vasion of the prerogative of the Supreme Being. The character which Paul gives of the heathen, is, εδούλευσατε τοις μη φύσει ουσι θεοις ; and Christians, says one Father, return to heathenism, ty xtiel ouvavanÀLEXOVTEÇ τον φύσει Θεον. "Either, therefore," says another, "let the Arians cease to worship him whom they call a creature, or cease to call him a creature whom they worship, lest, under the name of worship, they be found to commit sacrilege."

Such is the state of the argument upon both sides, in the Arian controversy with regard to the worship of Christ. I have now to direct your attention to the form which this subject has assumed in the Socinian controversy.

When Socinus, about the end of the sixteenth century, revived that opinion which had been broached by a few individuals in the first century, that Christ was a mere man, he did not so far depart from the practice of the Christian church as to deny that Christ ought to be worshipped. But having represented the title of Christ to worship, as founded upon that universal dominion with which he was invested after the resurrection, Socinus endeavoured to show, that there is no instance in Scripture of our Saviour's being worshipped prior to his resurrection, and that all the instances of worship paid to him posterior to that period have a reference to the glory and power to which he was then exalted in consequence of the actions which he had done upon earth; and he maintained that, independently of any positive precept, the kingdom which our Lord received, and the authority which he continues to exercise in relation to us, create an obligation upon Christians to worship him. Several of those, who held the same opinion with Socinus concerning the person of Christ, did not agree with him in this speculation. They contended that if Christ be merely a man he never can be entitled to any other kind of honour than that which is due to human excellence, and that no degree of exaltation is a sufficient warrant to his disciples for ascribing to him that worship which belongs to God. Socinus did not perceive or did not choose to admit that this was a consequence which flowed from his principles. There is extant in his works a dispute between him and Franciscus Davides upon this subject. The dispute ended, like most others, without changing the opinion of either of the parties: Socinus continued to inveigh against those who refused to worship Christ; and he gave his consent that Franciscus Davides should be suspended from his public ministry, merely for his teaching that Christ ought not to be worshipped.

But there is so manifest a repugnancy between the worship of Christ and the pure principles of Socinianism, that it was impossible for any authority to preserve this branch of the practice of Socinus amongst those who received and followed out his system. Accordingly, Dr. Priestley, Mr. Lindsey, and all the Socinians of the last century, who call themselves Unitarians, have openly disclaimed the worship of Christ. While they profess the highest veneration for the name of Socinus, they consider his zeal for defending the worship of Christ, as either an accommodation to established opinion, which he judged prudent at the first introduction of his system, or as a degree of prejudice and weakness of which even his mind was unable to divest itself: and they remove what they call an imperfection which

adhered to the first sketch of the Socinian doctrine, by avowing as their principle, that religious worship is to be offered to one God the Father only, as his incommunicable honour and prerogative. Their chief objections to the liturgy of the church of England amount to this, that it contains prayers addressed to Jesus Christ; and their practice in their meetings is to avoid every form of words which seems to imply that he is an object of worship.

The arguments by which the modern Unitarians vindicate this practice, appear to derive considerable advantage from the different acceptations of яgosxwe, the word which, both in the Septuagint and in the New Testament, is translated worship. It sometimes marks adoration, and sometimes nothing more than that prostration of the body which was common in eastern countries upon the appearance of a superior. It is used in this last sense by Herodotus,* and even in the Old Testament. Thus, 1 Chron. xxix. 20, we read, "that all the congregation bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord and the king, i. e. they bowed their bodies in testimony of reverence both for the God and the king of Israel. Nay, in one of our Lord's parables, Matt. xviii. 26, it is said, that the servant falling down before his Master, " ACOGERUVEL AUTO." But the advantage which the Unitarians derive from this ambiguous use of the Greek word is more apparent than real. For besides that circumstances will almost always clearly indicate whether the action marked by яçox expresses, in that case, religious homage, or merely the highest degree of civil respect, we derive our warrant for worshipping Christ not simply from the application of that word, but from a variety of acts which, although they are by no means implied in the literal sense of reoxvvεw, go to make up the general notion of worship, and in which there is nothing equivocal. We say that there are in Scripture many instances of praise, thanksgiving, and prayer, being addressed to Jesus, all of which imply a conviction in the worshippers that his knowledge and power are not limited, and that he is every where present: and from these instances, taken in conjunction with the command to honour him even as we honour the Father,t and with the revelation of the glory of his character, and his relation to us, we infer that it is not only lawful, but proper for Christians to worship him.

The Unitarians endeavour to invalidate this conclusion by a laboured attempt to explain the Scriptures in a consistency with their own system. They say, that the thanksgivings which we quote are mere effusions of gratitude; that the prayers are only wishes; that the invocation of Stephen in the book of Acts, and the doxologies in the book of the Revelation were addressed to Jesus when he was present, and do not warrant us to pray to him or praise him when he is absent. It is impossible to enter into the detail of their criticisms. But if you take the instances of worship being paid to Jesus, which Dr. Clarke has very fairly collected in his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, and read at the same time the commentaries upon these texts, which Mr. Lindsey has inserted in the sequel to his Apology, and in a separate dissertation upon this subject, you will have an excellent specimen of that kind of Scripture criticism which the Socinians are

* Herod. Polym. 136.

† John v. 23.

often obliged to employ in defence of different parts of their system, and which, in giving a sense of Scripture far from being obvious, requires such an expense of ingenuity as has always appeared to me to be of itself a sufficient proof that their opinions are not founded in Scripture.

The controversy between the Athanasians, the Arians, and the Socinians, upon the points of which we have been speaking, may be thus shortly stated. The Athanasian syllogism is, none but God ought to be worshipped: Jesus Christ is worshipped in Scripture; therefore he is God. The Arian syllogism is, supreme worship is due to God, but inferior worship may be paid to a creature: It is only inferior worship that is paid to Jesus Christ in Scripture; therefore, although he be worshipped, he is a creature. The Socinian syllogism is, none but God ought to be worshipped: Christ is not God; therefore all the passages of Scripture, which seem to ascribe worship to him, are to be explained in such a sense as to be consistent with this conclusion. The Socinians adopt the major proposition of the Athanasian syllogism, that Christ is not to be worshipped. The Arians deny it.

The manner in which the Arians attempt to evade the force of the major proposition is by a distinction which, we say, has no foundation in Scripture. The manner in which the Socinians attempt to evade the force of the minor proposition is by a kind of criticism which, we say, does violence to Scripture. If it shall appear to you, upon examining the subject, that we are right in saying so, you will be struck with the simplicity and consistency of the Athanasian system. According to that system, the Scriptures having ascribed to Jesus the names, the attributes, and the actions of God, and having expressly declared that he is God, give us a practical proof that those whom the Spirit guided into all truth, considered him as God, by their paying him that worship which the Scriptures declare to be the incommunicable prerogative of the Supreme Being. Here is a chain of argument in which nothing appears to be wanting. All the parts of it hang together, and support one another. It produced a conviction of the divinity of our Saviour in the minds of those to whom it was first proposed; and the authority of example, the respect which it is natural for us to pay to the opinions of those who were placed in a most favourable situation for judging, is thus superinduced to warrant that conclusion which the declarations of Scripture appear to us to establish, that Jesus Christ is truly and essentially God."

CHAPTER VIII.

UNION OF NATURES IN CHRIST.

Ir is one part of the third opinion concerning the person of Christ, that he is truly God. But the whole history of his life exhibits him as a man; and the constant language of Scripture upon this head, which has led the Socinians to consider him as merely a man, is the ground of the other part of the third opinion concerning his person, that he is not only truly God, but also truly man.

The proofs of the human nature of Christ found in the Scriptures, are obvious to the plainest understanding; and whatever difficulties may occur to those who attempt to speculate upon the subject, the opinion itself has been generally held in the Christian church. Although Jesus upon some occasions assumes this exalted title," the Son of God," he generally calls himself by a name most significant of his humanity," the Son of man." We found by an analysis of the beginning of John's gospel, that "the Word," who "in the beginning was with God, and was God," is called Jesus Christ; and we read elsewhere of Jesus Christ, that he was "wearied with his journey,"* that "he was hungry," that " he ate and drank," that his soul was "exceeding sorrowful even unto death,"§ that "he gave up the ghost, that he was buried, and that he rose from the grave."||

These propositions, so opposite to one another, imply a corresponding difference of nature in the person concerning whom all of them are affirmed. There is an illusion throughout the New Testament, if he who made the worlds, and he who "was an hungered," is not the same person; and yet we have seen that he who made the worlds was God, and we cannot doubt that he who was an hungered was The inference thus clearly drawn, from laying different passages together, is confirmed by an examination of those places which present in one view the divine and the human nature of the man Christ Jesus. Of this kind are the three following.

man.

John i. 14. Και ὁ λόγος σαςξ εγενετο. The Socinians, in conformity to their interpretation of the first part of the chapter, understand this phrase to mean nothing more than that the reason or wisdom of God resided in the man Jesus Christ, and might thus figuratively be said to have become flesh. But all those, both Athanasians and Arians, who consider hoyos in the first verse as denoting a person, must understand what is here said of him as meaning, "this person became

* John iv. 6. § Matth. xxvi. 38.

† Mark xi. 12.
| John xix. xx.

+ Mark ii. 14.

flesh, or was incarnate." And all that is said of the 2oyos in the former verse may be applied to the person who, at a certain time, became flesh.

Phil. ii. 6, 7, 8. The apostle is recommending to Christians humility, from the example of Jesus Christ," Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus." In order to explain what mind was in Christ, or what degree of humility he exhibited, the apostle describes two different states of Christ, one which he resigned, and another to which he submitted; and his humility consisted in descending from the one to the other. The first state is expressed by this phrase, ὡς εν μορφῇ Θεον ὑπαρχων. The Socinians, who do not admit that Jesus Christ ever was in any state more dignified than that of a man, have no other mode of explaining this phrase, but by applying it to those extraordinary displays of divine wisdom and power which Jesus exhibited upon earth, and by which he who was merely a man, appeared to the eyes of the beholders to be a God. But this interpretation, besides that it is by no means adequate to the import of the phrase, inverts the order, and impairs the force of the whole passage. It represents the μogonov as posterior to the xes, and the humility of Christ as consisting purely in this, that he did not employ his extraordinary powers in preserving his life. Whereas the μogon ou appears intended by the apostle to represent a state prior to the Evois, by which means the whole of Christ's appearance upon earth becomes an example of humility.

The Arians, who admit that Jesus Christ often appeared under the Old Testament, in the person, and by the name of Jehovah, employ these appearances to explain this phrase, "Who, being before his incarnation in the form of God, appeared during his life in the form of a man." The Athanasians, who believe that Jesus is essentially God, understand by μogon cov, not a character which he occasionally personated, but those glories of the divine nature which from eternity belonged to him, which, in reference to the phrase used in the 4th verse, may be called ra lavrov, and which correspond to the concluding clause of the 6th verse, to wai sa OeQ. Whether the Arian or Athanasian interpretation of μogon to be adopted, Jesus Christ did display great humility in becoming a man. But the Arians find it difficult to reconcile their system with the second clause of the 6th verse. They cannot adopt our translation, "thought it not robbery to be equal with God," because that clearly implies that he was once equal with God, and that he considered this equality as his right, which he was not under any obligation to resign. They translate the clause, therefore, thus," He did not look upon the being honoured equally with God, as a prize to be snatched, eagerly laid hold of. He did not covet it." Dr. Clarke has defended this translation with the ability of a scholar; and, in my opinion, as far as ágrayμov yaro is concerned, with success. For whether we consider these two words in themselves, or compare the few places of other authors where they occur, it appears more natural to render them, " thought a prey of which he was eager or tenacious," than "thought it a robbery." But if you read the perspicuous able commentary which Bishop Sherlock has given in the first three parts of his discourse on this text, at the beginning of the fourth volume of his discourses, vou will perceive