say of himself, the Lord said unto my Lord; nor did he sit at the right hand of God, exalted above men and angels; nor were all his enemies subdued under his feet; nor did they whom he conquered pay him a willing obedience; nor was he an everlasting priest, or an everlasting king; nor was his dominion ertensive over the nations and the gentiles.* In vain, I say, have learned men objected these difficulties: the former is an improved sense, for it keeps most out of sight the idea of worshipping David's Lord. Consequences dangerous to favourite opinions might follow. One might inquire, who is David's Lord? David might reply, my soul! thou hast said unto JEHOVAH, THOU ART MY LORD;† and a third might urge, David speaketh, in the sixteenth psalm, concerning JESUS of Nazareth; the ROOT of David; the bright, the morning star; the lord god oF THE HORY PROPHETS, who sent his angels to testify these things in the churches.§ Take another example from the same psalm. He, Maxentius and his host-shall drink, shall be drowned-of the brook, in the river Tiber---therefore shall he-Constantine-lift up his head, triumph over Maxentius. This is the exposition of that truly great man, Le Clerc:¶ but, take away his name, and what has it to recommend it? When Mr. Whiston applied a part of the Re * Ruarus, and some other socinians, propose and adopt this interpretation. See Dr. Jortin's Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, + Psal. xvi. 2. Acts ii. 25. § Rev. xxii. 6. 16. Jortin. Rem. vol. iii. vol. iii. velation of St. John to prince Eugene's wars, and procured his calculations to be presented to the prince, the generous prince politely rewarded the author for his labour, protesting at the same time, he never knew till then, that he had the honour of being known to St. John. It is very questionable whether Constantine, and Maxentius, had the honour of being known to David. God forbid we should tax these expositors with wilfully perverting the word of God: like Abimelech, in the integrity of their hearts they speak and act:* but, when the best of men adopt a favourite notion, eagerness to communicate what gives themselves so much pleasure too often takes pleace of every other consideration, and their conduct frequently reminds us, that the integrity of an expositor and the truth of his exposition are two very distinct things. We will illustrate this remark by two passages from the worthy and reverend Mr. Lindsey. These are his words.† "Rev. v. 13. Blessing and honour, &c. be unto "him, that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb 66 for ever and ever. The blessing and honour is "tendered to the object PRESENT and VISIBLE." But we have observed in St. Stephen's case, that idolatry doth not consist in worshipping an invisible object. The visibility and the invisibility of the object have nothing to do with the nature of the act. Is a papist less an idolater when he worships † Apol. p. 130. * Gen. xx, 5, 6, the host exposed to view than when he worships the same host inclosed in a pix? "The object, says Mr. Lindsey, was not upon "the throne; but standing before the midst of the "throne." The posture and the place of the object have nothing to do with the nature of the act. According to this reasoning, when the Lord descended in the cloud, and STOOD with Moses on the mount,* he was not an object of worship; he was not on the throne. If sitting on the throne entitled Jesus to adoration, why is not our dispute ended? Does he not say, I am set down with my Father in HIS throne.† ་ Mr. Lindsey goes on: "The reason also, which is assigned for this WORSHIP being paid him”— How! worship paid to Jesus Christ! I protest, were I reading an apology written as long ago as Justin Martyr's, I should suspect copyists of interpolating. I should think the manuscript had passed through Athanasian hands, and greatly needed emendation. For, in the contents of this very Apology, and in the margin, I read, Religious worship to be paid to God the Father ONLY, AND NOT TO OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. Who would imagine that the author meant-Religious worship to be paid to our Lord Jesus Christ, and a HIGHER DEGREE of it to the Father ONLY. Mr. Lindsey farther adds, "The ascribing glory "and honour to Christ, does in NO DEGREE imply him to be God, or AUTHORISE THE WOR 'SHIP OF HIM, or prayer to him. It is no more "than a declaration of our reverence of him, and 66 high esteem of his most perfect moral character "and goodness: We may therefore, and we ought on all proper occasions to join with his apostle "in saying, 2 Pet. iii. 18. To HIM BE GLORY BOTH NOW AND FOR EVER." Christ's MOST per-fect moral character deserves an ascription of glory to him both now and for ever! By parity of reason every degree of moral rectitude merits some ascription of glory to its possessor. I think, the author of the Apology hath a great degree of moral rectitude; but I dare not say, Glory be to THE APOLOGIST! I dare not say, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto PAUL, and unto Moses, and unto GABRIEL. I do not reason on the force of the terms. I reason thus. There is a doxology in the old testament composed by an inspired man, and by him appropriated to the blessed God.* It is profane to praise a creature in the form of that doxology. Mr. Lindsey goes on. " 1 Tim. 1. 2. I thank Jesus Christ our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry. This is no address of thanks to Christ as an object of worship, but a sudden emotion of gratitude in the apostle's mind, and expression of his thankfulness to Christ for his own miraculous conversion, Acts. ix. and call to be an apostle." * Compare 1 Chron. xxix. 11. with Rev. v. 13. The question is not whether these words proceeded from a sudden, or a slow emotion; St. Paul was inspired to write them. IT IS AN expression of his thankfulness to Christ; but IT IS NO address of thanks to Christ as an object of worship. But this is taking for granted what ought to have been proved. We say, St. Paul gave praise to Jesus Christ his Lord for a certain blessing; which God had bestowed on him. Mr. Lindsey says, St. Paul gave praise to Jesus for the blessing; but he did not praise him as God. We ask the proof. Were it necessary, we could prove from Mr. Lindsey's own concessions that Jesus Christ is God. "St.Paul thanked Christ for his own miraculous conversion, and call to be an apostle." Christ, then, converted Saul, and conferred on him the apostleship. But one Ananias, a devout man, having a good report of all the Jews, who dwelt at Damascus, declares, that the Lord EVEN JESUS, who appeared unto Saul in the way, was THE GOD OF THEIR FATHERS. THIS LORD appeared to Ananias, and sent Ananias to tell Saul, that he might be filled with the Holy Ghost.* If there be two truths clear in the holy scriptures, they are, these; St. Paul ascribes his conversion to God: St. Paul thanks Christ for his conversion. The last proposition Mr. Lindsey allows; the first St. Paul repeatedly affirms. One passage may suffice: God, WHO COMMANDED LIGHT TO SHINE OUT OF DARK NESS, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face *Acts xxii. 12. ix. 17. xxii. 14. ix. 17. |