before observed, thofe figures are impious, which convey an idea contrary to the glory of God.

As the Jews were not culpable for fpeaking like other men, efpecially like their own prophets, who inftructed them; fo they are not to be blamed for concluding, that none can be faid to be equal with God," except he be God, or except he wrong God. Nor could they help thinking, that the apoftles cordially approved of fuch language concerning Jefus Chrift: for if not, why did they use it? But they explain themselves, on other occafions.' Suppofing they did, this propofition; "Jefus, a mere creature, thinks it not robbery to be equal with 'God,' would ftill be impious. Befides, by fuch explanations they would pull down with one hand, what they build with the other.

.

To conclude; If Jefus be not equal with God, it must be a fin to think that he is; and if fo, why should any one affert it? To what end were thofe expreffions needful? To the glory of God? No; they difhonour the Deity. To exalt Jefus Chrift? But cannot he be exalted without fetting him on a level with God? Was it to fhew the accomplishment of the ancient oracles? But they frequently declare, that there is only one God, and that nothing is like him. Was it to edify men? But is it poffible for men to be edified, by hearing of a creature, of one that owes his being to Divine power, and his bleffed nefs to Divine favour, being exalted to an equality with his Maker? Peter and Paul were not only the difciples, but also the ambassadors of Christ, and their characters are justly held in very high eftrem, by every lover of facred truth; yet if either of them had faid, I think it not robbery

to be equal with Jefus Chrift,' we should have called him a blafphemer and execrated his memory.

memory. Now, on the principles of our adverfaries, God is infinitely more exalted above Jefus Chrift, than Chrift is above his apoftles. If, then, an apoftle would have been justly accufed of impiety, had he equalled himself with his Lord; ought not Chrift to be cenfured for blafphemy, when he claims an equality with God?

CHA P. V.

JESUS CHRIST received Religious Worship.

TH

HAT the apoftles and difciples of Chrift efteemed and treated him as a truly Divine Person, and that he claimed, in a proper fenfe, an equality with God, will further appear by confidering; That he received, as a tribute due to his dignity, those honours and that adoration, which belong to none but JEHOVAH.

That God, and none but He, ought to be worshipped, is a fundamental truth. Whenever, therefore, men have fet up themselves as objects of worship, they have pretended to be gods; and when they have relinquished their claim to divinity, they have ceafed to require adoration. So that though we had not been exprefsly told, by the infpired writers, that Jefus Chrift is GOD; yet we could not have queftioned it when we found them affert, that he received adoration from his difciples, and that the angels were commanded to worship him.-If Jefus Chrift be God, by nature, he has an undoubted right to Divine honours; he cannot but require them. But if not, we cannot, without facrilege and idolatry, addrefs them to him, because they are due to none but JEHOVAH. For though it were poffible, on our adverfaries hypothefis, to ac

count

count for the titles he bears, for the authority he claims, and for the works of creation and providence being afcribed to him; yet his conduct, in receiving divine worship, would for ever remain indefenfible, if he were not the true God.

A man, for inftance, who should take the name of king, where a rightful fovereign is acknowledged, would certainly be very guilty. But his crime would be greatly enhanced, if he dared to affume the titles appropriated to fignify the grandeur of his fovereign and the extent of his dominions. For example, if, in France, he fhould call himself, King of FRANCE, NAVARRE, &c. If, in Hungary, King of BOHEMIA, HUNGARY, &c. But he would be ftill more guilty, if he caused himself to be treated as a king; if he demanded the titles of majefty, from those who addreffed him; and required, as fome kings do, to be ferved on the knee. In this cafe, either the allegiance due to the lawful fovereign must be renounced; or this pretender must be called an ufurper, and be punished as guilty of high treafon. Thus the Jews, on the principles of our opponents, had fufficient reafon to treat Jefus Chrift. The regard which they had to the honour of God, and the obedience they owed to the precepts of his unchangeable law, would not fuffer them to connive at the conduct of a man, or of any mere creature, who received thofe honours which are due to none but the God of Ifrael.

To invalidate this conclufion it must be proved, either, that religious worship is not an honour peculiar to God; or, that Chrift did not pretend to this worship; or, that he did not mean to be worshipped on the fame ground, and in the fame way, as the true God.-It may, perhaps,

be

6

be faid, Worship is not an honour peculiar to God; for the angel who appeared to the patriarchs, and to Mofes in the burning-bufh, was worshipped, though a mere creature.'-This is a great mistake. For that angel was a Divine Perfon and the true God. This appears from hence. Abraham addreffed him, as "the Judge "of all the earth," and acknowledged that he was "but duft and afhes" before him. That angel revealed himself to Mofes, out of the burning bufh, as "the GOD of Abraham, of Ifaac, "and of Jacob." From which words Chrift himself infers, that "God is not the God of the "dead, but of the living." Confequently, he teaches us to conclude, that He who fpake to Mofes out of the bufh, was more than a creature; was the true God. For he who is "the "angel of the Lord," in the oracle of Mofes, is "the GOD of the living," in the language of Jefus Chrift, and both according to our hypothefis.

Again That honour which is peculiar to God, ought never to be given to any but God. Religious worship is fuch an honour: religious worship, therefore, ought never to be given to any but God. That honour which cannot be given to a creature, without idolatry, is peculiar to God. But religious worship is fuch an honour, as appears from the idolatry of the Gentiles, which confifted in paying adoration to objects that were not God.

But worship is two-fold; that is, fubordinate and fupreme. The former is paid to fubordinate beings; the latter is due to none but God.'— This diftinction, were it founded in truth, would be but of little fervice to the caufe, in defence of which it is applied; because it is eafy to fhew, that Chrift received fupreme worship. This wor

fhip confifts, either in thought, in word, or in action. He, therefore, who requires us to think of him, as we do of the true God, would have us worship him as fuch. But Christ would have us think of him, as we do of the true God. For he attributes to himself the perfections of God, and he claims an equality with him. Confequently, he would have us think of him, as we ought to do of God.-He who fpeaks of himself, or directs others to speak of him, as of the true God; would be acknowledged and worshipped as fuch. But Chrift fpeaks, and would be Spoken of by us, as the true God. This appears from his taking the names, and afcribing to himfelf the works of God. If not, why does he affume fuch names, why does he declare that he performed fuch works, as are proper to God, if he would not have us speak of him as God? What, fhall be speak of himself as God; fhall be affert, that he created all things and performed the works of God; and, after all, be unwilling that we should speak of him, as God? Abfurd, to imagine; impoffible, to prove.-He who requires we should do that for him, which we cannot lawfully do for any but the true God, expects to be worshipped as fuch. But Chrift requires us to do that for him, which we ought not to do for any but God. This appears from hence. We are bound to love God above all things confequently, an affection fo ardent, and a duty fo high, are due to none but God. We ought, however, to love Jefus above all things; to love him more than our lives, which, of all things in the world, are the deareft to us. He requires that we should suffer martyrdom for his fake; and, by fo doing, enjoins a duty which we do not, which we cannot owe, to any but God. None of the prophets, nor any of the apoftles,

E