Page images
PDF
EPUB

rite the attention is fixed on Christ, on the benefits he has communicated, and those, which he offers. Love and gratitude are excited toward their Benefactor; and in the spirit of obedience, they do it in remembrance of Him. Here is a religious service, as solemn as devotional, as interesting as any which is required at their hands, and it is offered to Christ. It is done in remembrance of Him. It is done to the honor of his name; and a greater honor they do not give in any religious service whatever. Do we honor God by sanctifying the Sabbath, by waiting upon him in his court? We honor Christ no less by professing his name, and commemorating his death, his love, and his blessings.

Pagans had long given divine honors to distinguished men. Those, who were renowned in arms, or had done extraordinary things for their nation, were, after their decease, enrolled among the gods, and made the objects of honors, which were not due to created beings. This practice was displeasing in the divine sight. One object of Christ's coming into the world, was to expose the error of idolatry, and to establish the worship of the only living and true God. He knew the proneness of the human heart at that day, to have lords many, and gods many. He knew their eager disposition to catch at every thing, which would encourage them in the deification of departed men of uncommon character, and in the practice of idolatry. With these circumstances in view, suppose Christ was simply a created being, of pure intentions, and designing to establish a religion, which would give all glory to God alone, can it be supposed he would establish a religious rite for the purpose of exalting himself in the affections of mankind; of keeping himself in everlasting remembrance in the church; and denouncing the heaviest punishment, even condemnation upon those, who should not suitably observe his decree, and do honor to his name? Had he adopted this method, what more could his friends have desired to justify

themselves in placing his name among the gods, and of rendering him divine honors? The church generally, ever since the institution of this ordinance, have given divine honors to Christ in its celebration, and if they have, in this respect, fallen into idolatry, it appears that they have been led into this error, by the nature and design of this rite, and by the time and manner of its institution. It is strange indeed, if this boly ordinance, which was designed to be the central, the rallying point, of the church of God, should be the occasion of drawing it principally into idolatry. It is readily admitted, that the holiest things are perverted by the wicked to their destruction. But to suppose as intelligent and as pious part of the world as exists should generally, from the first institution of this ordinance, have given themselves up to idolatry, is a hypothesis too big with absurdity to be believed by those, who would solve every difficulty in our religion by the efforts of reason.

We are aware of the objection made against this sentiment; that the religious service, which is offered to Christ, is given ultimately to the Father; that the Son is an ambassador; that he is respected as such,` but all the honor terminates in God. But this opinion appears very different from the language, which Christ used in the institution of the ordinance; "This do in remembrance of me." If he was only an ambassador, or an inferior agent, this language appears to be entirely inappropriate. It appears that it would be offensive to God. When Moses, at the rock, made an assumption of power, which detracted from the authority of the King of Israel, he felt his sore displeasure, and suffered for his rashness. Shall we offer religious service to Moses, because he was God's messenger to deliver the Hebrews from the land of bondage? Shall we offer religious service to the prophets and apostles, because they were messengers of God for the good of the world, and say, this religious honor terminates in him, who sent them? So

reason the heathen and the papists, when they bow down before beasts and images. But with the light of revelation in our eye, and the second command in our hand, is it possible that we can fall into this gross absurdity? Were there danger that we should love Christ too much, or that we should give him too much honor, would this ordinance have been instituted, which is calculated to excite the devoutest affections of our hearts toward our Redeemer, unless a caution were given to prevent us from holding him in too high estimation; and of rendering him too much of our service. Let us illustrate the case by an example: Suppose a king, whose subjects had been guilty of treason, and had exposed themselves to capital punishment, should select one of his people, who had not fallen into the common transgression, or one from another nation, to be an ambassador to treat with them on the terms of reconciliation between them and their sovereign. After every thing is done on his part to effect his benevolent purpose, the ambassador appoints a certain celebration to be observed from generation to generation, to keep himself in remembrance, for the services he had rendered them. Would he, by this method, give suitable honor to his king, and would not the subjects overlook the sovereign in the more pleasing and interesting view of his agent? Or, suppose the man, who was most prominent in the deliverance of our country from foreign oppression, should, at the declaration of independence, have appointed a day of festivity to be observed for ever, to keep himself in their remembrance, who would not perceive the incongruity? Who would not shudder at the thought that a sight of God should be lost in a view of the man?

When we argue that the honor attached to this ordinance should be given to the Son, we would not be misunderstood. We hold that the Father and Holy Spirit, participate with him the glory of man's redemption.

When we look upon this ordinance, observe its nature, design, and manner of its institution; when we consider the blessings, which are involved in this representation, and the magnitude of the sin of profaning this rite; when we consider, that no duty is more solemn, or momentous than this; that it is required of every believer; that it is a religious service of the highest grade, and that it is offered to Christ; who can withhold the conclusion, that we should honor the Son, even as we honor the Father?*

It is readily admitted that the word worship, the act of kneeling and of falling on the face to the ground, do not designate the degree of respect, which is offered to an object. But as these acts were often used to tender homage to God, it might reasonably be expected that Jesus, if he had been merely a creature, would have cautioned his worshippers lest they should offer him the highest degree of respect. When the people of Lystra would have sacrificed to Paul and Barnabas, they suffered them not; and told them plainly that they were men of like passions with themselves. When Cornelius fell down at Peter's feet and worshipped, "Peter took him up, saying, stand up, I myself also am a man." When St. John fell down to worship at the feet of the angel, who had shewed him many things, the angel said, "see thou do it not." But Christ laid no prohibition upon those who offered him similar expressions of respect. The inference is plain, that there was no danger of their offering him too high a degree of homage

"That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father," John 5:23. It has been attempted to weaken this testimony by improving the transla. tion in this manner; "that all men should honor the Son, because they honor the Father." (See Yates' Vindication of Unitarianism.) This appears to be not only a wrong translation of the particle, ws, but a perversion of the design of the text, The text is the effect, or consequence of the preceding verse. The Father-hath committed all judgment unto the Son, 'wa, to the end that, "all men should honor the Son." "Though 'Iva commonly denotes the end, for which a thing is done, it often signifies the effect, or consequence of an action simply, without expressing the intention of the agent. "Iya sometimes denotes the efficient cause." (Macknight. See Schleus. Lex. on the word.) The end, or consequence of committing all judgment unto the Son is, therefore, that all men should honor him. But according to the proposed translation, the former part of the verse is the consequence of the latter part; the honoring of the Son, is to be the effect, or consequence of honoring the Father. By this construction the force of the particle, 'wa, which connects this with the preceding verse, is entirely destroyed.

Kaws, which stands for even as, in our translation, is compounded of nara & ws. s is often used to denote comparison. "Os is sometimes used affirmatively, and must be translated indeed, truly, certainly, actually. Kara increases the meaning of the word, with which it is compounded." (Macknight.) According to these principles, the particle, xadas, is used to compare the honoring of the Son with the honoring of the Father. The same force, or degree of meaning, which this particle has in relation to the honoring of the Father, the same it has in relation to the honoring of the Son. See the force of Kadas in Mat. 21:6. 26:24. Mark 9:13, and 15:18.

We are not left to the natural explication of particles, and to the homage which Christ received on earth from his disciples, to prove that he is entitled to divine honors, and that he is a proper object of supplication. The scriptures testify that he was invoked; that he was addressed by prayer after he left the world. In addition to the texts, which have been cited already for this purpose, there are others of similar import, which may be adduced, and on which, and on those, which have been already quoted, we would make some critical remarks. Paul, in the beginning of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, says, "Unto the church of God,

which is 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." This phraseology naturally leads to the conclusion that Christians, in the apostles' time, addressed prayers to Jesus Christ. But this conclusion is evaded by an improved version of this, and parallel texts. They are translated passively; viz. called by, or after the name of the Lord. (See the Improved Ver. sion of the N. T.; Yates' Vindication of Unitarianism; Lindsey's Second Address, &c.) To make this translation consist with grammatical principles, it is conceived that the dative, not the accusative case, ought to have been used after the participle. This observation is sanctioned by the authority of the LXX. See Isaiah 43:7. But if this evidence be not sufficient to settle the meaning of the word, its common use by the writers of the New Testament, and by the Septuagint ought to determine whether it is to be taken passively or actively. When the inspired writers and the seventy would convey the idea that any person or thing was called by the name of the Lord, they uniformly used, as far as I have examined, a different phraseology. A translation, which violates the idiom of the original, and is contrary to the usual meaning of words and phrases does not become critical inquirers after truth.

"For this thing I besought the Lord thrice. And he said unto me, my grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength (durauis) is made perfect in weakness; most gladly, therefore, will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power (Juvaμis) of Christ may rest upon me," 2 Cor. 12:8, 9. The latter part of this passage plainly shews that the Lord, whom Paul besought thrice, was Christ. Here we have a pray er offered to him without any objection arising from the passive form of the verb; and it might reasonably be expected without any objections arising from the phraseology, or from the circumstances. But in opposition to this expectation, and to the natural tenor of the passage, as it is admitted by the most candid Unitarians, it is stated that, "St. Paul appears here to have directed his prayer to God, the Father. N. B. The apostles were not so exact in the use of the words, Lord, Savior and the like, which they indifferently gave both to God and to Christ, never supposing that any would mistake their Lord and Master, so lately born and living amongst men, to be the supreme God and object of worship.' (Lindsey's Apology, p. 147.) It is of no use to argue with men on this subject, who accuse the apostles with a disregard to exactness in the application of the names, "Lord, Savior and the like." It is of no use to reason with them upon the doctrines of the Bible, till they are established in the belief of its divine authority; that it was written with exactness.

But when it is admitted that Christ was the object of the apostle's invocation, who can object to offering him prayer? But it is thought "probable, that, when Paul besought him, he was present with the Apostle either in vision, or person. ally." (Yates.) From this supposition it is inferred that it is not proper to address prayer to Christ, unless he be, in some manner, visible. If visibility be a necessary qualification in Christ to be an object of supplication, why is so much labor spent to shew that he did not receive it, and was not entitled to it, when he was visibly present on earth? If visibility be a necessary qualification in a being in order to receive divine worship, then God the Father, is destitute of a necessary qualification.

"And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my Spirit; and he kneeled down and cried with a loud voice, Lord lay not this sin to their charge," Acts 7:59, 60. If ever a man was qualified to make an appropriate prayer, and to direct it to a proper object, it seems that Stephen was qualified. He was full of the Holy Ghost. He was just going to enter the world of spirits. He saw, either ocularly, or mentally, the Son of man on the right hand of God; of course he saw both. In this plenitude of inspiration, in this most solemn and interesting situation, in view of death, of heaven, and of the glory of God, he breathed out his soul in prayer to that Savior, in whose service he had lived; for whose 'cause he was about to die; and who was able to save his soul. It is in vain to urge the peculiar circumstances of Stephen as the principal ground of his petition to Christ. The circumstances of the supplicant make no alteration in the being supplicated. The circumstance of Christ's being seen or unseen makes no alteration in his will or power to hear. He, who knew what was in man, when he was upon earth, is not limited in knowledge now he is in heaven. When he was upon the cross he granted the humble request of a penitent. Now he is upon a throne, he is not less entitled to prayer; nor is he less able to grant requests. It must be, at all times, proper to call upon him, because he is always able to save to the uttermost.

« PreviousContinue »