« AnteriorContinuar »
fact of itself affords a sufficient reason for our declining the appellation generally given us, by those who wish to hold up us and our principles to reproach.
The Liturgy of the Church of England was probably drawn up by different individuals; and though in several parts of it2 prayer is addressed to Jesus,
z "The undisguised truth is, that whereas the Scriptures inculcate the worship of the only true God, the Father, the Church of England prescribes and commands the worship of two other persons beside the Father, namely, the Son and the Holy Ghost, of whom it is declared that "the glory is equal, the majesty coeternal." "This is life eternal," said our heavenly Teacher, addressing the Father," that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent:"-but there is a creed, the opprobrium of Christendom, a deep blot on our national religion, which declares, as if in direct violation both of the spirit and doctrine of Jesus, "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this; that we worshipone God in Trinity,, and Trinity in Unity." Such is the introduction to the Creed of Saint Athanasius, which is appointed to be used by the minister and people in the morning. prayer in the Church of England, thirteen times every year;. to all and every thing in which, every minister of the church is obliged to declare, on taking orders, his unfeigned assent and consent; and which every observer of the national ritual virtually sanctions, as often as he joins in saying it, or hears it read. Need we, my brethren, any further warrant for our dissent ? Can it, to any reflecting mind, require an apology that we cannot in our devotions, go over such a string of miserable absurdities as are put together in this Creed, begun and ended with a sentence of irreversible damnation upon all that do not hold them as Christian verity! Were any form of belief, collected from the Scriptures themselves, ushered in. and concluded with the damnatory clauses which are here found, the use of it would be a sin against Christianity." The foregoing passage is copied from Mr. Aspland's Sermon, entitled, A Vindication of Unitarian Worship, p. 20.
and in some to the holy spirit, yet, in general, (as appears from Dr. Clarke's induction subjoined to his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity,) the worship is Scriptural, addressed to the Father only. One passage cited by Dr. Clarke (from the Collect for the 18th Sunday after Trinity,) is to me very striking, "To follow THEE the ONLY GOD, through Jesus Christ our Lord." It appears from Dr. Clarke's quotations, that there have not been. wanting persons of high station in the Church of England, who would have rejoiced if all had been thus; and it may be thought a somewhat remarkable circumstance, that the prelates of these days are not known to express similar sentiments. "In the first and best ages," says the learned Bishop Bull, the Churches of Christ directed "all their PRAYERS, according to the Scriptures; "to GOD ONLY, through the alone mediation of "Jesus Christ." And Dr. Wake, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, says, "The Lord's 66 prayer teaches us, that we should PRAY to GOD "ONLY, and to Him as our Father, through "Jesus Christ our Lord." Would to God that the time were already come, when all Christians will worship the Father, and Him only, in spirit and in truth!
No person acquainted with the original can lay any stress upon those passages of the Public Version which speak of the disciples and others as worshiping Jesus: the original word (like our own
a For these quotations see Clarke's Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, P. 435.
when the P. V. was made) is alike applicable to religious worship and to civil homage or respect; but it is much to be wished, that a word which was originally of ambiguous import, and which is now almost exclusively appropriated to religious homage, were changed in the authorized translation of the Scriptures, as it is in that of Archbishop Newcome, for one more suited to the present state of the language. Lest, however, any of my readers should receive a wrong direction in their inquiries on this most important subject, from such expressions as "they worshiped him," &c., I beg their attention to the following extract. "The congregation worshiped the Lord and the king. Nebuchadnezzar fell down on his face and worshiped Danield. Abigail and Mephibosheth, according to the Hebrew, worshiped David in 1 Sam. xxv. 23. 2 Sam. ix. 6. The word rendered bowing in the former passage referred to, and doing reverence in the latter, in our translation, is in the original the very same as is made use of in Ps. cxxxii. 7. xcv. 6.
O come let us worship the Lord our Maker.' The servant in the Gospel fell. down and worshiped his Lord. The man at the feast in the Gospel, was for his humility to receive worship from all at
b Among other proofs that the word worship formerly referred to civil respect only, the reader is referred to the appellation worshipful still in use, and to the clause of the Marriage Service where the man is made to declare to the woman, "With my body I thee worship."
c Chron. xxix. 20.
d Dan. ii. 48,
e Matt. xviii. 26.
table; and persons were to come and worship at the feet of the church at" Philadelphias.
48.] John v. 22. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgement to the Son, that, ivah, all men should honour the Son, even as, xas, they honour the Father. This passage is the only one which is, or can be fairly, adduced to prove that Jesus claimed religious worship; and those who know that the general force of the particle translated even as, is not equality in degree, but merely likeness, and that it may with strict propriety be rendered since (compare ch. xvii. 2,)— will not consider the passage as necessarily implying more than what follows: 'The Father having committed such powers and prerogatives to the Son, it behoves all to honour him since they honour the Father; for he who does not yield the tribute of reverence and obedience to the Son, dishonoureth Him whose representative he is.' This is a meaning accordant with the original and with the universal tenour of the Scriptures; the too common interpretation may be justified, as far as the
f Luke xiv. 10.
Rev. iii. 9.-James's Short View, p. 78.
h Agreeably to a common use of iva in the N. T. (see John ix. 3. 39,) it may here express the consequence, rather than the object, of judgement being committed to the Son,
So that all should honour, Two, the Son, &c.' Tuan (like our own corresponding verb bonour) is of very general import; and though one or two instances occur in which it refers to religious honour, is by no means implied by the word itself. The honour which Jesus claimed, was that due to him as the messenger of God; (see the last clause of vs. 23.)
meaning of the particle is concerned, but it is unscriptural. Any one may satisfy himself that it is not required by the original, by turning to Luke vi. 36, where we find this injunction, Be ye therefore merciful, as, nadws, your Father is merciful.'
49.] Acts vii. 59. And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit, vaupa.' I am not certain that our Translators have not done right in supplying the word God, as Luke might mean, calling upon God, and also commending his departing life to Jesus:' but if that word be not supplied, we must translate the middle clause thus, invoking (or appealing to) and saying.' At any rate, however, here is an express address to Jesus; the question is whether it is just precedent for prayer to him. That it is not, I feel convinced from the following considerations. 1. The martyr had been favoured with a personal manifestation of Jesus just before he was hurried out of the temple; and if that manifestation really were not then continued, (though it appears highly. probable that it was,) the vivid impressions excited by it would naturally produce a lively conviction of the actual presence of his exaited Lord, and authorize his address to him as present with him. 2. He spoke of him (vs. 56,) as distinct from God, and as the Son of Man, (which circumstanceis the more remarkable, because this appellation is, I believe, in no other instance employed by a disciple, though it frequently is by our Lord himself;) and he could not therefore regard him as the object of prayer, properly so called, still less as himself God. 3. We know (from vs. 60,) that his posture.