[
80]
him, or any petition offered to him, either for benefits which he is expected to confer, or for his mediation and intercession with the
Father, then there is no authority for any thing of this kind, either from reason or scripture.
Not from reason, because
Christ's being the hearer and answerer of prayer, would imply an omnipresence which is the exclusive attribute of deity; not from scripture, because it appears, and
Mr. Emlyn has himself distinctly shewn, that there exists no instance in the New Testament of any direct address to Jesus, except where he was, or was believed to be, personally and sensibly
present. Moreover, it seems to us to be clearly inconsistent with our Saviour's express command, ‘In that day, ye shall ask me nothing; but whatever ye shall ask the
Father in my name, he will give it you.’
John XVI. 23.
Our author lays considerable stress on the character ascribed to Christ as a Mediator of worship. ‘It must be granted,’ he says, ‘that Jesus Christ as a Mediator of worship, is as really supposed to know our prayers and wants, as when he is an object of it. If the man Jesus Christ does intreat for us, if he be our advocate, then in all reason he must know our case before he pleads it. God, who exalted him to that office, has in some way or other capacitated him for it; and this is a sufficient ground for worshiping him as Mediator, though it be far from implying him to be equal in perfection to that God with whom he intercedes, and consequently is no ground for truly divine worship.’ —If I understand this argument, it proceeds on the supposition that Christ is in such a sense Mediator between God and men, that he is the
