10. Divine honors given to the Son of God

DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST.

“That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father,” John 5:23. Christ has performed and will perform works, which require almighty power. Divine titles, even the highest, are given to him. He possesses divine attributes. He exercises divine authority. These things are revealed. These are articles of belief. These produce a practical effect. These demand divine honors. The sacred scriptures ascribe the same kind of honor to the Son, which they ascribe to the Father, i. e. divine honor.

It is of importance to form correct ideas of all the doctrines of the scriptures. But it is peculiarly important to form correct ideas of those doctrines, which directly affect the practice. It is of the first importance to render supreme honor to whom it is due, and to avoid idolatry. The sacred scriptures are a safe and sure guide on this subject. They ascribe divine honors to the Son, in connection with the Father. Christ’s commission to his apostles, when he sent them to evangelize the world was, “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Whether this text signifies that the apostles, in administering the ordinance of baptism, acted in the name, and under the authority, of the sacred Three; or whether it signifies that by this rite they initiated persons into Christianity; and united them to Christ’s visible kingdom, it has the same bear- 136 DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. ing upon the subject under consideration. In either case, it connects the Son with the Father, and gives to each the same authority and honor. If it is divine honor to the Father to have control over ministering servants, and to have persons formally introduced into his kingdom, the same acts give the same honor to Christ. The Son of God, speaking of his power and authority to raise the dead, and judge the world, draws this conclusion, “they should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.” As these works require divine perfections, it is a just and natural inference that they should give him divine honor.

Paul in his salutations to the churches, repeatedly says, “Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” If divine honor is due to the Father for giving grace and peace to the world, the same honor is due to Christ; for they come from him no less than from the Father. God has given to Christ a name, “which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” To bow the knee to Jesus, signifies to worship him. That the knee of every thing in heaven, inearth, and under the earth, should bow to him, implies the universality of his worship. To confess Jesus Christ to be Lord, is to acknowledge his sovereignty; and this acknowledgment will be to the glory of God the Father. This acknowledgment would not be to his glory, if his Son were not divine. But a confession of his Son’s divinity, ♦implies the divinity of the Father. In the book of the Revelation of St. John, it is written, “And every creature 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 sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever. I DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 137 beheld, and lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; and cried with a loud voice, saying, salvation to our God, which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.” In one of these texts, all creatures are brought to view, giving divine honors to him that sat upon the throne; and giving equal honors to the Lamb. In another of these texts an innumerable multitude of saints, ascribed the same glory to Christ, which they ascribed to the Father. Divine honor, or worship, was given to Christ, without naming the Father. By the Psalmist it was predicted of Christ, “blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” This ascription of honor was actually made to him by the multitude, who went before and followed him, when he was riding up to Jerusalem. When it was known abroad that Jesus was born, wise men came from the East to do him honor. Their design of going, was to worship him. See Matthew 2:2. When they saw him, they fell down and worshipped him. At a time when Christ was on his way to Jerusalem, “The whole multitude of his disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice, saying, blessed be the King, that cometh in the name of the Lord, peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.” Their praising God consisted in giving blessing to the King, i. e. Christ; and they gave him glory in the highest. When the Pharisees called upon him to rebuke his disciples for giving him this divine homage, he replied, “If these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.” Christ could not have expressed his approbation of their homage, nor his claim to divine honor, in stronger language. One of the malefactors, who was crucified with Jesus, addressed him by prayer, “Lord, remember me, when thou coraest into thy kingdom.” Christ approved and answered his petition. When Christ was about to 18 138 DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. leave the world and ascend to the Father, he hlessed his disciples. “And it came to pass while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him.’ When Stephen was stoned he ojOfered up a petition, “saying. Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” This was a prayer addressed to Christ; and it was addressed to him, when he saw him on the right hand of God.

He continued his petition to his Lord and said, “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.” The primitive Christians called upon the name of Christ; which was an act of prayer or worship. When the Lord commanded Ananias to g-o and heal Saul of his blindness, he replied,”! have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem; and here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all, that call on thy name.’ When Paul began to preach, his hearers inquired, saying, “Is not this he that destroyed them, which called on this name in Jerusalem.’^” “Be baptized and wash aw?y thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord. The same Lord is rich unto all that call upon him.’ Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. When he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, let all the angels of God worship him. St. John heard many of the inhabitants of heaven, “saying with a loud voice, worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing.” The pagans reproached the prniiitive Christians for giving divine honors to Christ. “Pliny, a Roman proconsul celebrated for his works, giving an account to the emperior Trajan of their morals and doctrine, after being forced to confess that the Christians were pious, innocent and upright men, and that they assembled before the rising of the sun, not to concert the commission of crimes, or to disturb the peace of the empire, but to live in -’iety and righteousness, to detest frauds, adulteries, and even the coveting of wealth of DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 139 others; he only reproaches them with chanting Iiymns in honor of their Christ, and of rendering to him the same homages as to a god.”

It clearly appears from the sacred scriptures and from history that divine honors were given to Ciirist.

There is no evidence that he ever discountenanced the practice. There is evidence that he approved it. When the early Christians were accused of giving divine worship to Christ they did not deny the charge; but they gave evidence that they esteemed and reverenced him as God. The character, which the sacred scriptures give to the Son of God entitles him to divine honors. By inheritance he possesses a more excellent name than the angels. The work of creation, the performance of miracles in his own name, the government of all tilings are attributed to him. He has power to raise the dead, to judge the world, and distribute reward and punishment. Divine perfections are attributed to him; and he manifested the holiness of divine nature. As great works, as great authority, as exalted titles, as much love and excellence, are attributed to the Son as to the Father. If the Father is entitled to love, obedience, aild worship, on account of the excellence pf his nature, and the communications of his goodness, Christ is entitled to equal love, obedience and worship. It is not an arbitrary act of divine power to require people to honor the Son even as they honor the Father; for Christ, in his own nature and communications, demands this homage.

It cannot justly be denied that the sacred scriptures require divine honors to be paid to the Son of God. It cannot be denied that primitive Christians, and Christians in every age, have esteemed and worshipped Christ as God. This esteem and reverence for the Lord Jesus was derived directly from the character which he exhibited, and from the system of religion which he published, and his apostles propagated. The Christian religion was designed to be, and it has been 140 DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. published, among Jews and Gentiles. One great object of Christianity was to turn them from idolatry to the worship, the spiritual worship, of the only living and true God. When it is considered how prone mankind v\^ere to idolatry, it might be expected that the greatest care would be taken to avoid any intimation, which would give the least encouragement to idolatry. If Christ be a mere creature; if he be not entitled to divine worship, precaution was not used in the sacred writings against idolatry. On the contrary, they laid its foundation, and gave it an extensive and perpetual patronage. Christ claimed union with the Father in design and operation. He thought it not robbery to be equal with God. He inculcated the duty of honoring the Son even as they honored the Father. He allowed his disciples to call him God. He allowed them to worship him, and he forbade them not. His church has, in every age, acknowledged him to be God, and have worshipped him as God. If this is error, if this is idolatry, Christ is the author of it; the inspired writings support it.

It is true, the sacred scriptures, in certain instances give great limitations to Jesus Christ. He acknowledges that the Father is greater than he; that he is sent by the Father. As Jesus Christ was both human and divine, it is highly jjrobable that he would sometimes speak of one nature, sometimes of the other. When he spoke of his human nature, he would of course speak of it with limitations. If it be just to infer from that class of texts, which attribute limited properties to Christ, that he possesses only human nature, it is equally just to infer from that class of texts, which attribute divine works, names, attributes, and worship to him, that he possesses only divine nature. But this is not a correct method of reasoning. Instead of attempting to make one part of scripture destroy another, care ought to be taken to compare part with part; discover their connection and object; and if possible discover their coincidence. If it be previously determined that the DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 141 divinity of Christ shall not stand, every thing is made to bear against it. The plainest texts are tortured till they unwillingly speak the language of those who use them. If it be admitted that human and divine nature are united in Christ, it is easy to account for those divine ascriptions, which are made to him, while he speaks of himself possessing limited qualities. The sacred scriptures attribute to the Son divme names, divine attributes, divine offices, divine works, and divine worship. If Christ possessed divine nature, he was entitled to divine honors. If he did not possess divine nature, his works, his titles, his offices could not claim those honors, which are due to the Father.

Moses, the other prophets, and the apostles, performed works which required divine power; and they filled high and important offices. Why was not Moses entitled to divine honor for bringing miraculous plagues on the land of Egypt? Why was not Joshua entitled to divine honor for stavinof the sun and moon in their courses? Why Avere not the prophets and apostles entitled to divine honor for healing diseases and raising the dead? Because they did not perform these works by their own power. It was the power of God operating through them, which performed these extraordinary works. This they acknowledged. They disclaimed superior excellence. They disclaimed all title to divine honor. Moses was buried in a secret place to prevent the idolatry of the people at his grave. The apostles used the greatest care to ascribe all efficiency in their extraordinary works to God; and to prevent people from giving them divine worship. As well might human qualities be attributed to the instruments we use, as divine qualities be attributed to men for works, which God performed through them.

If Christ performed his works by his own natural power; if his names were significant of his nature; if he possessed those attributes, which are ascribed to him in the scriptures; if he was competent in his own nature to fill those offices, which he sustained, he had 142 DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. a claim to divine honors. But if he was only constituted Creator; if he was only the medium through which the Father created the world; if divine names and attributes were attributed to him merely because he acted by the influence of the Father, and was appointed, constituted, ordained to the highest offices, he is no more entitled to divine honors than were the prophets and apostles. It is admitted that people are entitled to honor proportionate to their offices, if they be adequate to the duties of their respective stations. But an elevated office does no honor to a man, unless he does honor to the office. Should our government appoint a minister to a foreign court, who did not possess one qualification for that office, and needed and received mediately or immediately the instructions of the chief magistrate in every step of his proceedings, is such a man entitled to ministerial honor?

Ought the foreign court to honor him even as they honored the chief magistrate? By giving him presidential honors, would they honor the chief magistrate of our country? If Christ derived all his qualifications for his offices from the Father, the honor of all his official transactions would be due to the Father, not to him. If he were honored according to his offices, the Father, who established them by his own authority, and filled them with his own fulness would be entitled to greater honor. It would be disproportionate to honor the Son even as they honor the Father.

It is not doubted that it is an honor to a chief magistrate to honor his ministers; but it would not be an honor to him to transfer to them the honor, which was due only to himself.

If the Son be inferior in nature to the Father, it is impossible to honor the Father by giving divine honors to the Son. It is in vain to say that those divine honors, which are given to the Son are given ultimately to the Father; that he is the constituted medium, through which God the Father is worshipped; and that he does not receive divine honors for DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 143 any excellence of his own nature, nor for any acts of his oivn power. The pagans have ever cherished a sentiment similar to this and they have worshipped accordingly. They appeared to suppose that God was a holy Being and that they had oflended him.

They, therefore, sought some medium, through which they might pay him their homage and render him propitious. When the heathen worshipped the sun, they did not design that their religious homage should terminate in that luminous body. But they designed to worship it as the most striking image of the Deity; or as the medium, through which he bestowed his greatest blessings. When they worshipped the elements or any of the brutal creation, they imagined that the Deity either resided in them; or that through them he would operate in their favor. W hen they worshipped departed spirits, they imagined that they would intercede with God for them; and through their influence they should receive divine favors. In all this kind of worship they probably designed to extend their homage ultimately to the Deity; unless it were in some instances, in which thev had lived so Ions: in idolatry, and had become so gross in their worship, that they lost sight of the Deity in their similitudes.

God’s first command to Israel was to prevent them from having more than one God, and his second was to restrain them from idolatry. If Christ possess not divine nature, if he be only a subordinate Deity, it appears to be no less idolatry to worship him than it is to worship the sun, moon, the host of heaven, the elements, individuals of the brutal creation, or departed spirits.

Another argument, of no inconsiderable weight in favor of Christ’s claim to divine honors, may be drawn from his own words at the institution and celebration of the ordinance of the supper. This do in remembrance of me, Luke 22:19. The design of the Lord’s Supper was to keep in remembrance the Lord Jesus 144 DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST.

Christ. When we attend the celebration of this ordinance, we are naturally carried back to him, who instituted it; and to the purposes he intended to accomplish by its observance. We find that it was Christ himself, who instituted this rite; and that he intended this as a mean of keeping in remembrance himself, his sufferings, and the blessings which are conferred in consequence of them. In the ordinance â- we behold the figure of the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world; the figure of the sacrifice, which was offered upon the cross; the figure of that blood, without the shedding of which there can be no remission. We fix our attention upon Jesus Christ, the Author and Finisher of faith; the Author of eternal salvation. This ordinance, then, not only serves to keep the Savior in remembrance, but it tends to excite in the heart love and gratitude to the Author of these inestimable blessings. It was enjoined by the Savior that this ordinance should be perpetuated in the Church till his second coming, the end of the world.

He specified the object of this duty. He required that it should be done in remembrance of himself. The apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians respecting their irregular attendance upon this ordinance, attaches the highest importance to a right performance of this duty; and distinguished guilt to a violation of it. His language on this subject is strong and plain.

“Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” There is no sin, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit excepted, for which greater punishment is threatened, or against which it is made more sure, than a profanation of the Lord’s supper. There is no duty, which appears more solemn or interesting than this. It is solemn, because it brings to view the crucifixion of the Lord of glory; and because he grants his special presence on the DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 145 occasion. It Is interesting, because without the sacrifice, which is represented by this ordinance, there can be no remission of sin. Christ himself hath said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, there is no life in you.” “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh ray blood, hath eternal life.”

Let it be remarked, and let it be remembered, that Christ established this positive institution, and that he made himself the object of this duty, “This do in remembrance of me.”

It is generally, if not universally, admitted, that a celebration of the Lord’s supper is a religious service.

It is required in the same scriptures, and by the same authority, by which every duty is required. After the work of creation was completed, God set apart the seventh day, that his rational creatures might commemorate this important event, and observe it as a day of holy rest. This was undoubtedly a religious service, and directed to the Creator. vYhen a more important event, the redemption of the world, took place, then the dav on which it occurred, the day of the resurrection, was appointed for the commemoration of the work of redemption, and for divine service. The Lord’s supper is an institution of divine appointment, no less than the Sabbath, or public w^orship. When the members of a church attend rightly upon this ordinance, they bring to view what the Savior has done for them. They consider him the procuring cause of salvation. They look over the favors they have received, and those which are offered them; and they find none greater than the provision made and offered by Christ for their salvation. Was it a favor that thev received natural life and support from the divine hand; it is no less a favor that they were redeemed from the second death, and enjoy spiritual support. Look over the whole catalogue of blessings which have come upon this world, and there are none greater than those conferred by Christ, and recognized in this ordinance. In attending upon this 19 146 DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. rite the attention is fixed on Christ, on the benefits he has communicated, and those, which he offers. Love and gratitude are excited toward their Benefactor; and in the spirit of obedience, they do it in remembrance of Him. Here is a rehgious service, as solemn as devotional, as interesting as any which is required at their hands, and it is offered to Christ. It is done in remembrance of Him. It is done to the honor of his name; and a greater honor they do not give in any rehgious service whatever. Do we honor God by sanctifying the Sabbath, by waiting upon him in his court? We honor Christ no less by professing his name, and commemorating his death, his love, and his blessings.

Pagans had long given divine honors to distinguished men. Those, who were renowned in arms, or had done extraordinary things for their nation, were, after their decease, enrolled among the gods, and made the objects of honors, which were not due to created beings. This practice was displeasing in the divine sight. One object of Christ’s coming into the world, was to expose the error of idolatry, and to establish the worship of the only living and true God. He knew the proneness of the human heart at that day^ to have lords many, and gods many. He knew their eager disposition to catch at every thing, which would encourage them in the deification of departed men of uncommon character, and in the practice of idolatry. With these circumstances in view, suppose Christ was simply a created being, of pure intentions, and designing to establish a religion, which would give all glory to God alone, can it be supposed he would establish a religious rite for the purpose of exalting himself in the affections of mankind; of keeping himself in everlasting remembrance in the church; and denouncing the heaviest punishment, even condemnation upon those, who should not suitably observe his decree, and do honor to his name? Had he adopted this method, what more could his friends have desired to justify DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 147 themselves in placing his name among the gods, and of rendering him divine honors? The church generally, ever since the institution of this ordinance, have given divine honors to Christ in its celebration, and if they have, in this respect, fallen into idolatry, it appears that they have been led into this error, by the nature and design of this rite, and by the time and manner of its institution. It is strange indeed, if this holy ordinance, which was designed to be the central, the rallying point, of the church of God, should be the occasion of drawing it principally into idolatry. It is readily admitted, that the holiest things are perverted by the wicked to their destruction. But to suppose as intelligent and as pious part of the world as exists should generally, from the first institution of this ordinance, have given themselves up to idolatry, is a hypothesis too big with absurdity to be believed bv those, who w^ould solve every difficulty in our religion by the efforts of reason.

We are aware of the objection made against this sentiment; that the religious service, which is offered to Christ, is given ultimately to the Father; that the Son is an ambassador; that he is respected as such, but all the honor terminates in God. But this opinion appears very different from the language, which Christ used in the institution of the ordinance; “This do in remembrance of me.’ If he was only;•; ambassador, or an inferior agent, this language appears to be entirely inappropriate. It appears that it would be offensive to God. When Moses, at the rock, made an assumption of power, which detracted from the authoritj’ of the King of Israel, he felt his sore displeasure, and suffered for his rashness. Shall we offer religious service to Moses, because he was God’s messenger to deliver the Hebrews from the land of bondage? Shall we offer religious service to the prophets and apostles, because they were messengers of God for the good of the world, and say, this religious honor terminates in hisn, who sent them? Song of Solomon 148 DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. reason the heathen and the papists, when they bow down before beasts and images. But with the light of revelation in our eye, and the second command in our hand, is it possible that we can fall into this gross absurdity? Were there danger that we should love Christ too much, or that we should give him too much honor, would this ordinance have been instituted, which is calculated to excite the devoutest affections of our hearts toward our Redeemer, unless a caution were given to prevent us from holding him in too high estimation; and of rendering him too much of our service. Let us illustrate the case by an example: Suppose a king, whose subjects had been guilty of treason, and had exposed themselves to capital punishment, should select one of his people, who had not fallen into the common transgression, or one from another nation, to be an ambassador to treat with them on the terms of reconciliation between them and their sovereign. After every thing is done on his part to effect his benevolent purpose, the ambassador appoints a certain celebration to be observed from generation to generation, to keep himself in remembrance, for the services he had rendered them. Would he, by this method, give suitable honor to his king, and would not the subjects overlook the sovereign in the more pleasing and interesting view of his agent? Or, suppose the man, who was most prominent in the deliverance of our country from foreign oppression, should, at the declaration of independence, have appointed a day of festivity to be observed for ever, to keep himself in their remembrance, who would not perceive the incongruity? Who would not shudder at the thought that a sight of God should be lost in a view of the man? When we argue that the honor attached to this ordinance should be given to the Son, we would not be misunderstood. We hold that the Father and Holy Spirit, participate with him the glory of man’s redemption.

DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 149 When we look upon this ordinance, observe its nature, design, and manner of its institution; when we consider the blessings, which are involved in this representation, and the magnitude of the sin of profaning this rite; when we consider, that no duty is more solemn, or momentous than this; that it is required of every believer; that it is a religious service of the highest grade, and that it is offered to ChrisI; who can withhold the conclusion, that we should honor the Son, even as we honor the Father?*

“ It is readily admitted that the word worship, the act of kneeling and of falling on the face to the ground, do not designate the degree of respect, which ia offered to an object. But as these acts wei’e often used to tender homage to God, it might reasonably be expected that Jesus, if he had been merely a creature, would have cautioned his worshippers lest they should offer hina the highest degree of respect. When the people of Lystra would fiave sacrificed to Paul and Barnabas, they suffered them not; and told them plainly that th«y were men of like pwsions with themselves. When Cornelius fell down at Peter’s feet and worshipped, “Peter took him up, saying, stand up, I myself also am a man.” When St. John fell down to worship at the feet of the angel, who had shewed him many things, the angel said, “see thou do it not.” But Christ laid no prohibition upon those who offered him similar expressions of respect. The inference is plain, that there was no danger of their offering him too high a degree of homage

“That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father,” John 5:23. It has been attempted to weaken this testimony by improving the translation in this manner; ’that all men should honor the Son, because they honor the Father.” (See Yates’ Vindication of Uiiitarianism.) This appears to be not only a wrong translation of the particle, x.^fS’*?, but a perversion of the design of the text. The text is the effect, or consequence of the preceding verse. The Father — hath committed all judgment unto the Son, ’tva, to the end that, “all men should honor the Son.” “Though ’Ivct commonli/ denotes the end, for tuhicha thing is done, it often signifies the effect, or consequence of an action simply, without expressing the intention of the agent. ’Iva. sometimes denotes the efficient cause.” (Macknight. See Schleus. Lex. on the word.) The end, or consequence of committing all judgment unto the Son is, therefore, that all men should honor him. But according to the proposed translation, the former part of the verse is the consequence of the latter part; the honoring of the Son, is to be the effect, or consequence of honoring the Father. By this construction the force of the particle, ’v<t, which connects this with the preceding verse, is entirely destroyed.

Ka-9-(»c, which stands for even as, in our translation, is compounded of kato. Sc «;. CI; is often used to denote comparison, “fie is snmetinies used affirmatively, and must be translated indeed, truly, certainly, actually. Kara, increases the meaning of the word, with which it is compounded.” (Macknight. “I According to these principles, the particle, khQ-oi, is used to compare the honoring of the Son with the honoring of the Father. The same force, or degree of menning, which this particle has in relHtion to the honoring of the Father, the same it has in relation to the honoring of the Son. See the force of KaS-ac in Matthew 21:6. Matthew 21:26:24.Mark 9:13; Mark 15:18,

\Ve are not left to the natural ex|)lication of particles, and to the homage which Christ received on earth from his disciples, to prove that he is entitled to divine honors, and that he is a proper olject of supplication. The scriptures testifv that he was invoked; that he was addressed by prayer after he left the world”. In addition to the texts, which have been cited already for this pur])ose, tlurearc others of similarimport, which may be adduced, and on which, and on those, which have been already quoted, we would make some critical remarks. I’snl, in the beginning of hi.s first Epistle to the Corinthians, says, “Unto the chnich of God, 150 DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all, that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord.” I’his phraseology naturally leads to the conclusion that Christians, in the apostles’ time, addressed prayers to Jesus Christ. But this conclusion is evaded by an improved versioti of this, and parallel texts. They are translated passively; viz called hy, or after the name of the Lord. (See the Improved Version of the N. T,; Yates’ Vindication of Unitarianism; L.indsey’s Second Address, &c.) To make this translation consist with grammatical principles, it is coiiceived that the dative, not the accusative case, ougtit to have been used after the participle. This observation is sanctioned by the authority of the LXX. See Isaiah 43:7. But if this evidence be not sufncientto settle the meaning of the word, its common use by the writers of the New Testament, and by the Septuagint owfi-A^ to determine whether it is to be taken passively or actively. When the inspired writers and the seventy would convey the idea that any person or thing was called by the name of the Lord, they uniformly used, as far as I haye examined, a different pliraseology..\ translation, which violates the idiom of the original, and is contrary to the usual meaning of words and phrases does not become critical inquirers after truth.

“For this thing I besought the Lord thrice. And he said unto me, my grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength [J’uvcijuU) is made perfect in weakness; most gladly, therefore, will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power (J’t/va^iV) of Christ may rest upon me,”.’Cor. 12:8,9- The latter part of this passage plainly shews that the Lord, whom Paul besought thrice, was Christ. Here ve have a prayer offered to him without any objection arising from the passive form of the verb; and it might reasonably be expected without a7iiy objections arising from the phraseology, or from the circumstances. But in opposition to this expectation, and to the natural tenor of the passage, as it is admitted by the most candid Unitarians, it is stated that, “St. Paul appears here to have directed his prayer to God, the Father. N. B. The apostles were not so exact in the use of the words.

Lord, Savior and the like, which they indifferently gave both to Ciod and to Christ, never supposing that any would mistake their Lord and.Vlaster, so lately born and living amongst men, to be the supreme God and object of worship.”

(Lindsey’s Apology, p. 147.) It is of no use to argue with men on this subject, who accuse the ai)ostles with a disregard to exactness in the application of the names, “Lord, Savior and the like.” It is of no use to i-eason with them upon the doctrines of the Bible, till they are established in the belief of its divine authority; ttiat it was written Avith exactness. But when it is admitted that Christ was the object of the apostle’s invocation, who can object to offering him prayer? But it is thought “probable, that, when Paul besought him, he was present with the Apostle either in vision, or personally.” (Yates.) From this suppositi>in it is inferred that it is not proper to address prayer to Christ, unless he be, in some manner, visible. If visibility be a necessary qualification in Christ to be an object of supplication, why is so much labor spent to shew that he did not receive it, and was not entitled to it, when he was visibly present on earth? If visibility be a necessary qualification in a being in order to receive divine worship, then God the Father, is destitute of a necessary qualification.

“And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lerd Jesus, receive my Spirit; and he kneeled down ami cried with a loud voice. Lord lay nut this sin to their charge,” Acts 7:59, Acts 7:60. If ever a man was qualified to make an appropriate prayer, and to direct it to a proper object, it seems that Stephen was qualified. He -was full of the Holy Ghost. He was just going to enter the world of spirits. He saw, either ocularly, or mentally, the Son of man or the right hand of God; of course he saw both. In this plenitude of inspiration, in this most solemn and interesting situation, in view of death, of heaven, and of the glory of (iod, he breathed out his soul in jirayer to that Savior, in whose service he had lived; for whose cause he was about to die; and who was able to save his soul. It is in vain to urge the peculiar circumstances of Stephen as the principal ground of his petition to Christ. The circumstances of the supplicant make no alteration in the being supplicated. The circumstance of Christ’s being seen or unseen makes no alteration in his will or power to hear. He, who knew what was in man, when he was upon earth, is not limited in knowledge now he is in heaven. When he was upon the cross he granted the humble request of a penitent. Now he is upon a throne, he is not less entitled to prayer; nor is he less able to grant requests. It must be, at all times, proper to call upon him, because he ig always able to save to the uttermost.