction or dispute, that in the first and purest ages of the Church it was the practice of all who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ to “call upon his name.”

11. And that proper invocation or prayer is meant in these passages, appears so manifestly upon the very face of them, that it would be idle to spend time in endeavouring to prove it. However, if any doubt it, let them turn to the tenth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, where the very same phrase, both in the original and in our translation, necessarily signifies invocation or prayer as proper to God. “There is no difference between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him, epikaloumenouv auton: for whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” This last clause, it is well known, is a quotation from the prophecy of Joel: and there it is indisputably spoken of Jehovah, the only living and true God, and yet it is here manifestly applied to the Lord Jesus Christ. For the words immediately preceding are, “The Scripture saith, [viz. Isaiah 28:16,] Whosoever believeth on him [Christ] shall not be ashamed.” And the words following, “How, then, shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the Gospel. For Isaiah saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So, then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” So that this passage proves, to a demonstration, three things: it proves, first, that the phrase, “calling upon the name of the Lord,” means proper invocation or prayer. It proves, secondly, that the Lord Jesus may, and must be thus called upon by all that believe in him and would not be ashamed, by all who desire and expect salvation; and if compared with Joel, it proves, thirdly, that this Lord Jesus is Jehovah, Jehovah being the word used, and Jehovah the person spoken of by that prophet.

12. And as it is plain, from these passages, that prayer was addressed to the Lord Jesus by the primitive Christians in the first and purest ages of the Church, according to the prediction of David, “Prayer shall be made unto him, and daily shall he be praised,” Psalm 72:15; so if we come to particulars, we shall find several individuals, whose example, in this instance, we need not fear imitating, actually and repeatedly praying to him. The case of Stephen, recorded Acts 7:59, is well known, and has occasioned infinite trouble to the Socinian party. They have been forced, at last, to this strange and weak subterfuge,—that, however Stephen might be justified in praying to the Lord Jesus when visible at the right hand of God, we cannot be justified in praying to him, who do not see him, and, therefore, cannot be sure that he is present with us, or hears our prayers.

13. Accordingly, Dr. Priestley tells us, in his History of Corruptions, (p. 141,) “It is something extraordinary that the Socinians in Poland thought it their duty, as Christians, and indeed, essential to Christianity, to pray to Jesus Christ, notwithstanding they believed him to be a mere man, whose presence with them, and whose knowledge of their situation, they could not, therefore, be assured of; and though they had no authority whatever in the Scriptures for so doing, nor, indeed, in the practice of the primitive Church, till near the time of the council of Nice.” How far the doctor is right in these plain and peremptory affirmations, that there is “no authority whatever in the Scriptures” for praying to Jesus Christ, “nor in the practice of the primitive Church, till the time of the council of Nice,” the testimonies now adduced sufficiently show: but with regard to the Socinians of Poland, or any others, “thinking it their duty, as Christians, and indeed, essential to Christianity, to pray to him, notwithstanding they believed him to be a mere man, whose presence with them, and knowledge of their situation, they could not, therefore, be assured of,”—it surely is, as he says, something extraordinary. The case, however, is plainly this: notwithstanding the erroneous opinion they had entertained concerning his mere humanity, and the prejudice they therefore must have been under against addressing prayer to him, as “not being assured,” as the doctor has it, “of his presence with them, or his knowledge of their situation;” yet the evidence was so strong from the Scriptures, and the earliest accounts we have of the primitive Church, that the apostles, evangelists, and first Christians prayed to him, that they could not but think it their duty, as Christians, to pray to him also, and that it was even essential to Christianity so to do.

14. But to return:—Instead of arguing, as Dr. Priestley, Mr. Lindsey, and others of the present Socinian writers do, that Stephen’s worshipping Christ when he saw him, and was in immediate danger of death, or rather, was actually dying by the hands of his enemies, does not authorize those to do it who see him not, and are in no such danger; I should incline to draw a directly opposite conclusion from the fact: I should say, if Stephen, full of the Holy Ghost, and under the immediate, clearest, and fullest vision of Christ’s true character, and real state, dignity, and glory, saw it proper to pray to him, and say, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit;” then, as we may be perfectly sure that Stephen in these circumstances could not be mistaken, it must be right and proper for all men to pray to him. And if Stephen, in the most critical and dangerous situation a mortal can be in, surrounded with enemies, visible and invisible, and in the most awful moment of his life, on the very verge of death and eternity, offered to Jesus the most important petition that ever came from the lips of any creature, and committed even his immortal spirit into his hands, in full assurance of his taking charge of it, then we may safely pray to him on any occasion, and for any blessing that we want whatsoever, persuaded there is nothing that he cannot and will not do. And perhaps I may add a third observation:—If Stephen, being full of the Holy Ghost, and looking steadfastly into heaven, not only saw the “heavens opened, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,” but saw also “the glory of God,” viz. the Father; yet, in this full vision of the Father and the Son, did not immediately address the Father, but the Son, on this most critical and important occasion,—then surely we are authorized, at least sometimes, to do the same, and to direct our prayers immediately to the Son, and only remotely to the Father.

15. And here I beg leave to observe, that the Socnian practice of addressing the Father immediately, without the mediation of his Son, and discarding the atonement, intercession, and whole mediatorial office of the Lord Jesus, as it is in direct opposition to the general tenor of the oracles of God, and the practice of the apostles and first Christians, so it appears from the plain, express declarations of our Lord, that it is, at best, lost labour. For the Lord Jesus has positively affirmed, “that no man cometh unto the Father but by him.” Add to this, that the apostles and primitive Christians seem manifestly to have considered the Father as being in the Son, and the Son in the Father, in such a sense, that, when they prayed to the one Divine and sacred person, they prayed to the other also. When they prayed to the Father, they considered him as in the Son, and only to be approached through the Son; and when they addressed their prayers to the Son, they did not consider him as divided from the Father, but beheld the Father in him, and him in the Father, by an indissoluble and eternal union. Nor did they consider Christ, in his mediatorial character, as the ultimate object of their prayers and praises, and other acts of worship, but viewed them as terminating in the Father, and ultimately redounding to his glory. See, to this purpose, John 12:44, 45; Philippians 1:11; 1 Peter 1:21. And, I trust, we consider these things in the same light. So that the Socinians, or Unitarians (as they rather choose to call themselves) need be under no apprehension that we are robbing God, the Father, of his honour; for as “Christ is his,” (as the apostle tells us, 1 Corinthians 3:23,) his Truth, his Wisdom, his Son, his Image, and neither is, nor can be, separated from him, being (as Philo says of the Logos) watrov oikov w diaitatai, the Father’s house in which he dwells; and as he is constituted by the Father both Lord and Christ, Acts 2:36, so all the honours which we pay to him, we pay not only on account of his own personal dignity, and with a view to his own particular glory, but also in obedience to the Father’s command, and with a view to his honour and glory, in whose honour and glory they ultimately terminate. Indeed, the great danger, in this affair, seems to be the separating the one Divine subsistence from the other, and the opposing the one to the other, as though they had distinct wills and different interests. Were we to divide the Son from the Father, and consider him as a separate being, and worship him as such, then, indeed, we should worship another God. Or were we to oppose him to the Father, and view him as having an interest, or honour, or will of his own, distinct from, and unconnected with the interest, honour, and will of his Father, in that case, also, we should have another object of supreme adoration. But inasmuch as we firmly believe our Lord’s declaration, “I and my Father are one;” inasmuch as we consider them as having but one interest, one honour, one will, and as being indissolubly and eternally united; so we believe when we honour the Son we honour the Father, and when we honour the Father we honour the Son: for we honour the Son in obedience to the Father, and as the Son of the Father, and behold the name, nature, and authority of the Father in him: and we honour the Father as the Father of this Son, view him as dwelling in the Son, and approach him through the Son.

16. But to return:—As Stephen prayed to the Lord Jesus, and committed his departing spirit to his care, as the man Christ, in similar language, had commended his into the hands of his Father; so St. Paul assures us he “besought him thrice,” that the “thorn of the flesh, the messenger of Satan,” sent to “buffet him, might depart from him,” see 2 Corinthians 12:7-9. For that the Lord Jesus is the person meant here is plain, from the answer given by the Lord to this importunate and repeated prayer, and from the apostle’s resolution upon it. And he (the same Lord to whom he prayed) said unto me, “My grace is sufficient for thee: my strength [h dunamiv, my power] is made perfect in weakness: most gladly, therefore, will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ, h dunamiv tou Cristou, [the very same word] may rest upon me.” Now who does not see that the Lord, to whom he prayed, and who answered him, and said, “My grace is sufficient for thee, my power is perfected [or perfectly displayed] in weakness,” is Christ, whose power rested upon the apostle, and was gloriously manifested, both in supporting him under all his infirmities, afflictions, and persecutions, and in rendering these things, which appeared to be for the hinderance of the Gospel, subservient to its greater progress?

17. And, indeed, nothing can be clearer than that, throughout all his epistles, St. Paul considered Christ as a person in whom “all fulness dwells,” and, therefore, looked up to him, as well as to the Father, in and through him, both for success in his labours, and for grace to be conferred upon himself and upon all the Churches to which he ministered. Hence it is that he begins almost all his epistles with such expressions as the following: “Grace to you, and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ,” Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2; and concludes them with, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all,” Romans 16:24; Philippians 4:23; 2 Thessalonians 3:18; or, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you,” 1 Corinthians 16:23; or, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit,” Galatians 6:18; or, “The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit,” 2 Timothy 4:22: all which expressions are proper prayers, and certainly imply that the Lord Jesus is more than a mere man, yea, than a creature; otherwise whatever grace he might have himself, he could have none to spare for others.

18. Add to this, that in the Epistles to the Thessalonians, we find this same apostle addressing two set, solemn, and formal prayers to the Lord Jesus, together with the Father. “Now God himself,” (says he, first 1 Thessalonians 3:11-13,) “even our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you, and the Lord [viz. Christ] make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you; to the end that he [Christ] may establish your hearts un-blameable in holiness before God, even our Father.” And, in the second epistle, 2 Thessalonians 2:16, 17, we read, “Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts, and establish you in every good word and work.” Doubtless Dr. Priestley had overlooked these passages, when he carefully searched the New Testament, and found, upon the most accurate examination, that the Socinians in Poland “had no authority whatever in the Scriptures, nor, indeed, in the practice of the primitive Church, till after the council of Nice, for praying to the Lord Jesus.”

19. Or, perhaps, as he thinks St. Paul to be an “inconclusive reasoner,” he may not consider his epistles to be a part of what he calls “the Scriptures.” And inasmuch as it is plain St. Paul worshipped the Lord Jesus, and the doctor is sure it is idolatry to worship him, he must judge that, though an apostle, he could be no member of the true primitive Church. So that his example is set aside, together with his doctrine, and, according to the doctor, there is no authority in either that can justify so vile a practice as that of worshipping Christ. As to the other apostles, as the doctor has “often avowed himself not to be a believer in their inspiration as writers,” I presume he can hardly think their writings to be sacred Scripture any more than St. Paul’s. So that with him the Scriptures must lie in a little compass, the whole New Testament, at least, being discarded. And as to the Old, it would seem, from what he says of the books of Moses, (the foundation of all the others,) that he has not a much higher opinion of it. For he tells us, “he thinks himself at liberty to consider the history which Moses has given us of the creation and fall of man as the best he could collect from tradition;” and adds, “In my opinion, also, there are many marks of its being a lame account; and far from solving the difficulty which it seems intended to answer, namely, the introduction of death and calamity into the world.” The authority, therefore, of neither Testament can be great with the doctor, to justify any doctrine or practice whatever, which does not suit his preconceived notions.

20. But to return:—It deserves to be inquired by those who deny the divinity of Christ, how a mere man, or mere creature, could use the following and such like expressions; and whether such expressions do not fully authorize prayer to be addressed to him? “Come unto me, ye that are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest. If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink: he that believeth on me, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldst have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water: whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again; but whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him, shall never thirst: but the water that I shall give him, shall be in him a well of water, springing up to everlasting life. To him that overcometh, will I give to eat of the tree of life in the midst of the paradise of God. Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life. To him that overcometh, will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth, saving he that receiveth it.” It seems to me if such declarations, invitations, and promises as these, do not encourage and authorize us to pray to the Lord Jesus for such blessings of grace and glory as we want, and he, the faithful and true Witness, so solemnly and repeatedly testifies he can and will give to all that properly apply to him for them, there are no passages in Scripture that encourage or authorize us to pray even to the Father: for there neither are, nor can be, passages more express and full than these are. But if these and such like passages do authorize and encourage us to apply to the Lord Jesus in prayer, then why does Dr. Priestley, and other Socinians, take upon them to forbid us to do so? And how will they answer it to him who says, “If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

21. As we have clearly seen that prayer has been, and is to be, made to the Lord Jesus, so we shall see that praise has been, is, and ought to be addressed to him. And this certainly is another act of proper, religious worship. St. Peter, in his two short epistles, furnishes us with a full proof that this is to be offered to the Son as well as to the Father. For he concludes his first epistle with ascribing it to the Father, and his second epistle with ascribing it to the Son, in language of exactly the same import. Speaking of the Father as “the God of all grace, who hath called us to his own eternal glory by Christ Jesus,” he says, “To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever! Amen!” And speaking of the Son, in whose grace, and in the knowledge of whom he exhorts us to grow, he says, “To him, be glory now and for ever! Amen!” Similar to this is the language of St. John, “Unto him that hath loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever!” Revelation 1:5, 6. And well might St. John ascribe glory to his Lord; for he had seen him worshipped, and had heard glory ascribed to him by angels and archangels, and all the company of heaven. Thus, “And I beheld, and heard the voice of many angels round about the throne, and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, saying, with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven and on earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I, saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever,” Revelation 5:11-14.

22. Now let it be observed, that prayer and praise imply every other act of worship, whether internal or external. Prayer, when it is sincere, necessarily implies desire, confidence, and hope; and praise implies gratitude and love. If, therefore, prayer is to be addressed to the Lord Jesus, this implies that our desire is to be to him, our confidence in him, and our expectation from him, for such blessings as we stand in need of’. And if praise is to be offered to him, this signifies that he is to be the great object of our love and gratitude. Accordingly, we find this was the case with the apostles and primitive Christians: their desire was directed unto the Lord Jesus, and their confidence and hope were placed in him, for the greatest of all blessings, even for eternal salvation: and he, in union with his Father, was the great object of their unlimited gratitude and love. If I were to quote all the scriptures that would be to my purpose, I might transcribe a great part of the New Testament. The epistles of St. Paul, especially, abound with instances of it. A few passages of Holy Writ I shall produce as specimens of the rest:—”Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation; he that believeth shall not make haste,” Isaiah 28:16. “Whosoever believeth in him shall not be ashamed,” Romans 10:11. “He that believeth in him shall not be confounded,” 1 Peter 2:6. “Ye believe in God, believe also in me,” John 14:1. “There shall arise a root of Jesse, and he that shall arise to reign over the Gentiles, in him shall the Gentiles trust,” Romans 15:12. “That we should be to the praise of his glory who first trusted in Christ, in whom ye also trusted,” Ephesians 1:12, 13. “Jesus Christ, our hope,” 1 Timothy 1:1. “Christ in you, the hope of glory,” Colossians 1:27. “I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry,” 1 Timothy 1:12. “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee. Grace be with all those that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity,” Ephesians 6:24. “If any man love not the Lord Jesus, let him be anathema, maranatha,” 1 Corinthians 16:22.

23. Now all these, and such like passages, show that the Lord Jesus was worshipped, and that in the highest sense, viz. in spirit and in truth, and with the best and purest worship, the worship of the heart. They show that he was the object of the religious confidence and hope, gratitude and love of his ancient servants, and that in an unlimited degree, which surely no mere creature ever was, or could be. And as a fruit of this, their whole life was dedicated to him: “the love of Christ constrained them, so that they lived not unto themselves, but unto him that died for them, and rose again,” 2 Corinthians 5:14, 15. Yea, “none of them lived to himself, and none of them died to himself, but whether they lived, they lived unto the Lord, [Christ,] or whether they died, they died unto the Lord. Living or dying, therefore, they were the Lord’s.” Considering themselves as his servants, Philippians 1:1; James 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1, they were wholly devoted to do his will, and promote his glory, not “accounting their lives dear unto themselves, so that they might finish their course with joy, and Christ might be magnified by their bodies, whether by life or death.”

24. “Had we, then, hitherto doubted whether Jesus Christ would have men regard him as God, we could doubt of it no more, when we see him permitting and requiring men to worship him. If he be God by nature, he has reason to claim adoration; but if he be not, we cannot pay it him without a kind of sacrilege. Certainly, were all the rest supportable, this could not be borne or excused in any wise: for a creature to make himself equal with the Most High, not by words only, but actions too.

25. “It is pretended, indeed, that there are two sorts of worship: a subaltern, or inferior kind, which may be paid to creatures; and a supreme, which can be paid to the supreme God only. But this avails nothing: for, first, we see that Christ laid claim to the highest adoration, and would have us to do for him what was never done but for the Most High. We ought to give our hearts to God, to love him above all, and it is to God alone that we owe this: but we owe it to Jesus Christ. We ought to love him above what we love most, even our life. ‘If any man hate not his own life (saith he) for my sake, he is not worthy of me.’ We owe to God, not the sacrifice of bullocks and lambs, but the sacrifice of our blood, and of our life; a spiritual sacrifice, worthy of a religion, and a covenant, more perfect than that of the law. But Jesus Christ requires us to pay him this; which was never done for any but God. It is, therefore, every way plain, that he would have us worship him as (in union with the Father) the most high God.

26. “That inferior or subaltern kind of [religious] worship, of which some love to speak, was not known either by our lawgiver, or the prophets, or Christ himself, or his apostles, or the holy angels.

“Two considerations show that this subaltern worship was not known to the lawgiver. The first is, that he forbids, in general, all worship but that of the supreme God. Now this he would not have done, if there had been a sort of subaltern [religious] worship, which was still lawful; lest he should lay a snare for men, by so ambiguous an expression as would naturally entangle them in error. He would not have forbidden us, in general, to worship any but God; but to worship any other with supreme worship. The second is, that the lawgiver manifestly designed to stop the course of heathen idolatry. Now, the idolatry of the heathens properly lay in paying this subaltern worship to many gods: for they also, generally, as well as the Jews, acknowledged one Supreme Being.

27. “I say, in the second place, that the prophets knew nothing of this subaltern worship: for they had no example of it before their eyes. They had never heard it spoken of. They never mentioned it themselves. They scoff at those subaltern gods of the heathens, as not being able to comprehend how they could regard or worship, as gods, any other being than Him who governs the world, and who created heaven and earth. But this they certainly could not have done, had they known that there was, or would be, in the fulness of time, a subaltern and dependent God, who ought to be worshipped, though he did not make or govern the world.

28. “Thirdly, the apostles knew nothing of this distinction between supreme and subaltern worship. They thought that all, even outward worship, paid to a creature, was an injury to the Creator. When Cornelius fell down at Peter’s feet, he did not take him for God. He knew him well to be but a man: this, therefore, could be but a subaltern worship. Yet, as even this outward worship was an action, consecrated by custom, to denote the honour paid to the Supreme Being, St. Peter could not suffer that to be done to him, which ought to be done to God only. ‘Arise, (said he,) I also am a man:’ giving us hereby two invincible proofs, that it is in no case lawful to worship any other than the supreme God. The first, that St. Peter condemns this action from a concern for the glory of God: whence it appears, that subordinate worship, as well as all other, paid to any but God, is contrary to his glory. The second, inasmuch as it appears from hence, that whoever is by nature a mere man, has no right to any worship at all, supreme or subaltern.

29. “In the fourth place, the angels know nothing of this subaltern worship: otherwise, this angel, who spake to St. John, would not so earnestly have rejected that which the apostle was willing to pay him. St. John did not take him for God; for he had just been saying, ‘The Lord God of the holy prophets hath sent his angel to show his servants the things which must be shortly.’ St. John, therefore, would have worshipped him because he was aft angel of God, not because he thought he was God himself. But this angel, who made none of these distinctions, said to him, ‘Worship God;’ showing, in the plainest manner, that worship, of whatsoever sort, must be paid to God alone.” (Abbadie abridged.)

30. The reader will pardon my subjoining another short extract here. “It is something surprising, that when this religion, with this duty (worshipping Christ) in it as a part of it, was first published in Judea, the Jews, though implacably set against it, yet never accused it of idolatry: though that charge, of all others, had served their purpose the best, who intended to blacken and blast it. Nothing would have been so well heard, and so easily apprehended, as a just prejudice against it, as this. The argument would have appeared as strong as it was plain: and as the Jews could not be ignorant of the acts of the Christian worship, when so many fell back to them from it, who were offended at other parts of it; so they had the books, in which it was contained, in their hands. Notwithstanding all which, we have all possible reason to believe, that this objection against it was never made by any of them in the first ages of Christianity.

31. “The silence of the apostles, in not mentioning nor answering any such objection, is a plain proof of the silence of the Jews on this head: for it would indeed disparage all their writings, if we could think, that while they mentioned and answered the other prejudices of the Jews, which, in comparison of this, are small and inconsiderable matters, they passed over this, which must have been the greatest and plausiblest of them all, if it was one at all. Therefore, as the silence of the apostles is a clear proof of the silence of the Jews, and since their silence could neither flow from their ignorance, nor their undervaluing of this religion, it seems to be certain that the first opening of the Christian doctrine did not carry any thing in it that could be called the worshipping of a creature. For it is not to be imagined, that they would have been silent on this head, if a creature, a mere man, had been thus proposed among the Christians as the object of Divine worship.

32. “As it follows, from hence, that the Jews must have understood this part of our religion in such a manner as agreed with their former ideas, so we must examine these. Now they had this settled among them: that God dwelt in the cloud of glory, and that, by virtue of that inhabitation, Divine worship was paid to God as dwelling in the cloud; that it was called ‘God, God’s throne, his holiness, his face, and the light of his countenance.’ They went up to the temple to worship God, as dwelling there bodily; that is, substantially—so bodily sometimes signifies—or in corporeal appearance. This seems to have been a person that was truly God, and yet was distinct from the Father; for this seems to be the import of these words: ‘Behold, I send an angel before thee to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee to the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice. Provoke him not, for he will not pardon your transgressions; for my name is in him.’ These words do plainly import a person to whom they belong; and yet they are a pitch far above the angelical dignity. So that angel must here be understood in a large sense, for one sent of God; and can admit of no sense so proper as that the eternal Word, which dwelt afterward in the man Christ Jesus, dwelt in that cloud of glory. It was also one of the prophecies received by the Jews, ‘That the glory of the second temple was to exceed the glory of the first.’ The chief character of the glory of the first, was that inhabitation of the Divine presence among them. From hence it follows, that such an inhabitation of God in a creature, by which that creature was not only called God, but that adoration was due to it upon that account, was a notion that could not have scandalized the Jews, and was indeed the only notion that agreed with their former ideas, and that could have been received by them without difficulty or opposition. This is a strong inducement to believe that this great article of our religion was, at that time, delivered and understood in that sense.” (Burnet on the Articles.)