Thus spake Jesus of John; but of our Saviour, the Baptist says, this is he of whom I said, after me cometh a man which is preferred before me, for he was be fore me." John 1, 30.

If Christ were a mere man, either he or John departed wofully from the truth.. The Socinian tells us that Christ was but the greatest amongst the prophets. Of John the Baptist, our Saviour says

But what went ye out for to see? a prophet? yea I say unto you, and more than a prophet." Matt. 11, 9. But of Christ, John, (himself more than a prophet,) says "whose shoes latchet I am not worthy to unloose." John 1, 27.

"For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." For what things soever he" (the Father) “doeth, these also doeth the Scn likew ise.' John 5, part of 19

---་་

and 21.

"Make you perfect in every good work to do his" (God's) will, working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever."* Heb. 13, 21.

If we in the present day offer up our praises to Christ, St. Paul at least keeps us in countenance, and very much in the same words in which our Saviour, in the spirit of modesty and humility, directed us to close our prayers to the Father," for thine is the kingdom, and the power and the glory, for ever and ever,"-and St. Paul almost in same words concludes a solemn apostrophe to the greatness of God-" to whom be glory for ever." Romans 11.36.

And how much soever we might, in the perverseness of our hearts, be disposed to think that this glory was only that of a just man made perfect, and enjoyed by our

The Socinians of course refer whom" to the remote antecedent,

for it answers their purpose best to do so.

Saviour only in consequence of his sufferings, and good deeds on earth, his own declaration leaves this impossible, without attributing falsehood to him-" And now oh Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." John 17. 5.

-- "That God in all things may be glorified through Christ: to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." 1 Peter iv. 11.

But grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, to him be glory both now and for ever. Amen."? Peter iii. 18.*

If, my friends, we be idolaters, as the Socinians call us, how consoling is it to think that St. Paul, and St. Peter, one of them the companion of Christ, the other called miraculously to preach his word,-how consoling I say to think that they are our companions in idolatry!

The Socinian perhaps will tell us that in the second of the verses last quoted, it is to God the Father that the apostle ascribes praise and dominion."--I wonder what the Socinian would say to us if we exercised so despotic a sway over the rules of grammar; if we manifested so total a disregard for the ancient rights of relative and antecedent! But if he will needs persist in that sophistry by which he contrives to explain away the least ambiguous texts, let us refer him to St. Stephen, "a man full of faith and the Holy Ghost," to learn whether it be lawful to offer prayer to Christ. "And they stoned Stephen calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit." Acts vii. 59.

On this text Mr. Robinson, in his Scripture characters, (vol. iv. p. 349,) makes the following comment. is observable that Stephen here paid the same adoration to the Redeemer, in delivering up to him the care of his de

*Here the Socinian cannot, with all bis ingenuity, contrive to introduce a remote antecedent.

S

parting soul, which the Redeemer himself offerd to the Father, when he said, into thy hands I commend my spi

rit."

If Stephen did not adore Christ; Christ did not adore the Father.

66

Worthy is the Lamb* that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing." Rev. v. 8, 14.

-"Unto him that 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 †t be glory, and dominion, for ever and ever, Amen." Rev. i. 6.

And cried with a loud voice, saying, salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb," Rev. vii. 10.

1, 3.

The throne of God, and of the Lamb," Rev. xxii.

แ And I John saw all these things and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship, before the feet of the Angel who shewed me these things."

"Then saith he unto me, see thou do it not : for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book. Worship God." Rev. xxii. 8, 9.

In preceding quotations we have seen that St. Peter would not for a moment suffer Cornelius to worship him, or to prostrate himself in that act of adoration which can only be innocent when it is performed unto God. We haveseen the horror which Paul and Barnabas expressed when

The name applied by John the Baptist to our Saviour, see John i. ver. 29, 36.

+ Here the reference must be to "him that loved us," for else the sentence is incomplete, and absolutely unmeaning.

Whatever homage was offered to "God which sitteth upon the throne," the same was offered to the Lamb, and the next verse quoted assigns them a joint throne.

the Barbarians would have paid them divine honours. We have seen St. Paul cautioning his converts against worshipping angels, and here we see an angel rejecting the worship What conceivawhich St. John would have offered him.

ble right has the Socinian to affirm that the same prostration, which from the reproofs it excited, was evidently ac counted an act of worship by the apostle Peter, and by the angel in the instance before us, should not have been intended as an act of worship to Christ, and as such by him received in those various instances which I have quoted? The same word is used in the original to express this wor ship; the same word which Christ employs when he says, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, and which is continually applied to the Father, is also employed in relation to Jesus Christ when we are told that they in the ship worshipped him," (Matt. xiv. 33.) and in very many other instances, some of which I have quoted and some not; see Matt. 2, 11. 8, 2. 9, 18. 14, 33. 15, 25. 28, 9. Luke 24. 52. Mark v. 6. John 9. 38. In opposition to these texts the Socinians bring forward a few in which the word used above to express worship, in its strictest and prevailing sense, is employed to signify merely reverence or obeisance. See Unitarian ism the doctrine of the Gospel," page 209.

66

Now not to ask why, it should be unfair to be lieve that worship, in its strictest sense, was offered to him, to whom honour and glory" are repeatedly, ascribed; let me observe that the multitude" who stood❞ before the throne and cried with a loud voice saying,

*Coloss. ii. 18.

+"The Congregation worshipped the Lord and the king." 1 Chron. xxix. 20. The Socinians adduce this text in support of their cause; but why I know not. It proves either that the king very wickedly received such sort of worship as was due only to God; or else that the people very wickedly offered to God, such sort of worship only as the king might inno n the cently receive. In the former case the king sanctioned idolatry; latter, the people insulted their Maker. In the former case, the text iş in our favour; in the latter in the Socinians.

salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb," did offer joint worship to the Father and the Lamb, in as express terms as it was possible to adopt. It may be called obeisance or reverence, or what we will, but it was offered to the two jointly they were associated, and addressed in the same strain. The word worship is not used, but worship is implied, for else the address of the multitude, was not the fit offering of creatures to their Creator; and if the Lamb Christ Jesus did not hesitate to receive this worship in conjunction with his Father, there is no good reason to suppose that he would not, and did not receive it, in his own person singly.

Thus again the word worship is not applied to Thomas, in that solemn confession which he made of his master's divinity; but could a volume declare more decidedly that he meant to express the reverence of a creature for his God? On this apostrophe of Thomas which I have already treated of, the Rev. Lant Carpenter, in his "Unitarianism the doctrine of the Gospel," has the following comment," And Thomas answered and said unto him, my Lord, and my God."

"If," says the Rev. L. C. Thomas not only spoke those words in reply to Jesus, but also called him his Lord, and his God, it still remains to be considered in what sense the apostle applied this appellation to his risen Lord. I regard myself authorized by Scriptural evidence to assert; that in the mouth of a Jewish disciple (unless it can be shewn from other considerations that he believed Jesus to be really and properly God) these words imply no more, than that he was now convinced of his divine authority." After some intermediate remarks which the reader may see in the above mentioned book p. 149, the author proceeds.

As we, no less than the Socinians, insist on the worship of the one only God; and as they do not like to have it thought that Socinus, who lived in the 16th century, was the founder of their sect; they now s'yle themselves Antitrinitarians. But the truth is, that this sect owes its origin to Dr. Priestly; he first discovered that Christ sprang from Joseph, as well as Mary.