Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

grace, comfort your hearts, and establish you, in every good word and work."

There is no invocation in these passages. They are addressed neither to God, nor to Christ, but to the Thessalonians. In the first, St. Paul merely expresses a devout wish that he might be directed to the Thessalonians, by the co-operation of God, and Christ, his anointed servant. In the second, he expresses a wish that, through the same co-operation, the Thessalonians might be comforted, and established in every good word and work. The manner in which the Apostle expresses himself is sufficiently guarded to prevent any one from inferring any thing like equality between God and Christ, in opposition to the hundreds of passages which teach the subordination of Christ to his Father in all his operations: for he gives to God, and not to Christ, the title which belongs only to the Supreme Being-viz. GOD THE FATHER.

There is a class of passages in which Christians are represented as calling on the name of Christ; and it has been maintained that to call on his name means to pray to him. In passages of this class there appears to be some ambiguity. Expositors are not agreed as to their true import. Dr. Hammond says, "The original words rendered 'call upon the name of Christ,' imply, to be called by the name of Jesus Christ; which denotes the special relation we bear to him; as the spouse to that husband, whose name is called upon her."-Isa. iv. 1. He adds, "In this sense will it be most proper to interpret the like phrases, Acts ii. 21 and ix. 14, 21; Rom. x. 10, 12, 13, 14, and generally in the New Testament.' Dr. Hammond was so learned and so orthodox, that Trinitarians are not apt to dissent from him. In the following passage the phrase

[merged small][ocr errors]

11

occurs in a manner quite free from all ambiguity. "Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by which ye are called?"—James ii. 6, 7. All who professed the religion of Christ, were called by the name of Christ; and this became a well known designation of the early Christians.

Another able critic, after a careful examination of the subject, says, "The meaning of the terms rendered 'calling on the name of Christ,' would, I believe, be properly and fully expressed in English by the words, 'looking to Christ for deliverance,' that is, through the power of the gospel."*

On examination, therefore, no evidence appears in the New Testament that the first Christians addressed prayer to Christ after his ascension.† Indeed, how could they? *Norton's Statement of Reasons, p. 164.

There is historical evidence of the same fact. The following are two quotations, one from Pliny, the other from Origen; as cited by Mr. Norton, and accompanied with his remarks.

"It has been urged that Pliny, in his celebrated letter to Trajan, states (on the authority of some who said that they had been Christians, but who had deserted the religion) that Christians in their assemblies, were 'accustomed to sing together a hymn in alternate parts to Christ as to a god' ⚫ carmen Christo, quasi deo, dicere secum invicem.'

"These words have been alleged to prove, both that Christians prayed to Christ, and that they believed him to be God. But the only fact which appears, is, that Christians sung hymns in celebration of Christ. The rest is the interpretation of a heathen, who compared in his own mind these hymns to those which the heathens sung in honor of their gods; who like Christ had dwelt on the earth; and, like him, having died, were supposed to be still living in a higher state of being. With his heathen notions, he conceived of the Christians as making a sort of apotheosis of their master. But there is evidence on the subject before us much more direct and more important than that of Pliny.

"It is the evidence of Origen, who wrote a treatise 'On Prayer' in the former half of the third century. Of prayer, properly speaking, Origen

says:

"If we understand what prayer is, it will appear that it is never to be offered to any originated being, not to Christ himself, but only to the God

In the very same verse in which they were directed to pray to the Father, they were forbidden to pray to Christ. "And in that day ye shall ask ME nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the FATHER in my name, he will give it you."-John xvi. 23. Before they could have addressed their prayers to Christ, three things must have been done. 1. All the precepts, restricting prayer to the Father, must have been revoked. 2. This particular precept, forbidding prayer to Christ, must have been revoked also. 3. A precept, enjoining prayer to Christ, must have been given. But neither of these things was done. I know of no pretence that the New Testament contains a single precept enjoining prayer to Christ. It is quite clear, then, that the first Christians did not pray to Christ after his ascension.

and Father of all; to whom our Saviour himself prayed and taught us to pray. For when his disciples asked him, Teach us to pray, he did not teach them to pray to himself, but to the Father.'..... Conformably to what he said, Why callest thou me good? there is none good except one, God, the Father, how could he say otherwise, than Why dost thou pray to me? Prayer, as ye learn from the Holy Scriptures, is to be offered to the Father. only, to whom I myself pray.'.....' Ye have read the words which I spoke by David to the Father concerning you; I will declare thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the assembly will I sing hymns to thee. It is not consistent with reason for those to pray to a brother, who are esteemed worthy of one Father with him. You, with me and through me, are to address your prayers to the Father alone.'.....Let us then, attending to what was said by Jesus, and all having the same mind, pray to God through him, without any division respecting the mode of prayer. But are we not divided, if some pray to the Father and some to the Son? Those who pray to the Son, whether they do or do not pray to the Father also, fall into a gross error in their great simplicity, through want of judgment and examination.'

"In learning and talents, Origen, during his life time, had no rival among Christians: There was none who possessed the same weight of character. The opinions which he expressed in the passages just quoted, were undoubtedly the common opinions of the Christians of his time.

"De Oratione. Opp. 1. pp. 222-224. I quote the last passage principally because it is erroneously rendered by Dr. Priestly (Hist. of Opinions, 11. 161) in a manner directly adverse to his own argument."

The doctrine of two objects of prayer, had it been taught, would have presented a greater difficulty, especially to those who were converted to Christianity from Judaism, than any of the peculiarities of the new religion; and, consequently, would have required peculiar instructions, cautions, and explanations. Many questions and controversies arose which were examined, explained, and settled, in the Epistles. But there is not the least allusion in the New Testament to any difficulty, or controversy, or question, in relation to the object of prayer. The Epistles are essentially different from what they must have been, had the doctrine of two objects of prayer existed in the Christian church in the Apostolic age.

The time has been when it was thought to be as orthodox and as necessary to pray to the Virgin Mary, who was styled the "Mother of God," as it now is to pray to the Son of God. "Those who questioned the propriety of praying to Mary were, at that time, as much suspected of heretical pravity, by the generality of Christians, as those who question the propriety of praying to Christ are, by the reputed orthodox of the present day."*

* See Ware's Discourses on the Offices and Character of Jesus Christ; Discourse X. Vindication, &c. by Yates; Part III. Chap. viii. Norton's Statement of Reasons: "Of Prayer to Christ."

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

"The Hypothesis of two natures in Christ supposes an infinite nature with all its essential attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, incapable of change or suffering, was indissolubly united in the person of Jesus Christ, with a finite nature, possessing all its properties, as weakness, imperfect knowledge, liability to sorrow, pain, and death, so that the two natures remain forever distinct, each retaining unaltered all its appropriate attributes."

The Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, which claims the merit of having ascertained and settled the doctrine of the incarnation, describes the doctrine of the Two Natures thus: "Jesus Christ is truly God and man, perfect in both natures, consubstantial with the Father with respect to his divinity, and consubstantial with us with respect to his humanity; the two natures, the divine and human, are indissolubly united in him without confusion or change, each retaining all its former attributes, yet so united as to form one person."

Dr. Barrow on the subject says, "the two natures, the divine and human, were united without any confusion or commixture. The same person never ceased to be both God and man; not even then, when our Lord as man did undergo death-the union between God and man persisting, when the union between human body and soul was dissolved."

The Church of England, like the Catholic church, says:

« ÎnapoiContinuă »