COL. GEORGE WASHINGTON FLOWERS 
 MEMORIAL COLLECTION 
 
 DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 DURHAM. N. C. 
 
 PRESENTED BY 
 
 W. W. FLOWERS 
 
DI^^r^E WORSHIP. 
 
 PEEACHED IN 
 
 THE SECOND SUNDAY AFTER TEINITY, 
 
 JUNE 9tli, 187Q. 
 
 BY THE EECTOR 
 
 RET. ALFRED A. WATSOiV, B. D. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY K,EQXJESX. 
 
 WILMINGTON, N. C: 
 
 J. A. ENGELHARD, STEAM POWEE PRESS PRINTER, 
 JOUENAIi BUILDINGS. 
 1872. 
 
St. Matthew, IY:10. Thoii shalt worship the Lord thy God, aud Hini 
 only shalt thou serve. 
 
 In the narrative of S. Peter's visit to Cornelius, in the 
 2d lesson of the morning,^ it is said that upon the Apostle's 
 entran«?e \uio the centurion's house, " Cornelius met him, 
 and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him," Actsx:25. 
 Had the text, by any chance, been mutilated at this point, 
 so as to omit the succeeding verse, it might have been sup- 
 posed to justify the falling down before a living Apostle. 
 But even so, it w^ould not follow that the worship of an 
 image, as for example of the iron image of S. Peter at 
 Rome, would be justifiable ; seeing that the w^orship of 
 images is the very thing forbidden in the Second Command- 
 ment. But providentially, the 26th verse has not been lost ; 
 wherein it is added, ''But Peter took him up, saying, Stand 
 up; I myself also am a man." Wherefore not even the 
 living Apostle — special temple of the Holy Ghost as he was — 
 could be allowed to receive such homage from mortals. 
 Again, in the Apocalypse, when one of the Seven mighty 
 Angels had been sent unto S. John, that Apostle tells us, 
 Rev. xix:io"I fell at his feet to worship him, and he said 
 unto me, see thou do it not : I am thy fellow- servant and of 
 thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus : w*orship 
 God." In still another instance, xxii:9 S. John having fal- 
 
 IThis Sermon was prepared for the 2d Sunday after Trinity, and is the third of a series 
 upon the subject of Divine Worship. 
 
 P33790 
 
4 
 
 len down before tlie feet of liis guide, the warning is 
 repeated : '-'See thou do it not." 
 
 Mark ! how prostration for worship before a living Apostle 
 is forbidden in one case, and how the same act of homage 
 before angels is forbidden in the others. Mark too, the 
 reason assigned, " Worship God.'" It is the prohibition of 
 such homage to anything not God. 
 
 But in this last instance we have also the expression of 
 another principle, viz : The duty of worshipping all that is 
 God. So s.Matt.ivno "Thou sUalt worship the Lord thy God, 
 and Him only shalt thou serve. "- 
 
 Resuming to-day the subject upon which I have twice 
 addressed you, and starting from one central Principle, viz : 
 
 THE SUPRE:\IE dignity and obligation or DIVINE WORSHIP, 
 
 I propose to make the lesson of to-day two-fold, viz : 
 
 First : The Duty of worshipping all that is truly God. 
 
 Second: The Sin of worshipping what is not God, or of 
 worshipping God Himself through images. 
 
 Let me remind you of some of the positions taken before. 
 Distinguishing Worship from prayer, and from praise, and 
 from communion with God, I defined it as the proper 
 attitude — the prostration — of the creature before his creator ; 
 the homage due to God ; its source, one of the seven gifts of 
 the Blessed Spirit, Holij Fear'-. I maintained the duty of 
 Worship as one of direct Supreme obligation, a duty of the 
 very first class, independent of ail other duties or states of 
 soul ; not so much an expression of other dutiful conditions of 
 soul, e.(j'. Love, or Obedience, as a duty in itself ; a duty on its 
 own account ; primarily expressive, howerer, of simple Re- 
 verence ; an acknowledgment of man's subjection and of God's 
 Supreme Royalty ; a duty binding upon all ; due from all capa- 
 ble of understanding it ; due from deaf, dumb and blind ; from 
 the wicked as well as from the good ; due, not as being the 
 occasion of receiving anything from God but as something to 
 be done by us Godward ; the obligation to which, therefore, 
 
 2TheVor(i ti-ansrated "seJ'i'e" is latreiisiis, from the same root as latria\\hic\\ is used for 
 Diviiie worship. I shall use the word "wdrship" in this discourse iu its popular siguihcatiou, 
 as expressive of the homage paid to God ; Zoir/o, not (ZwZia. , • 
 
 SWl en (S Matt., IV:10) says "TFors7«iJ" the quotation is from (Deut.M:13) where the ex- 
 preS^is -/m"'' This is to b« distinguished from the "Fear" of (T. S. John l\ :18) and 
 to be identified with the Fear of (Rev. X\:4). 
 
5 
 
 does not depend upon our receptive senses, our being able to 
 see or bear, but upon our being able to understand and do 
 the homage required. It is a duty to be rendered not only 
 in private, but in public also, before the world ; a tribute, 
 whose publicity upon all duly appointed occasions, is a mat- 
 ter of special obligation ; from the public rendering of which 
 neither blindness nor deafness can excuse us ; a tribute to 
 be paid upon the whole being, and all that belongs to it ; to 
 be expressed by humiliation of soul, prostration of body, 
 lifting up of voice and offerings of property. 
 
 I maintain, then, that this duty of worship is the most 
 direct, and the first in order, of all our duties to our 
 Creator ; in time, taking precedence of even Obedience. 
 When God reveals himself to his creature, the first decree of 
 nature is, Woeship Him. 
 
 But this obligation of worship is ver}^ much undervalued, 
 often forgotten, or at least dismissed to a place in the scale 
 of duties very far below its due. Through want of Faith — 
 that faculty by which we habitually realize the existence and 
 the presence of God — it has become almost impossible for 
 men to recognize the true dignity of the law of Divine 
 Worship, or the enormity of the sins committed against it, 
 whether by refusing God the worship due Him, or by render- 
 ing the homage which is the exclusive prerogative of the 
 Creator, to or through a creature. It has become hard for 
 you and me to understand the horror, with which Irreverence 
 on one side, and Idolatr}^ on the other, are treated in H0I3' 
 Scripture, or the severity with which they were punished. 
 We have ceased, I fear, to be in full accord with Holy Scrip- 
 ture upon this subject. 
 
 But if Holy Scripture be the word of God, it is worth our 
 while to observe how it exalts this duty of worship ; how im- 
 peratively it demands for God the homage due Him, and at 
 the same time foibids idolatry. It is worth our while, more- 
 over, to observe how rigidly God holds man responsible for 
 finding out Him, the true God, and so for avoiding the pay- 
 ment of divine honors to false Gods. This demand is abso- 
 lutely made, whether of the Heathen, by way of those "invis- 
 
 P33790 
 
G 
 
 ible things of God," wliicli S. Paul affirms miglit, ''from the 
 creation of the workl, be clearh^ seen, even His Eternal 
 Power and Godhead ; being understood bv the things that 
 are made,"' Rom. 1:20 ; or of Jews and Christians, by way of 
 that Revelation which has more clearly disclosed Him. 
 Heathen, and Jew and Christian are held responsible for 
 finding their way to the true God by the one or the other road. 
 
 But if the Heathen, in their comparative darkness, 
 are condemned for " changing the gior}^ of the incor- 
 ruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man," 
 Kom. i:23. mucli more must we, with all the light of Reve- 
 lation upon us, be guilty, if we fail to find and to worship 
 God as He is revealed. 
 
 There are theories or doctrines which, in ordinarj' parlance, 
 may be said to affect, either no practice at all, or only inferior 
 points of practice. Not so those which concern the person 
 of God, or the necessities of His worship. TJie great doc- 
 trine taught in the church, at this period of the ecclesiastical 
 year, is an illustration of this— the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 Shallow thinkers, who never see beyond the one proposition 
 before them, may regard this doctrine as purely abstract and 
 metaphysical. But when the Christian comes to icorsJiip his 
 God, he finds it in the highest sense practical. If he be 
 tlioroughl}' in earnest; he cannot worship satisfactorily, till 
 this question be first settled. It is not merely — Has God a 
 triple personality in His Nature ? But, Is Jesus Christ God V 
 Is the Holy Spirit an actual and a divine Being ? dit'.si I 
 worship Jesus Christ ? JIuM I worship the Holy Ghost ? or 
 am I at liherty to worship either V Since, if the Lord Jesus 
 Christ be revealed to us as God, He must be v\-orshipped as 
 God. If the Holy Ghost be a personal Being, He must be 
 worshipped. 
 
 The question of the Trinity, then, so far from being an 
 abstract one — one of mere religious metaphysics — becomes 
 one of the very highest rank of practical importance. It is 
 in effect, either, on one hand Shall we refuse to God the 
 vrorship which before all other duties we owe Him ? or, Shall 
 vre render a creature the homage vdiich God retains exclu- 
 
7 
 
 sively for Himself, and so be guilty of tlie fearful sin of 
 Idolatry ? 
 
 We cannot afford to stand neutral on this question. On 
 which ever side we fail to recognize the truth revealed, we 
 sin, and that gravely. If the Christ be revealed as God, then 
 the Unitarian who denies this, or does not believe it, and so 
 refuses to worship Him, is guilty of refmimf to luorsldp God, 
 If the Christ be not God, then the Trinitarian,who does worship 
 Him, is an idolater. There is no avoiding the dilemma. We 
 must either worship or refuse to worship. If God has in- 
 structed us upon this very point, we cannot step to one side 
 and throw off our responsibility. It. is one of those awful 
 responsibilities put upon us as Christians, under the light of 
 Eevelation, which we cannot escape, but which I am per- 
 suaded we can meet, if only as anxious to do so faithfully 
 as we are to establish political truths, to solve scientific 
 questions, or to understand our own important temporal in- 
 terests. 
 
 I will not now go into the full argument upon the ques- 
 tion of tlie Trinity. The more important points in that 
 question we considered upon Trinity Sunday. I prefer this 
 morning, as a sort of appendix to what was then taught, to 
 show how, in the book from which two of the texts are taken 
 — the Apocalypse — (the last and ripest book of the sacred 
 canon) — the dignity of the Christ is recognized as Divine, and 
 is distinguished from that of angels ; while his Sonship and 
 subordination to the Father are not overlooked ; even as the 
 same two great diverging yet consistent truths are taught 
 by the Lord Himself in the Gospel. 
 
 We have seen how, twice, in the Apocalypse, the Apostle 
 was most emphatically forbidden to worship even one of the 
 seven great Angels. But now consider how our Lord is 
 spoken of in this same book of Eevelation, so watchful 
 against idolatiy. 
 
 But first : Observe the opening proclamation in the name 
 of God : Rev. i:s "I am Alpha and Omega, the Beginning 
 and the Ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, 
 and which is to come, the Almighty." Then— only two 
 
8 
 
 verses after — vs. lo, ii. " I was in the Spirit on the Lord's 
 day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, 
 saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last. * * 
 "'^ V?. 12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. 
 And being turned, I saw vs. is one like unto the Son of 
 Man, '-^ Vs. 17 And when I saw Him, I fell at his feet as 
 dead. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying unto me 
 (this time, he does not say, See thou do it not," but,) Fear 
 not: I am the First and the Last ; I am he that liveth and was 
 dead; and behold I am alive forevermore. Amen ; and have the 
 keys of Hell and of Death." He who had been dead, pro- 
 claims Himself by the very titles by which, just before, the 
 Almighty had proclaimed Himself. Or — shall w^e say — He 
 who was the Almighty, is identified with Him who had been 
 dead. And so, this remarkable identification of titles goes 
 on throughout the book. Thus xxi:5, e, i " He that sat 
 upon the throne said. Behold, I make all things new ; and he 
 said unto me, - * I am Alpha and Omega, the Beginn- 
 ing and the End. He that overcometh shall inherit all 
 things ; and I will be his God."" 
 
 Observe the style royal of the Epistles from the Lord 
 Christ to the seven churches of Asia. To the angel (or 
 Bishop) of Ephesus Rev. ii:5 " Remember, — or / will re- 
 move thy candlestick." vs. : " To him that overcometh 
 will I give to eat of the tree of life." To the angel of 
 Smyrna, vs. s " These things saith the Fiest and the 
 Last, which was dead, and is alive." vs. lo ''Be thou 
 faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life." — 
 To the angel of Thyatira, vs. 23 " All the churches shall 
 know that I am He which Searcheth the eeins and hearts."* 
 To the angel of Laodicea, ni:2i " To him that overcometh 
 will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also 
 overcame, and am set down with my Father in His throne. 
 
 Sonship, yet Divinity — Subordination, yet Divine Powder 
 and Authority, community of titles and of throne. 
 
 In the fifth chapter it is written v.c, "Lo, in the mibst of 
 
 4Compare with this the title given by S. Paul to God, (Rom. VIII:27) ''He that searcheth 
 ihe hearts," or the expresriou, (2 Chron. VI:3a) Thou {Cod) only l-nowest the hearts of th" 
 chii'iren of ynen.'^ 
 
9 
 
 the throne (of God) and (in the midst) of the four beasts, (or 
 living creatures) - stood a Lamb as it had been shiin." 
 vs. s "And the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell 
 down hefove the. Lamb,'' —{the very thing prohibited to 8. 
 John before the Angel — upon the ground — "Worship God.") 
 vs. 13. "And every ere aturo which is in heaven, and on the 
 earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea and 
 all that are in them, heard I saying blessing, and honor, and 
 glory, and power, be unto him that sitieth upon the throne, 
 and 2irito tJie Lnmb forcA'er and ever." 
 
 Can any man imagine that a creature would thus be joined 
 with his God ? Cannot men see that the worship which is 
 demanded for Divinity alone, and is restricted to Divinity 
 alone, is here paid by the whole universe and by Heaven 
 itself, to the Lamb, conjointly with the Father? — The Lamb, 
 who is in cl^apt^. xvii and xix entitled " The Word of God,'' 
 "King of kings and Lord of Lords," and who is described 
 — "his vesture dipped in blood — his eyes a flame of fire — 
 Upon his head many crowns — The Faithful and True." 
 
 And so the association in Power and Glory goes on. The 
 kings of the earth vino-i:. call to the mountains, " Fall on 
 us and hide us from the face of Him that sitteth on the 
 throne, and'^ from the wrath of the Lamb ; for the great day 
 of his wrath is come." While the redeemed cry with a loud 
 voice, vii:in-ii. "Salvation to our God, which sitteth upon 
 upon the throne, and^ unto the Lamb. And all the angels 
 
 fell before the throne on their faces and worshipped 
 God." In the eleventh chapter it is written (v. 15), " There 
 were great voices in Heaven, saying, "The kingdoms of this 
 world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His 
 Christ; and He shall reign forever."" And so, xii:io "I 
 heard a loud voice saying in Heaven, Now is come salvation, 
 and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power 
 of his Christ." Of the new Jerusalem it is said, xxi:23. "The 
 glory of God did lighten it,, and the Lamb is the light 
 thereof." " "The Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the 
 
 5Those lamiliar with the lores of thi Greek Kai, can understand how in these passages 
 and in those which follow, "He that sitteth upon the throne,'' may be the sam'' with Ihe 
 Lamb, and how in the latter passage O'lLlO), God and the Lamb may be construed in appo- 
 sition. 
 
10 
 
 temple of it." xxii:3. "The throne of God and of the Lamb shall 
 be in it." And as the Apocalyptic vision commences with 
 the assumption by the Lord Christ of the Divine titles, so it 
 ends : xxii:i2-i3-i6. "Behold I come quicMy ; and my reward is 
 with me, to give ever}' man according as his work shall be. 
 I am Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the 
 First and the Last." "I, Jesus, have sent mine angel 
 
 to testify unto you these things." " I am the Boot and 
 the offspring of David." 
 
 What unintelligible, inextricable confusion, if the Lamb be 
 not God. The same names and titles — not only the same 
 throne, but the same praises and homage — worshipped as 
 God is worshipped, and as angels are not allowed to be wor- 
 shipped. If the Lamb — if the Christ — be not God, then 
 is there no meaning in the absolute and exclusive command, 
 " Thou sliolt u-orship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt 
 ikoic serve.'' It is broken in Heaven itself. 
 
 And observe in all that has been cited from the Apoca- 
 lypse, its entire harmony with what the Lord Himself taught 
 of Himself during His human life. s. joi.u xiv:2>. " My Father is 
 greater than I." Yet, "I and my Father are one," and 
 viv:9. ^' He that hath seen me hath seen the Fathee." So, 
 also, xii:45 and xv:24 Again, vi:3-. "All that the Father givetli 
 :!ne," yet, xviiin. "All things that the Father hath are mine." 
 y::o. " The Sou cau do nothing of Himself," [or separately] 
 yet ''What things soever He [the Father] doeth, these also 
 doetli the Son likewise." Observe the inseparability and 
 identity of the Father and the Son as one God. Those who 
 have seen the one have seen the other, and^what the one does 
 the other does. Wherefore again, v:23- " That all men should 
 ]ionor the Son, even as they honor the Father." joim i.-i 
 comprehensively declares, " In the beginning was the 
 Word," — wherefore His past Eternity or Eternal genera- 
 tion ; — "and the Word was v>'ith God — wherefore a distinc- 
 tion of Persons; — "and the Word was God" — wherefore His 
 Divinity ; in all, *' God of God." 
 
 SoNSHir, it is true ; Derivation, it is true ; Suboedination 
 in some sense, it is true. But true also, that He is God, 
 
11 
 
 and Avorsliipped in Heaven itself as God ; as the sharer of 
 the Divine titles and prerof^atives ; of the throne, the power 
 and the authority of God. 
 
 But if God, how can mortal man refuse Him His Divine 
 honors and live ? If all Heaven did not hesitate to fail 
 down before Him and worship Him, what shall be said of 
 the sinful man who, with all this record before his eyes, yet 
 refuses to worship Him, or to acknowledge Him as God ? And 
 what shall be said of the professed worshipper of this Lord 
 of lords, who yet has no horror for the system which denies 
 to his Lord the homage due Him ; who can, with his mas- 
 ter's own divine blood sprinkled upon his soul, yet regard 
 without indignation and alarm, the advances of a system 
 which denies the Lord who thus bought him, and who would 
 with no misgivings entrust the education of christian children 
 to such a system ? Can there be any innocency, anything but 
 fearful sin and danger, in that religious Faith which in the 
 light of all these revelations withholds from God, the Saviour^ 
 the worship which all Heaven renders? Say not that this 
 doctrine of the Trinity is a mere metaphysical position. If 
 it be false — I say it again — we Trinitarians are Idolaiers. — 
 If it be true, no words could express the horror we should 
 have of Unitarianism. I do not speak of persons, but of the 
 doctrine. God be thanked that they vvho have so fearful a 
 doctrine may in despite of it have so many and so great vir- 
 tues. And yet, for the sake of the doctrine itself, it may be 
 vv^ell to remember how Holy Scripture through S. John, that 
 crentlest of the Apostles, 2 s. .Joim 10. forbad christians in his 
 day to receive into their houses or bid God speed to those 
 who brought not the doctrine of the Christ, 
 
 But if in proportion to the great duty of worship), must be 
 the sin which denies the Lord and so refuses God the Son 
 the worship due Him, so in the same proportion, must be es- 
 timated the sin of offering to that vdiich is not God, the 
 worship which belongs to God alone. 
 
 Yet, as I said before, I do not think that we are at all 
 awake to the enormit}^ of the sin of idolatry. Here let a 
 distinction be observed. Idolatry, as the word is comnionly 
 
12 
 
 used, may mean either the worship of false gods or the wor- 
 ship of the true God, by, through, or under, the form of an im- 
 age. Etymologically^ it is more strictly the latter, yiz : a 
 worship addressed to any god, false or true, by or through 
 a visible image or symbol. We should not escape the sin by 
 having the most correct ideas of the Godhead, if worshipping 
 that Godhead through the medium of an image. Nor should 
 we escape by pleading that we only worship the invisible 
 God through the visible image. The more intelligent heathen 
 professed to worship not the images themselves, but an in- 
 visible Deity, through them,* The Second commandment is 
 no mere explanation of the First. It announces a distinct 
 principle, forbids a distinct sin. The First commandment for- 
 bids the sin of recognizing a false god, in whatever way wor- 
 shipped, giving the glory of the true God to another. The 
 Second prohibits divine worship by or through images or vis- 
 ible representatio7is, however true the God worshipped. More 
 especially of the sin against the Second commandment, is it 
 true, that even we Christians fail to recognize its full enor- 
 mity. And as to the ivorMs estimate, what great wrong do 
 worldly people feel to be in it ? Foolish, they may think it, 
 but vicious ? not at all. To much modern theology, the sev- 
 erity of the Mosaic (and therefore, the Divine) law, which 
 put the guilty to death for idolatry, and with exceptional 
 rigor, required a man to inform against his guilty brother, 
 or son, or daughter, or wile, is absolutely unintelligible. And 
 if the positions I have taken with respect to the pre-eminent 
 importance of divine worship be incorrect, then it is difficult 
 to understand those laws. But it was precisely because God 
 did hold and meant to hold the woeship due Himself to be 
 man's preeminent duty, that the sins of which I speak to-day 
 were rated as so enormous. Consider how for the sin of 
 idolatry God punished the Hebrews, as a nation, with pesti- 
 lences, invasions, captivity, death, massacre, national de- 
 struction ; how for nine hundred years He scourged it after 
 
 6 The word (eidolon) means a visible form. 
 
 7 Arnobius, adv. Gentes VI:10, represents his Heathen opponent as replj'ing : "We do net. 
 think either the brass or the materials of gold and silver, or other materials of which imagt-r 
 are made to be themselves, per se, gods and sacred deities ; but in them we worship and ven- 
 erate those whom the sacred dedication introduces and causes to dwell in the images." 
 
13 
 
 this manner on every occasion, and say, how can we in the 
 light of God's own historical interpretation of His own com- 
 mandments, regard the sin of idolatry as less than an awful 
 enormity ? However our natural unsanctified instincts may 
 shrink from these estimates, let us beware how we criticise 
 the sacred record, or sit in presumptuous judgment upon the 
 judgments of God. There were not only more humility, but 
 better sense also, in striving to correct our own estimates by 
 those of Revelation, and in learning from God's wisdom how 
 sore must be the sin which is against either the Second com- 
 mandment or the First. 
 
 But let me remind you that the sin against the Second 
 commandment was not that of worshipping a false god, but 
 that of worshipping any God, even the true, through the 
 media of images. God did not permit a visible image even 
 of Himself, or that the Hebrews should worship Him by the 
 aid of an outward symbol. " Take ye good heed to your- 
 selves," was His warning neut. iv:i5. " for ye saw no manner 
 of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in 
 Horeb out of the midst of the fire, lest ye corrupt yourselves 
 and make you a graven image." The sight of any visible 
 shape was withheld, expressly in order to prevent the He- 
 brews from worshipping the God of Mt. Horeb — the true 
 God — by or through any image or visible symbol. The 
 specialty of the Second commandment, delivered upon that 
 very occasion was the prohibition of sj-mbol worship.^ 
 
 And this seems to me to constitute the great practical ob- 
 jection to the doctrine of transubstantiation, which teaches 
 that God the Son is perpetually upon the altars of His church, 
 and is to be worshipj^ed there under a creature form {siib 
 specie panis, rt'c): a form in itself as insensible and unresisting 
 as was ever idol of wood ; whereof part could be used, as the 
 prophet argued, to heat an oven and to bake bread, and -puTt 
 to warm oneself withal, is. xliv:15-i9. Even so may the bread 
 of the Eucharist be consumed or put to base uses. The proph- 
 et's appeal was directly and positively to the senses. If the 
 
 8 The worship of the li\ing Christ could constitute no exception to this 'aw, for He was 
 God Himself, not a symbol of God. Bur now, the Heaven has received Him, and we are 
 told that it must receive Him "until the restitution of all things," Acts 111:21. 
 
senses could not be depended upon in the one case, neithei 
 could they be depended upon in the other. If what seems 
 to sight, taste and touch, bread and wine, is not, but is only 
 flesh and blood, as to substance, so might what seemed a 
 wooden idol, be under its apparent accidents, really a divin- 
 ity. So in the first ages of Christianity, the fathers of the 
 church argued with their heathen adversaries against the 
 T/orship of images. " Do you not see (writes one) that these 
 images at times fall into ruins from the constant dropping of 
 rain ? In this case, do you not see that newts, shrews, mice, 
 <fec., build their nests and live under the hollow parts? Do 
 you not see sometimes over the face of an image cobwebs 
 and treacherous nets spun by spiders, that they may be able 
 to entangle in them buzzing and imprudent flies. Blush then, 
 and accept the ways of reason from dumb creatures, and let 
 these teach you that there is nothing divine in images." — 
 
 yl;7iotac« advcrms Gentes vi:9. But what if tO argumcuts like theSe, 
 
 their heathen interlocutors could have replied, " Do you not 
 believe that piece of bread, which you handle and break as 
 you please, to be the The Christ, *'Body, Soul and Divinity?" 
 Core. Trid. Sess. xiii, Can. I and IF. Do you not see that mice and in- 
 sects do sometimes gnaw it, and that spiders spin their webs 
 and catch their flies upon it and by help of it, or that if it 
 escape such casualties, the escape is due to your human 
 creature precautions and care of it, and not to any power of 
 its own to repel its assailants ? Will not exposure to the 
 weather destroy it also ? And if kept too long will it not 
 turn to natural corruption ? O inconsistent Christian ! you 
 vstultify yourself by your argument against our gods." Can 
 it be that,Christians believing in transubstantiation and prac- 
 tising Eucliaristic adoration, would have assailed idolatry 
 v/ith such rash arguments, or laid themselves open to such a 
 swift reply? Or indeed that they would have found any 
 such difficulty in the heathen idea of Divinity resident in idol 
 forms ? But in either case, what would have become of the 
 Second commandment with such visible, sensible (yet insen- 
 sible, helpless) images or symbols of the Godhead presented 
 perpetually for worship ? 
 
The mere theory of transubstantiation, which is such an 
 undefined horror to many, seems to me after all nothing but 
 a metaphysical subtlety ; in its concrete form contrary to 
 evidence, and in some respects absurd and impossible;^ but 
 of little consequence if it could remain a mere theory. As a 
 mere theory, it would be only another chapter in theological 
 metaphysics. But make it practical, and if not true, the 
 result is Idolatry. [See Appendix A.] 
 
 I would not have you on account of its practical conse- 
 quences, reject it, but because it is not metaphysically true. 
 I hold that we have no right to accept or reject theories oi 
 doctrines upon the ground of consequences, or upon any 
 ground other than that of their truthfulness or untruthful- 
 ness. But the doctrine of transubstantiation being untrue, 
 its practical mischief manifests itself : First, Avhen it under- 
 mines the miraculous evidences of Revelation ; [See Appen- 
 dix A. j and Second, when it comes into conflict with the 
 Second commandment, by offering for our worship a visible 
 representative of the invisible God. And it being untrue, all 
 genuflexions and bowings to the elements or specially before 
 the elements, as ccntainin^j the Divine presence, become of 
 the nature of idolatry-. The elements are to be treated 
 resf)ectfully, to be handled and received reverently, devout- 
 ly, not as common bread and wine, but as the sacramental 
 body and blood of Christ our Lord ; to be received by v$ 
 at least, upon our knees, as worshipping God, and as receiv- 
 ing at the time a great gift from God, and if possible, so that 
 of the consecrated bread no crumbs shall fall to the ground, 
 to be trodden under footJ^ But to bow down to the elements 
 or before them, is, 1 fear, nothing less than the awful sin of 
 idolatry. The Lord Christ may be in them, or behind them, 
 and ma}- of course be worshipped, but not through them. To 
 do so, would be to do the very thing forbidden by the Second 
 commandment. They are still creature bread and "wine and 
 
 9 As when it is maiutained that accidents cau exist separate from their substance, "So that 
 there may be whiteness and nothing white, sweetness and nothing sweet " S. Ihomas Aq. 
 is quoted as speaking of "form detached from matter" and so becoming "a form intelligible 
 by action and intelligent." Scudamore Notitia Euch. p 834. 
 
 10 Wherefore it is better that the bread be received in the extended palm rather than be- 
 tween the lingers, as wc would take any indifferent object. 
 
IG 
 
 are no more to be adored than was S. Peter to be adored b^' 
 Cornelius, because Christ was not only literally by virtue of 
 His Omnipresence in 8t. Peter, but was moreover specially 
 in His chosen Apostle, by the power of the Holy Ghost. So 
 is the Omnipresent God present in every graven image also. 
 (See Appendix B. ) 
 
 But brethren, do not I pray you, misunderstand me. AYhen 
 1 sa}', there may be a special presence of Christ in or with 
 the elements, I do not mean to express a doubt. I believe 
 the He is so really though spiritually invisibly-, and myste- 
 riously present in or with the consecrated elements, that he 
 who eats or drinks unworthily "is guilty of the body and 
 blood of the Lord," and "eats and drinks condemnation," 
 for that he does not by faith discern (in them) the Lord's 
 body. 1 Cor. xi:2T-29. Tliis actual, special, spiritual presence, I 
 believe ; because I believe that the Lord Himself taught it ; 
 s. John vi:33-5i-5s. bccause I belicve that S. Paul taught it; 
 1 Cor. x:i6; xi:27-29. and bccausc all cliristiau antiquity so under- 
 stood the Aspostolic doctrine, and therefore in turn believed 
 and taught it. But I equally believe that Christ is not sensi- 
 hhj present to be worshipped, but that His natural body is 
 in Heaven and must there continue "till the time of the res- 
 tiiution of all things," as He Himself declares, ''Me ye have 
 not always." 
 
 Of one thing we may be confident, viz : That the first 
 Christians did not worship the elements, or w^orship before 
 them as before an incarnate Christ. Can you imagine S. 
 Paul to have believed that the elements were to be worship- 
 ped or God worshipped through them, and never in all his 
 epistles to have said so ? Was he not the man of all others 
 to claim with his fiery zeal, this honor for them had it been 
 their due ? 
 
 Of course we must not presume to dictate to Eevelation. 
 But seeing that God has given us reasons', [see Appendix C. ] 
 in order that we may understand what in His Pvevelation He 
 teaches us, learning both from the words and from the 
 silences of Holy writ, how can we help, if really anxious not 
 to go beyond the truth, making the natural inference from 
 
\1 
 
 the silence of Holy Scripture here? And I say again, that 
 there is not in the earliest Christian writers, any evidence 
 whatever of Worship paid or to be paid to or through the 
 elements. Of their belief in a mysterious presence of 
 Christ in the sacrament, so as to call the bread the body of 
 Christ and the wine his blood, there are abundant evidences; 
 but not in such a presence, as to demand or justify adoration 
 to or before the elements. 
 
 It is very difficult to treat such subjects satisfactorily 
 within the limits of a sermon. But I have striven to-day to 
 do my duty to 3'^ou, by indicating two great contrasted yet 
 harmonious laws of Christian faith and practice, in the mat- 
 ter of divine worship. The one: that which requires divine 
 honors for all that is God; the other, that which prohibits 
 divine worship to or through outward and visible symbols 
 or images. I desire to put before you no mere notions of 
 my own, but the doctrine of that branch of the Holy Catholic 
 Church to which we belong; the doctrine of the Apostolic 
 and Ante Nicene Church. I would take, and would maintain, 
 the positions thus assigned us, with no doubt or hesitation 
 indeed, but with a decent and modest respect for the opinions 
 of the great and good who have taught differently. And 
 lastly, I feel, and desire to feel the awfulness of such a sub- 
 ject, and the great peril, which would result from a misstep 
 in guiding you among such doctrines. 
 
 God save us from either form of error; and while keeping 
 us gentle and modest toward those who may hold either, yet 
 make us for the sake of God and of the truth, uncompromis- 
 ing in our hostility to the errors themselves, that we may 
 worship the Lord our God according to the commandment^ 
 but may also according to the commandment, bow down be- 
 fora no image or symbol graven oy otherwise. 
 
Let me explain. I distinguish between Transubstantiation 
 as 2i facti or physical change, and the doctrine of Transub- 
 stantiation as known to theology. Transubstantiation as a 
 fact, is perfectly possible. The water at Cana was transub- 
 stantiated into wine. Nay, our daily food is daily transub- 
 stantiated into the materials which constitute our bodies. 
 And so, the bread and wine which our Saviour ate and drank 
 while on earth, was transubstantiated into His own blessed 
 body and blood. 
 
 Nor would there be any greater difficulty to Divine power, 
 in accomplishing this change instantaneously, and by the 
 words of consecration, than in effecting it by the intermediate 
 process of digestion. 
 
 But this is not the whole doctrine of Transubstantiation ; 
 which teaches that in the Eucharist, this change occurs 
 without any corresponding trans-accidentation ; that the 
 accidents of the bread and wine, i. e. the taste, color, form, 
 odor, and effect upon the touch, remain ; but that the bread 
 and wine are nevertheless gone ; and that what still seems 
 bread and wine, is, after the consecration, nothing but real 
 flesh and blood under the appearance cf bread and wine ; 
 that it is God the Son visibly present, under the form of 
 bread and wine, and as such, to be worshipped. 
 
 If, indeed, the elements after consecration, assumed the 
 appearance or taste of flesh and blood, as the water at Cana 
 assumed the appearance and taste of wine, and as the food 
 our Saviour att? and drank assumed, not only the reality but 
 the appearance also, of flesh and blood in His sacred body, we 
 
19 
 
 could have no difficulty in accepting the doctrine. But now 
 our senses contradict it. God seems to testify to us by our 
 eyes and other senses, which He, the author of Faith and 
 Revelation, has bestowed upon us, that it is not so. And 
 therefore we reject the doctrine, because the supposed/ac^ 
 of Transubstantiation is not sustained by the corresponding 
 fact of trans-accidentation, hy tvhicJi alone, the former could 
 he proven to our present menial organization. Not that we 
 question the poiver of God, to change the substance, but 
 cause the flesh and blood to retain the appearance and other 
 accidents of bread and wine. The difficulty is not in any 
 doubt of the power of God, but in the want of evidence to us, 
 that God chooses to make such a change ; or perhaps more 
 accurately, in the evidence which God d^es give to our 
 senses, that He has not made it, and that we are misinter- 
 preting His word, in supposing such a change intended by 
 the expressions of that word. It is said that we must move 
 by Faith in this matter, and be ready to believe the evidence 
 of the word of God against the evidence of our senses ; that 
 our senses, after all, report only accidents, and cannot reach 
 the substance. To this it must be replied, 1st, That the very 
 point in dispute is whether the word of God does teach this 
 doctrine ; whether this is the meaning ; whether it is not 
 more reasonable to understand the evident fact as interpre- 
 ting the written word, than to suppose the written word 
 to contradict the evident, or apparently evident fact, more 
 especially since 2dly, The stoutest advocates for a literal 
 interpretation yet resort to a figurative one, when they 
 explain, ''This citp is the Neio Testament iii 'my blood/' 
 to refer to the contents of the cup. (a) But 3rdly, That 
 thus to object the evidence of the senses, is to reject the 
 evidence of miracles, and of Revelation itself. Miracles 
 appeal to the senses. If the evidence of the senses 
 that the bread is still bread, cannot be relied on, neither 
 could the evidence of the senses, that at Cana, the water 
 was really changed into wine, be relied on. Transubstanti- 
 ation is alleged upon the authority of Revelation. Revela- 
 
 (a). Or as when our Lord says '* / mi the true viw^, " wc do not understand a literal vine 
 twith wood and bark, but ex necessitate rei, give a figurative iutei-pretation. 
 
20 
 
 tion, (so far at least as ooncerns the disclosure of fads or 
 phenomena hidden from direct human observation, and 
 appealing to no inner consciousness, so far at least, Revela- 
 tion) rests upon the evidence of miracles. Miracles are 
 proven upon the evidence of the senses. The doctrine of 
 Transubstantiation which denies the credibility of the evi^ 
 dence of the senses, or at least its reliability, in so doing, 
 destroys its own evidence. It is a case of doctrinal suicide. 
 
 Of course, the same argument would not apply to the 
 doctrine of the Eeal Presence, or even to that of Consub- 
 stantiation ; neither of which deny the continued existence 
 of the bread and wine. 
 
 I would not be willing to say, that for the reasons given, 
 Transubstantiation, even if true, covld not he proven at all / 
 but only, that its proof would require other evidences than 
 have ever yet appealed to man, even in behalf of Revelation 
 itseK ; and probably higher than any which his present 
 mental organization is capable of receiving. As man is at 
 present organized, God has not yet chosen to make it possible to 
 prove to him the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Wherefore for 
 this as for other reasons, we do not, and are persuaded that 
 we cannot, rationally believe it. 
 
APPENDIX B 
 
 I have not before me the means of verifying the following 
 quotations from the Notitia Euch., of Sciidamore; but if 
 correct, they evidently teach a worship of the elements, 
 and not merely of God behind them, p. 550, "The Eoman 
 rubric orders the Priest to lift the Host on high, and with 
 eyes fixed upon it, (which he is to do also in the elevation of 
 the cup) reverently to shoio it to the people to he ic or shipped'' 
 So that what is luor shipped, is that which is shown. Again, 
 p. &19. The decree of the Synod of Exeter, A. D. , 1287. 
 "Because by these words, 'This is my Body,' and by no 
 other, the bread is transubstantiated into the Body of 
 Christ, let not the Priest elevate the Host until he has fully 
 brought out those words, lest the creature he luorshipped by 
 the people J or the Creator.'" Similarly, the Statutes of Noyon 
 forbid the elevation above the breast before the words of 
 consecration, ''lest the honor which is due to the Creator 
 only, be rendered to that which is, as yet, no more than a 
 creature." 
 
 That such of the advanced school of Eitualists as are rep^ 
 resented by Mr. Bennett of Frome, hold substantially the 
 same view, seems evident from Mr. Bennett's own language ; 
 his first forms of expression, as to the "visihle presence of our 
 Lord upon the altars.'' and teaching the people to "adore the 
 consecrated elements," being capable of no other straight 
 forward interpretation ; and his well known change of that 
 phraseology being by his own assertion, intended to indicate 
 no change of meaning upon his part, but only to avoi(J 
 possible misconstruction. 
 
We are sometimes bidden to believe, and not to reason, 
 'There is a sense in which this advice is sound, as when 
 any given proposition has been definitely ascertained to be 
 the word of God. In such cases we must no longer reason, 
 but simply believe. But to apply this advice to the prelim- 
 inary investigations of which I have spoken, implies a con- 
 fusion of ideas. Strictly, Faith and Reason are not in con- 
 flict. They have different fields. Eeason ascertains, 1st, 
 The divine origin of the given proposition ; and 2nd, com- 
 prehends its true meaning. Faith accepts what is thus com- 
 prehended and ascertained to be the word of God. It is the 
 peculiarity of Faith to accept truths upon testimony. But 
 in order to do this, Faith must first be convinced of the 
 rehability of the witness. This latter conviction if is the 
 office of Reason to accomplish. There may be impiessions, 
 so-called convictions, outside of any such investigation, 
 and it may happen that they are true- Such impressions 
 may be all, that for the time, we can have. The child at 
 first has no other. But an intelligent faith in christian 
 mysteries is something more than this. It requires 1st, A 
 witness ; 2d, That the witness be reliable ; and 3rd, An 
 intelligent comprehension of what the witness :ends to 
 disclose. 
 
 Whatever then is ascertained to be the testimony of God, 
 must be at once, and without reserve or criticism, accepted. 
 But Reason must first ascertain that God has spoken, and 
 what God has spoken, Not merely the wordf , but their 
 jneaniug. It must comprehend the idea reveled. There 
 
23 
 
 the office of Beason closes. It does not go on to scrutinize 
 the details or consequences of what is revealed. It refuses 
 to do this because it is Eeason. But it is the idea which is 
 comprehended, and not the mere icovds. And Keason must 
 comprehend the idea, before Faith can accept it. In the face 
 of much of the popular religious language of the day, I 
 affirm that we are never called upon to believe, either what 
 we cannot comprehend, or what cannot be proved ; and 
 furthermore, that we cannot believe what we cannot com- 
 prehend. The facts of a Trinity, of Freewill, of God's 
 omnipresence, we can comprehend and believe. Their quo 
 modo, lioiv the Trinity can consist with the' Unity of the 
 Godhead ; lioic Freewill can consist with Divine Providence 
 and Causality ; or lioio God can be wholly everywhere ;; we 
 cannot comprehend, and we are not expected to believe 
 either. So with all the greater mysteries of our Eeligion. 
 So with the doctrine under consideratian. We are not called 
 upon to believe hoio the bread and wine can be the body and 
 blood of Christ, and yet remain creature bread and me. — 
 Still less are we called upon to believe, what is no Eevelation 
 at all, but only a logical inference. For after all, the advocate 
 of Transubstantiation is the real appellant to Eeason— and 
 that not true reason. He introduces logical inferences into 
 the mid^'t of mysteries, where in the nature of the case, the 
 logic must run in opposite and conflicting directions, accord- 
 ing to the side from which the logician starts. And as this 
 is not tru Eeason, so neither is it any part of a true Faith 
 to accept, as parts of the original Eevelation, the inferences 
 which Eeason may thus make. It was the error of th& 
 Arians, Sr"bellians, Patripassians, Entychians and Fatalists, 
 of old an 's the error now of the advocate of Transubstan.- 
 tiation, t equiie faith in unrevealed inferences from Eev- 
 elation. As^ that because Christ was begotten, therefore He 
 had a beginning; because the Father and the Son are one, 
 therefore the Father suffered upon the Cross ; or because the 
 elements ai.) called by our Lord His body and blood, 
 therefore the\ are no longer bread and wine, though having 
 still all the accidents of bread and wine ; and therefore they 
 
24 
 
 may be adored. In all this, Eeason intrudes, by appending 
 its own purely logical inferences, and so far, holds up a 
 purely human creed for Faith. But it must fall within the 
 province of Eeason to make the preliminary investigation, 
 which ascertains whether or not the grounds upon which 
 the doctrine of Transubstantiation or any other doctrine is 
 offered, are consistent with, or destructive of all Eevelatioh ; 
 whether therefore the revelation of such a doctrine is 
 possible ; whether God has made any revelation upon the 
 subject ; what God has revealed by word to our understand- 
 ings, and what He reveals to our senses. And in ascertain- 
 ing the written or oral revelation, to regard not the bare 
 words alone, but rather the idea conveyed by them ; and in 
 doing this to interpret words according to the ordinary laws 
 of language ; making all due allowance for the difference to 
 be expected between the revelation of a command or duty, 
 and the revelation of a mystery or privilege. The amount 
 of all which is the enquiry, what does God really tell us ? 
 Thei, ^Reason stays herself, and Faith steps in, and accepts 
 without qualification all that in this way it has been ascer- 
 tained that God really says. 
 
 There is then, no conflict between Faith and true Reason. 
 They operate in different fields. But Reason must precede 
 Faith, and Faith can only believe what Reason comprehends, 
 and ascertains to be the actual word of God. 
 
,11..^. C)75.6 Z99C 1850-79 v. 1 Ncs. 
 - ' ' 1-25 P JSC 86 
 
 tHIS VOLOMK nOSS '«^T CIRCULAT« 
 OUTSIDE Tfci! liBR^M BUILDIHO