No. 200.]

For the Christian Observer. CURSORY REMARKS ON UNITARIANISM, AND THE ARGUMENTS BY WHICH IT IS USUALLY SUPPORTED.

A

(Continued from p.423.)

No. VIII. NECESSARY consequence of Divine attributes belonging to our Saviour is, that he is, in his Divine nature, a proper object of religious worship. On this subject Mr. Wright has some just preliminary observations. I fully agree with him, that "religious worship is due to the Supreme Being only. His claim to it is founded on his underived, independent, absolute power and dominion. To pay religious worship to a subordinate being is to rob God of his right." To which he adds: "Many Christians pray to three distinct persons; but, to justify their practice, they ought to prove that there is more than one person in the universe who is absolutely supreme. They pray to Christ; but, to shew the propriety of doing so, they ought to prove that he is the Supreme Being, that is, that his power and authority are underived, that he exists and possesses absolute infinite perfection, independently, in and of himself." True; and this required proof, as it relates to the independent existence of the Father, Son, and Spirit, constituting One eternal Deity, and the consequent absolute infinite perfection of every -Person therein, we think is abundantly supplied to us in the inspired

volume.

Mr.Wright, however, has, further on in his work, a long chapter on CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 200.

t

religious worship; the object of which is to prove, that it is not due to Christ.

"The question," he remarks, "is not, whether there be not a sense in which Christ is to be worshipped; for this is fully admitted; and we learn from the Scriptures that, in a certain sense, David and Daniel were worshipped. Christ, as the true Messiah, the Head of the gospel dispensation, the appointed Lord of Christians, is to be reverenced, honoured, submitted to, and obeyed: and this is all that is meant by the word worship in various parts of the sacred writings; hence it is said, Let all the angels (that is, messengers) of God worship him. They are all commanded to revere and submit to him, to act by commission from and obey him, under the dispensation of the Gospel. But the question is, whether Christians do right in praying to Christ?" -To determine this question, our author begins by shewing, that the word worship is used by our translators in other senses besides that of the religious adoration which is exclusively due to the Almighty. (See also pp. 484, 485.) This I concede, though I cannot perceive how the obsolete sense of an English word is to elucidate a scriptural doctrine to those who have access to the original language. Even the act of worship, which is properly a religious act, was performed with less scruple under the Old dispensation, before the coming of our Saviour; which accounts for Daniel receiving it from Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. ii. 6.), though it was refused to Haman by Mordecai (Esther iii. 2.) But under the New dispensation

3 S

greater caution is observed both in the use of the word appropriated to that act, and in the act itself; thus it is written (Heb. i. 6), "When he bringeth in the First-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him!" The English word, worship, is manifestly improper in Luke xiv. 10, where the Greek is doga, not προσκύνησις. But in the first instance adduced by Mr. Wright himself of religious worship offer ed to a man in the New Testament, a declaration is made, that it was not to be received by one who was no more than a man. "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" (Acts x. 25, 26.) The holy indignation with which Paul and Barnabas rejected religious worship, when offered to them, is well known; and two instances occur in the book of Revelations to the same effect (Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 9, 9.) But though Saint John, in these portions of his Revelations, bears testimony to the maxim, that none were to be worshipped except God, tre yet informs us (Rev. v. 13.) that "every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, ascribe blessing and honour, and glory and power, unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb (that is, unto Jesus Christ) for ever and ever: and this information is repeated in almost every vision of that book. Nay, this honour, which angels refused in Ireaven, our Lord did not reject when he was upon earth, but, on the contrary, having met with a blind man, whom he had restored to sight, said to him, "Dost thou believe on the Son of God? 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 be that talketh with thee: and he said, Lord, I believe; and he wor

shipped him." Nor is it any wonder that he should have accepted this homage; for "it pleased the Father, that in him should all fulness dwell" (Col. i. 19.) He was of one substance with the Father, and could not therefore put off the glory which inseparably accompanies Deity. Before he appeared in the flesh," he was in the form of God" (Phil. ii. 6); and accordingly, even when he was upon earth, "in him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (Col. ii. 9.) The only question is, whether the worship, which was thus accepted by Christ, is the same that is due to the Father, and was refused by the disciples: and of this we can only judge by the original words employed. Now the verb, porʊVÉW, which is the only word used in the New Testament to signify true religious worship, is found in more than fifty places; and in all of them is applied either expressly to God or to Jesus Christ, or to Satan, as claiming divine worship; or to the disciples, who disclaim it; or to idols instead of God; or lastly, in a parable, to the adoration paid by a slave to his master, where also that master represents, in the parable, either God the Father or the Son. Such worship, indeed, however wrong, was paid of old to kings and potentates, especially in absolute monarchies; which practice gives a propriety to the image, while yet the circumstance of its being due to God alone adds force to its application. I do not see, therefore, how in candour it can be denied, that the word signifies strictly religious worship, or how consequently it can be denied, that religious worship was paid to Christ, and accepted by him in the New Testament. He is even commanded to be worshipped, and that by angels, who accept no worship themselves; and the acts of worship, which are performed to him in the Revelations, are accompanied with such language as it would be blasphemous to address to him

were he less than God. Nay, how can it be argued that such worship was not even enjoined by himself, when he said (John v. 23.) "that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father;" which is a distinct and posi tive claim even to that very honour which is paid to the Father himself, and which all created intelligences disclaim?

But our author afterwards limits bis inquiry concerning religious worship to the single article of prayer and certainly it must be granted that no being to whom we may not address ourselves in prayer, can be properly an object of religious worship. With this admis sion, I proceed to consider in detail the summary arguments which are brought forward in this volume, to prove that Christians greatly err in addressing their devotional exercises to the Lord Jesus Christ. They are as follow:

"Those who continue in the practice of praying to Christ, never attempt to prove that he command ed it. They cannot produce a single direction given by the Apostles respecting such a practice. They cannot find a single precedent in the New Testament to justify their praying to him. On the contrary, all the commands and directions of

the Lord Jesus and his Apostles, as well as their example, and every thing recorded of their prayers, prove,

that the one God and Father is the only proper object of relie gious worship, as will be shewn more fully in another section: consequently, the practice of praying to Christ, which is so common among modern Christians, is totally without warrant from the Scriptures.

"The single case of the martyr Stephen is the only thing that can be alleged as a precedent for praying to Christ; and that case, when duly examined, will be found not at all to the purpose. Stephen had a vision of the Lord Jesus. He said, Behold, I see the heavens the heavens opened, and the Son of man stand,

ing on the right hand of God! In such circumstances, it was natural for him to call upon the name of Christ, and, as he believed that he was appointed to raise the dead, to commend his spirit to him. If other persons were in the same circumstances, they might with propriety act in the same manner; but this can be no rule for the regular performance of our devotional exercises. It may be alleged, that Christians are said to call upon the name of Jesus Christ. That this does not relate to their praying to Christ, is evident from the directions given, and every thing we read coucerning the prayers of the faithful, in the New Testament. It may mean, that they prayed in his name, on the ground of what God had revealed and communicated by him; but I rather suppose it relates to their having taken his name upon them, and to their being called Christians after him.

"From the general practice of many Christians, it might be supposed Jesus had commanded his disciples to ask every thing of him; but so far from this being the case, referring to the time when he should be raised from the dead and exalted, he said in that day ye shall ask me nothing. (John xvi, 23.) To pray is to ask, and instead of directing them to pray to him, he taught them not to ask any thing of him, but to request every thing of the Father in his name; it follows, that those who pray to Christ act contrary to his express direction to his disciples: surely it must be more consistent, and more safe, to follow his directions than to act in opposition to them."

The different objections urged in this extract against the practice of praying to Christ, naturally arrange themselves under four heads; of which the first, and the most formidable, is the alleged prohibition of our Lord himself.

The passage, supposed to convey this prohibition, is rightly translated" In that day ye shall ask

O woman, great is thy faith. Be it unto thee even as thou wilt." (Matt. xv. 22. 25. 28.) These, indeed, may possibly be regarded not as spiritual prayers, or prayer for spiritual blessings. But our Lord's practice, through the whole course of his ministry, was to teach heavenly things by earthly. He taught the doctrine of justification by faith, by suspending recovery from sickness on the same condition with justification from sin; and thus, even in his manner of healing the body, foreshewed the yet undiscovered method of the soul's salvation, leaving it to his Apostles to make known more perfectly what he had but partially revealed. Nevertheless he did not quit the world without once vouchsafing an answer to truly spiritual prayer. One of the malefactors "said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me, when thou comest into thy kingdom! And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke xxiii. 42, 43.) ·

Our author, thirdly, presses us with the want of apostolical direction to countenance our practice. The Apostles indeed did not begin their work of conversion by directing prayer to be offered to Christ. It would have been preposterous to do so. But they proved him to be "God over all, blessed for ever,' which necessarily rendered him an object of prayer. They represented him as the Giver of grace; and to whom should we pray for grace, but to him who gives it? Accordingly, to him they virtually direct us to pray, when they use that solemn benediction-" The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with you all!" (2 Cor. xiii. 14.) ["Grace be unto you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ!" (Phil. i. 2.) Prayer is still more plainly directed in 2 Tim. ii. 19. - Αποστήτω ἀπὸ ἀδικίας πᾶς ὁ ὀνομάζων τὸ ὄνομα Χριστοῦ. "] But,

in fact, when once the points abovementioned were established, the invocation of Christ, which was practised even by the believing Jews before his coming, of which many of the Psalms furnish examples, required no specific recommendation. It was self-justified and selfrecommended.

Still it might appear that the duty of praying to Christ would need other support, if the fourth assertion of our author regarding it, that not a single precedent for the exercise of it is to be discovered in the New Testament, were founded strictly in fact. The Apostles indisputably have not left forms of prayer, or many instances of prayers behind them. But still it might be expected, that if it be right to pray to the Lord Jesus Christ, something like a prayer to him would occasionally introduce itself even spontaneously into their writings, and of this we have numerous examples. The first occurs in Acts i. 24, 25. “Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship." I consider this as an unequivocal prayer to Christ, be cause it related to the election of an Apostle, and all the other Apostles were elected by the Lord Jesus Christ himself, and by him only. The second is that of Stephen, of which, however, the author says; "That case, when duly examined, will be found not at all to the purpose. Stephen had a vision of the Lord Jesus. He said, Behold I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God! In such circumstances, it was natural for him to call upon the name of Christ, and, as he believed that he was appointed to raise the dead, to commend his spirit to him. If other persons were in the same circumstances, they might with propriety act in the same manner; but this can be no rule for the regular performance of our devotional exercises.” Again ;