worship, being founded only in a person’s having the perfections of the
divine nature; and accordingly that it is an argument that our Saviour
is truly and properly God, equal with the Father, because as such, he
has a right to it, it is objected, that if God commands us to worship a
creature, we are bound to obey him; and accordingly, without considering
any right that is founded in his nature, we are to give divine worship
to Christ, by divine direction, or in obedience to a command given us to
that purpose; and that such a command was given, upon which Christ’s
right to receive divine worship is founded, appears from Heb. i. 6.
_When he bringeth his first-begotten into the world, he saith, and let
all the angels of God worship him_; which supposes that they did not
worship him before, nor would they have done it afterwards, without this
divine intimation.
_Answ._ 1. As to our yielding obedience to a divine command, provided
God should require us to give divine worship to a creature, it may be
replied, that we do not deny but that all the divine commands are to be
obeyed; but yet this supposition is groundless, inasmuch as God cannot
command us to worship a creature, any more than he can discharge us from
an obligation to worship himself. This, therefore, is, in effect, to
suppose what can never be; therefore nothing can be inferred from such a
supposition; we might as well say, that if God should cease to exist, he
would cease to be the object of worship; or if a created being had
divine perfection, he would have a right to equal honour with God; which
is to suppose a thing that is in itself impossible; and it is no less
absurd to suppose it warrantable for us to pay divine worship to a
creature. This will farther appear, from what has been said in
explaining the nature of religious worship. Adoration is a saying to a
person, who is the object thereof, thou hast divine perfections, and to
say this to a creature, is contrary to truth; and therefore, certainly
the God of truth can never give us a warrant to say that which is false,
as this certainly would be. And if we consider worship, as it is our
addressing ourselves to him, whom we worship, in such a way, as becomes
a God, he cannot give us a warrant so to do, for that would be for him
to divest himself of his glory: and it would also disappoint our
expectations, by putting us on trusting one that cannot save us; and
such are justly reproved, in Isa. xlv. 20. as _having no knowledge, who
pray unto a god that cannot save_. We must therefore conclude, that
since God cannot give his glory to another, he cannot give any warrant
to us to pay divine worship to a creature, as is supposed in the
objection,
2. As for that scripture, referred to, in which God commanded the angels
to worship our Saviour, when he brought him into the world, it is not to
be supposed that he had no right to divine worship before his
incarnation; for if he be a divine Person, as the scriptures assert him
to be, the angels, doubtless adored him as such before; the only new
discovery that was then made to them was, that the second Person in the
Godhead was now God incarnate; and therefore this instance of infinite
condescension was to be considered as a motive to excite their
adoration, but not the formal reason of it: thus we are sometimes
commanded to adore and magnify God for the visible displays of his
divine perfections in his works; as the Psalmist says, Psal. cvii. 8.
_Oh that men would praise the Lord for his goodness, and for his
wonderful works to the children of men!_ and, in many other scriptures,
where the works of God are represented, as a means or motive to excite
our worship or adoration; whereas the divine perfections, which are
displayed or rendered visible therein, are the great foundation or
reason thereof; we worship this God because he is infinitely perfect;
though we take occasion, from the visible display of his perfections, to
worship him. In this sense we understand the worship given to Christ by
the angels, when brought into the world; they took occasion, from this
amazing instance of his condescension, to adore those perfections, which
induced the Son of God to take the human nature into union with his
divine; not that they supposed his right to worship was founded therein.
_Object._ 2. Since our worshipping Christ includes in it ascribing all
that glory to him that is his due; it is enough for us, when we worship
him, to confess that he has an excellency above the angels, or that he
is the best of all created beings, as well as the most honourable, and
the greatest blessing to mankind, as he was sent of God to instruct us
in the way of salvation as a Prophet, to intercede for us as a Priest,
and to give laws to us as a King, and that he has done all this
faithfully, and with great compassion to us. These things, and whatever
else he does for the advantage of mankind, may, and ought to be
acknowledged to his praise, as a debt due to him, in which respect he is
to be considered as the object of worship; nevertheless, we are not to
give him that glory which is due to the Father, as though he were a
Person truly and properly divine, in the same sense as he is.
_Answ._ 1. It is agreed, on both sides, that that glory, which is due to
him, is to be ascribed; but we humbly conceive, that the ascribing to a
person that honour, which he has a right to, unless we suppose it to be
divine, is not religious worship; or, to confess that those works which
he has done, are wonderful, and of great advantage to mankind, is no
instance of adoration, unless we suppose that these works are such, as
none but a Person who has the divine nature can perform; whereas all
those works, which they ascribe to him, may, according to them, be
performed by a finite being, or else they must allow the arguments,
which have been taken from thence, to prove his proper deity.
2. If the works that are ascribed to him be considered as properly
divine, as they are represented to be in scripture, it must not be
concluded, from hence, that he is to be adored, as performing them; but
we are rather to take occasion from thence, as was observed in our last
head, to adore those divine perfections, which are evinced hereby, which
render him the object of worship; as the works of God are motives to
induce us to worship him, and not the formal reason of that worship; as
when, in the first commandment, God lays claim to divine honour, or
obliges the Israelites _to have no other gods before him, because he had
brought them out of the land of Egypt_, we are to consider their
deliverance from thence, indeed, as a motive to worship; but it is the
divine power that was exerted therein, that was properly the object
thereof; so, in Psal. cxxxvi. 1. we are _to give thanks to the Lord,
whose mercy endureth for ever_; and, in the following verses, there is a
particular mention made of some glorious works which God had done, _who
alone doth great wonders, who, in wisdom, made the heavens, stretched
out the earth; made the sun to rule by day, and the moon by night_, &c.
These, and several other works there mentioned are all considered as
motives to excite our adoration; but his being _Jehovah, the God of
gods, and Lord of lords_, as in the 1st, 2d, and 3d verses, is the great
foundation of his right to worship, since that is infinite; whereas his
works are only the effects of infinite power, and so a demonstration of
his right to divine glory. Now to apply this to those works which are
done by our Saviour, if we suppose them, as we ought, to be properly
divine, they are to be considered only as evincing his right to divine
honour, as they are a demonstration of his deity, which is the only
thing that renders him the object of divine worship.
_Object._ 3. But some will proceed a little farther, when they speak of
Christ as the object of worship, and so will allow, that honours, truly
divine, may be given to him; yet that this does not prove him to be God
equal with the Father, since he is herein only considered as the
Father’s Representative, on whom the worship, that is immediately
applied to him, must be supposed to terminate; as when an ambassador,
who represents the prince that sent him, is considered as sustaining
that character, and so receives some honour, which otherwise he would
have no right to, or rather he is honoured as personating him whom he
represents.
_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that whatever may be said to be done
by an ambassador, as representing the prince that sent him, there is
always something contained in the manner of his address, or in the
honours ascribed to him, that denotes him to be more than a subject; and
it would be ill represented, should he assume that honour to himself
that is due to his master. Therefore our Saviour, were he not a divine
Person, but only the Father’s Representative, could not have a right to
claim that divine honour that is ascribed to him; neither have we any
foundation, in scripture, to distinguish concerning a supreme and a
subordinate worship, or a worship given to a person that does not
terminate in him, but in another, whom he represents.
If there be any apparent foundation for this supposition, it must be
taken from those expressions in which Christ is represented, as
Mediator, as acting in the Father’s name, and not seeking his own glory,
but the glory of him that sent him, or referring all the honour, that is
given to him as such, to the Father. But to this it may be replied, that
when our Saviour uses such a mode of speaking, he disclaims any right to
divine honour due to him as Man, in which respect he received a
commission from the Father, and acted in his name; but when the honour
of a divine Person is given to him as God, though considered as
Mediator, he is not to be looked upon as representing the Father, or
transferring the divine glory that he receives, to the Father, but as
having the same right to it as the Father has, inasmuch as he has the
same divine nature, otherwise we cannot account for those modes of
speaking, in which the glory of a divine Person is ascribed to him,
without restriction or limitation, as it oftentimes is in scripture.
_Object._ 4. To what has been said in defence of Christ’s divinity, from
our being baptized in his name, it is objected, that it does not follow,
that because we are baptized in the name of the Son, as well as of the
Father, that therefore he is God equal with the Father; for though this
ordinance, as it respects the Father, contains, properly, an act of
divine worship, in which we consider him as the great Lord of all
things, to whom divine worship, in the highest sense is due; yet we
consider the Son, as well as the Holy Ghost, only as having a right to
an inferior kind of worship, in proportion to the respective parts which
they sustain, by the will of the Father, in the work of our salvation;
and, in particular, to be baptized in the name of Christ, implies in it
nothing else but a declaration that we adhere to him, as the Father’s
Minister, delegated by him to reveal his mind and will to us, and to
erect that gospel-dispensation, which we, in this ordinance, professedly
submit to; and accordingly to be baptized in the name of Christ, is to
be taken in the same sense, as when, in 1 Cor. x. 2. the Israelites were
said to _be baptized into Moses, in the cloud, and in the sea_; as they
signified thereby their consent to be governed by those laws, which
Moses was appointed, by God, to give them; upon which account, they were
denominated a particular church, separated from the world, and obliged
to worship God in such a way, as was prescribed in the ceremonial law:
even so, by baptism, we own ourselves Christians, under an obligation to
adhere to Christ, as our Leader and Commander, who has revealed to us
the gospel, which, by subjecting ourselves to, we are denominated
Christians; and to this they also add, especially the Socinians, that as
baptism was first practised as an ordinance, to initiate persons into
the Jewish church, and was afterwards applied by our Saviour, to signify
the initiating the heathen into the Christian church; so it was designed
to be no longer in use among them, than till Christianity was generally
embraced; and consequently we being a Christian nation, are not obliged
to submit to it, since we are supposed to adhere to the doctrines of
Christianity, and therefore it is needless to signify the same by this
ordinance. It was upon this account that Socinus, and some of his
followers, not only denied the baptism of infants, but that of all
others, who were supposed to be Christians.
_Answ._ 1. As to the first part of this objection, to wit, that baptism
does not signify the same thing when it is administered in the name of
Christ, as when administered in the name of the Father, this is founded
on a supposition, that the Son has not a right to the same honour that
is due to the Father, which ought to be proved, and not taken for
granted; and it altogether sets aside the consideration of the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost’s being herein co-ordinately represented, as the
objects of this solemn dedication, which tends very much to derogate
from the Father’s glory. As it supposes the Son and Spirit to have a
right to that glory which belongs to him, while they deny them to be
divine Persons; and according to this method of reasoning, God might as
well have ordained, that we should have been baptized in his name,
together with the name of any of his prophets and apostles, which were
appointed to be his ministers, in revealing his will to us, as in the
name of the Son and Spirit, unless they were accounted worthy of having
an honour infinitely superior to that which is given to any creature
given to them herein.
2. When it is supposed that our professed subjection to Christ in
baptism, is nothing else but our consent to be governed by those laws,
which he has given us in the gospel, and so is compared with that
declaration of subjection to the law of Moses, which was contained in
the baptism of the Israelites into Moses.
To this it may be replied; that this supposes Christ to be no other than
a Lawgiver; and that to be a Christian, is nothing else but to be
professedly a member of that society, which goes under that
denomination; and that to put on Christ is not to consecrate or devote
ourselves to him as a divine Person; which is a very low idea of
Christianity; and consequently the character of a Christian does not
imply in it so much, when assumed by an Anti-trinitarian, as when
applied to those who suppose that they are hereby obliged to honour him,
as they honour the Father, or to submit to his government, as truly and
properly divine. A Christian is not barely one who is of Christ’s party,
in the same sense as a Mahometan, who adheres to the laws of Mahomet, is
of his; for Christianity contains in it an obligation to perform those
religious duties, of trust, universal obedience, and love, that are due
to Christ as a divine Person.
3. As to the supposition, that baptism being an ordinance of Proselytism
to the Christian faith, therefore a Christian nation is no longer
obliged to submit to it, this is directly contrary to what our Saviour
says in the words immediately following the institution thereof, in
Matt, xxviii. 20. _Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the
world_, that is, you may expect my presence with you in administering
this ordinance, as well as preaching the gospel, not only during the
first age of the church, till Christianity shall obtain in the world,
but as long as there shall be a society of Christians in it. And,
indeed, if Christianity were nothing more than a public declaration of
our obligation, to adhere to the laws of Christ; it does not follow,
that because we are born in a Christian nation, therefore such a
profession is no longer necessary. But since more than this is contained
therein, as hath been before observed, namely, our professed subjection
to Christ, in a religious way, as a divine Person, this extends the
baptismal obligation much farther than to our being called Christians,
and argues the necessity of our engaging in this ordinance, as long as
Christ is the object of faith, or to be acknowledged to be the Prophet,
Priest, and King of his church, and, as such, the object of religious
worship, namely, unto the end of the world.
_Object._ 5. There is another objection against the argument in general,
relating to Christ’s being the object of divine worship, taken from his
having refused to have one of the divine perfections ascribed to him,
and directing the Person that gave it, to ascribe it to the Father, in
Matt. xix. 17. _He said unto him, Why callest thou me good, there is
none good but one, that is God_; _q. d._ there is but one Person who is
good, as goodness is properly a divine attribute, and that is the
Father: therefore he alone is the object of that worship, which consists
in the ascribing the perfections of the divine nature to him, in which
sense we have before supposed religious worship to be understood.
_Answ._ 1. As to what our Saviour says, concerning the divine unity,
when he asserts, that there is none good but one, that is God; it is,
doubtless to be understood in the same sense with all other scriptures,
that deny a plurality of gods, in opposition to the principles and
practice of idolaters; but it does not follow from hence, that the
Father is the only Person who is God, or the object of divine worship.
This has been before considered[164], and therefore all that I shall
reply to this part of the objection is, that the word God is sometimes
taken for the Godhead, without a particular restriction or limitation
thereof, either to Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, but may be equally
applied to them all. In this sense it is to be taken, when the being of
a God is demonstrated by the light of nature; as from the effects of the
divine power, we argue, that there is a God, who is the Creator of all
things; but this cannot, if we have no other light to guide us herein
but that of nature, be applied to the Father, as a distinct Person in
the Godhead, for the distinction that there is between the divine
Persons is a matter of pure revelation; therefore all that our Saviour
intends by this expression is, that no one has a right to have divine
perfections ascribed to him, but he that has a divine nature, which
whether it be meant of the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, he is denominated
_the one only living and true God_.
It follows from hence, that when such modes of speaking are used in
scripture, though the Father be called the one or only God, the Son is
not excluded, as a late judicious writer well observes.[165]
2. As to that part of the objection, which concerns our Saviour’s
blaming the man for calling him good, there are two senses given of it;
one is taken from a different reading of the words, namely, _Why dost
thou ask me concerning good_.[166] But it will not be much to our
purpose either to defend or disprove this reading, since Mark and Luke
read it, _Why callest thou me good_, &c. therefore, passing this over
and supposing that it ought to be read, as we generally do; the common
answer that is given to this objection, which, I humbly conceive, may be
well acquiesced in, is; that our Saviour considers the man, as ascribing
a divine perfection to him, whom, at the same time, he concluded to be
no more than a creature; and therefore it is as though he should say;
either, first, acknowledge me to be a divine Person, or else do not
ascribe divine honours to me, for then by consequence, thou mightest as
well ascribe them to any other creature. And accordingly, by the same
method of reasoning, had he conversed with any Anti-trinitarian, in his
day, who had given divine worship to him, and yet denied his proper
deity, he would have reproved him for this mistake arising from an
erroneous conscience, as much as he does the man, whom he reproves, in
the same sense, for styling him _good_.
That Christ does not exclude himself from having a right to this divine
perfection, is not only evident, from those several scriptures, which
have been before referred to, that ascribe perfections to him that are
equally divine, inasmuch as he that has a right to one divine
perfection, has a right to all; but he also styles himself, in John x.
14. _The good Shepherd_, which certainly imports as much as _good
Master_, which expression was used by the man before-mentioned; and that
his being the good Shepherd argues him to be the Fountain of
blessedness, which is certainly a divine perfection, is evident, because
he speaks of himself, as communicatively good in the highest sense, ver.
28. _I give unto them_, _viz._ my sheep, _eternal life_.[167]
_Secondly_, Having proved the deity of the Son, we proceed to consider
that of the Holy Ghost, in which we are obliged to oppose the Socinians
and Arians, though in different respects: As for the Socinians, they
seem to be divided in their sentiments about this matter, some of them
considering the Holy Ghost no otherwise than as a divine power; and
therefore they call him _Virtus Dei_, or the divine energy, or power of
acting, seeming, by this account of it, to deny his distinct
Personality, as the Sabellians do that of the Son and Spirit; though
others of them, being convinced that there is sufficient proof of his
Personality in scripture, to deny his deity, supposing him to be no
other than a created ministering Spirit.[174]
As for the Arians, though this controversy was not brought upon the
stage in the council at Nice, which was so much employed in defending
the deity of our Saviour, by proving him to have the same essence with
the Father, that they had no opportunity to proceed in the defence of
the consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost; yet this is universally denied
by all who give into the Arian scheme: It is true, that as they do not
question his Personality, so they allow that he has many glories
ascribed to him, agreeing, in words, with the scripture account thereof;
but they are, notwithstanding, far from asserting his proper deity, any
more than that of the Son.
We have already proved him to be a distinct Person,[175] and therefore
nothing remains, but that we consider him as having a divine nature.
And, to make this appear, we shall proceed in the same method, in which
we have proved the divinity of the Son, namely, from those divine names,
attributes, works, and worship, which are ascribed to him; though we
have no occasion here to insist on the proof of that proposition, that
he who is thus described is God, as having done that already under each
of those distinct heads, in defence of our Saviour’s deity; and
therefore we need only consider them as applied to the Holy Ghost. And,
1. It appears that he is God, equal with the Father and Son, inasmuch as
the same divine names are given to him that are given to them;
particularly,
(1.) He is called _God_, without any thing tending to detract, or
diminish, from the proper sense of the word, when applied to the Father
or the Son: thus, in Acts v. 3, 4. _Peter said, Ananias, Why hath satan
filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? thou hast not lied unto
men, but unto God_, where he is not only called _God_, but put in
opposition to the creature; and it is as though the apostle should say,
thou hast endeavoured to deceive him, by whom I am inspired, which is a
greater crime, than if thou hadst only lied to me.