Though it should, therefore, appear, that, in consequence of the extraordinary and peculiar relation subsisting between Christ and the first Christians, he was, under certain circumstances and conditions, regarded by his Apostles as one to whom requests might be addressed; yet, upon the ceasing of that relation, no reason would remain for his being regarded by common Christians as an object of prayer.

But it has been contended that the first Christians, generally, were accustomed to offer prayers to Christ. This belief is founded upon a few passages in which Christians, according to the rendering of the Common Version, are represented as calling upon his name.' Thus, Acts ix. 14. He [Saul] hath authority to bind all that call on thy name ;'--the address of Annanias to Saul, Acts xxii. 16. And now why tarriest thou? arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord;'-1 Cor. i. 2. To the church of God which is at Corinth,... with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord.' Another passage to the same effect may be found in

Acts ix. 21.

The expression in the original rendered to call on the name of' is one repeatedly used in the Septuagint in relation to God, where direct address in prayer to him is intended. But its meaning varies, I believe, when used concerning a different being.

6

In this, as in many other cases, the term rendered 'name' is pleonastic, and should be omitted in a translation. This being premised, it may next be remarked that the Greek verb epikaleisthai, rendered to call upon,' does not properly and directly denote religious invocation. In its primary sense, it signifies to call' or 'to call upon' any one; in a secondary meaning, to call on for help. By a very easy extension of this meaning, it denotes, I believe, to look to one for help,' 'to rely upon one for help, protection, deliverance,' 'to trust in one.' In this use of it no verbal address is implied; the word is used metaphorically. It literally denotes 'calling for help; it is used to express the state of mind in which we trust in another for help. In this sense, I think, the word ought to be understood, when used concerning Christ. 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.

But, it may be asked, why, when the words in question have a meaning in which they are often used in the Septuagint, and according to which they would describe Christians generally as invoking, that is, praying to, Christ, should this meaning be set aside. I repeat what I have said, that the verb epikaleomai does not properly and directly denote religious invocation; and that, its object being changed, there is nothing improbable in the supposition, that the signification of the verb is changed also, I answer further, that there seem to be insuperable objections to the belief, that prayer was offered to Christ by the first Christians. His followers were not commanded by our Saviour to pray to him. Without such a command they could not have supposed that he whom they had known habitually to offer prayers to his Father and our Father, was himself an object of prayer. Our Saviour referred his Apostles from himself to God, as the invisible being to whom their requests were to be addressed when he should be taken from them,-as the only proper object of prayer: Then ye shall ask nothing of me. I tell you in truth, that whatever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will grant you." "* Conformably to this, we find no precept enjoining prayer to Christ in their writings. But whether Christians were or were not to pray to Christ, could not have been a matter of indifference. It was either to be done, or it was not to be done. If a duty, it differed from other duties, in the circumstance, that it must have been founded solely upon revelation and an express command. At the same time, if Christians were to have two objects of prayer, peculiar directions, explanations, and cautions must have been necessary. But nothing appears in the New Testament answering to the suppositions which have been made. There is an entire want of that evidence of the fact which must have existed, if prayer to Christ had been commanded by himself and his Apostles. But if not so commanded, it was not practised by the first Christians. The case was the same with them as with us; if it be not a duty to pray to Christ, it is a duty not to pray to him.

It appears, therefore, from the New Testament, that the

* John xvi. 23.

first Christians did not offer prayers to Christ. But there is still other evidence of this truth, to which, though of less importance, it may be worth while to advert.

It has been urged that Pliny, in his celebrated letter to Trajan states (on the authority of some who said 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 men Christo, quasi deo, dicere secum invicem.'

car

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 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 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 wil! 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 the same weight of character. The opinions which he expresses in the passages just quoted were undoubtedly the common opinions of the Christians of his time.

Origen himself, indeed, in other passages asserts or implies, that prayer in an inferior sense may be addressed to the Logos or Christ. In his work against Celsus, he says, for instance; Every supplication, prayer, request, and thanksgiving is to be addressed to him who is God over all, through the High Priest, superior to all angels, the living and divine Logos. But we shall also supplicate the Logos himself, and make requests to him, and give thanks and pray, whenever we may be able to distinguish between prayer properly speaking and prayer in a looser sense.'t Probably what is here meant may appear from two other passages, in his work against Celsus, in which he says; that we first bring our prayers to the only Son of God, the First-born of the whole creation, the Logos of God, and pray to him and request him, as a High Priest, to offer up the prayers which reach him, to the God over all, to his God and our God. It is, indeed, most likely that the doctrine of Origen concerning the propriety of offering prayers, in any sense of the term, to the Logos or Christ, had its origin rather in his own philosophical opinions, than in the belief and practice of the generality of Christians.

The Trinitarian supposes, that the first Christians were taught to pray to Christ or the Son, as God equal to the Father, and that they were distinguished by the circumstance of

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

Cont. Cels. Lib. v. § 4. Opp. I. 580.--ean dunőmetha katakouein tēs peri proseuchës kuriolexias kai katachrēseōs.

b. Lib. VIII. § 13. p. 751. et § 26. 761.

offering such prayers, as those who call upon the name of the Lord. How is it possible to reconcile this supposition with the state of opinion and practice which we find among Christians during the time of Origen, the first half of the third century? The Antitrinitarian believes, that the doctrine of the deity of Christ had been making gradual progress, when therefore he finds that at the period just mentioned, Christ was still spoken of by a writer so eminent as Origen, as not being an object of prayer properly so called, no doubt remains on his mind that he had never been so regarded at any preceding period, that he was not so represented by himself or his Apostles, nor so esteemed by the first Christians.

On the Pre-existence of Christ.

I will now turn to the passages which are supposed particularly to assert the pre-existence of Christ. If this doctrine were proved, it would afford no proof of his being God; but the prejudices in favor of the Trinitarian doctrine have, notwithstanding, been strengthened by a misunderstanding of the passages referred to. The figurative language in which several of them are expressed may, I think, be explained by the following considerations.

One of the main objections of the generality of the Jews to Christianity was its being a novelty, an innovation, subverting their former faith. The Pharisees said; 'We are the disciples of Moses; we know that God spoke to Moses; as for this man, we know not whence he comes. '* The doctrine of Christ was in direct opposition to the popular religion of the Jews, which, though a religion of hypocrisy, formalities, superstition, and bigotry, they had identified in their own minds with the Law; and the Law, their ancient Law, which for fifteen centuries, as they believed, had been their distinguishing glory, they looked upon as an immutable covenant made by God with his chosen people. Were the doctrines of Christ, they might ask, to be opposed to what they believed, and what their fathers had believed, upon the faith of God? Was a teacher of yesterday to be placed in competition with Moses and the Prophets? Was it to be supposed

* John ix. 28, 29.