« PreviousContinue »
not out of the love he bears to the labor in itself; but something unseen interests, something not to be found within the bounds of the universe has possession of his mind. It is intangible, unreal hope that has nestled in his heart. The philosopher loses all count of time in the absorbing search for truth. It is immaterial, abstract truth that engages him, not merely his books and instruments; and at last, perhaps, he will confess that his fondly pursued truth has had as little and less positive fixedness and reality for him than the glancing colors of the sky. And every one has at times cherished fondly the dreams of fancy, and loved the fleeting forms of imagined felicity, which yet he well knew would never be realized. But now, here is an untiring Benefactor, whose exuberant, constant bounty impresses each moment upon every sense and faculty his reality and friendly presence.
Do we find it impossible to love a character of exalted virtue and disinterested kindness, because seas separate us and we never think of meeting? Why then should the narrow width of a grave interdict all intercourse of our affections with the good Parent, whom, 'If pure in heart, we hope in blessedness to see,' as soon as we have passed that little boundary line? No! let us only take the trouble to use the proper means, and we shall find it an easy and a pleasant thing, and the great joy of our hearts, to obey that commandment which he who knew what was in man, and therefore what he was capable of doing, and what was best for him to do, pronounced the first and great commandment of his maker; Thou shalt love
the Lord, thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind.' M.
PRAYER TO JESUS CHRIST NOT AUTHORISED BY THE
We have recently received from England a pamphlet entitled, Three Letters Addressed to the Rev. Henry Girdlestone, on Christian Unitarianism and the British Reformation Society. By Jerome Murch, Minister of the Unitarian Congregation, Diss, Norfolk,' from which we give the following extract. After commenting on the passage, Thomas said unto him, my Lord, and my God,' John xx. 28, which words he rightly argues, do not, on the supposition they were addressed to Jesus, prove that Thomas regarded him as the object of supreme religious homage, the author proceeds, 'The next assertion which I have to examine, is, that, "At our Saviour's ascension, he left his disciples in the very act of adoration." You refer for your authority to Luke xxiv. 52-" And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy." I am really surprised that any person who is acquainted with the original, should lay great stress on this passage. The Greek word which corresponds to "worship," is so frequently used to denote civil homage and respect, that the argument, which is founded on its application to Jesus, is exceedingly weak. There are also proofs
in the works of ancient English writers, that the word worship was not, in our country, considered exclusively applicable to religious actions. The title worshipful is now applied to magistrates of a certain kind; and, in the marriage service, it is necessary to say, "With my body I thee worship." To these instances I may add two of still greater importance. We read in 1 Chron. xxix. 20, that "the congregation worshipped the Lord and the King;" and, in Dan. ii. 48, that "Nebuchadnezzar fell down on his face and worshipped Daniel.” It is well known that the kind of worship to which these passages refer is still very common in eastern countries. I believe it to be the same as that which was offered to our Saviour by his followers while he dwelt upon earth; and, therefore, I cannot conceive it to authorize that supreme homage which is due to his God and our God, to his Father and our Father.
'After alluding to the conduct of those who witnessed our Lord's ascension, you say that "ever since his session on the throne from the very beginning, his disciples have prayed to him as well as to his Father." I am aware, Sir, that many, very many of our Lord's disciples have in later times addressed their devotions to him, but I believe that few, very few instances of this homage are to be found in the earlier records of the Christian Church. You remark that "the first martyr died with this prayer on his lips, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit; and he kneeled down and cried with a loud voice, Lord lay not this sin to their charge' (Acts vii. 59-60.)" I think it must be difficult for one who has been educated in the belief that Jesus Christ is the Supreme Being to consider this passage without
the sentence that precedes it. In that sentence, Stephen is represented by the translators of our Common Version as calling upon God. This representation, or rather misrepresentation, has undoubtedly deceived thousands who were ignorant that the word God is unauthorized by the original. As to the words which you quote, I feel convinced that although the first invocation was addressed to Jesus, the second was addressed to the Father. My conviction is strengthened by the historian's information that Stephen knelt before he offered up his prayer for mercy towards his persecutors. In reference to the former petition, it must be remembered that the holy martyr had just been favored with a glorious vision. "Being full of the Holy Ghost he looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God." Here we have decisive evidence, that a positive distinction existed between the Father and the Son, even after the latter had ascended up on high. The first invocation was assuredly not addressed to God, but to the Son of man. It is parallel with that other invocation which has been already discussed. These, indeed, are the only two of the same kind which are recorded in the New Testament. They are the only direct addresses to Jesus which can be supposed to contain the language of prayer. They were both prompted by very peculiar circumstances, and certainly furnish no authority for us to pray to Jesus as well as to the Father.
EXTRACT FROM COURAYER'S LAST SENTIMENTS.
Peter Francis Courayer was born at Rouen, in Normandy, in 1681. He was educated a Catholic, and never formally renounced communion with the Romish Church, though he finally rejected most of its distinguishing doctrines. He drew upon himself the displeasure of the French Clergy, by his 'Dissertation on the Validity of English Ordinations,' published in 1723; and to screen himself from the consequences of persecution, was obliged, a few years after, to leave France. He sought refuge in England, where he received very、 flattering marks of attention and respect, from Dr Wake, then Archbishop of Canterbury, from Bishops Hare, Sherlock, and others. He continued to reside in England, greatly esteemed and beloved, till his death, in 1776, at the age of 95. He was distinguished among his contemporaries, for genius and learning. He was the author of several original works, and translations, among the latter of which, was a translation into French of Father Paul Sarpi's History of the Council of Trent. At what period he embraced Unitarian views of Christianity, we are not informed. The Declaration of his 'Last Sentiments,' from which the following extract is taken, bears date, March, 1767, at which time he was in his eighty-sixth year. It was first published in 1787, a few years after his death.
'In the point of appearing before God,' thus the Declaration commences, 'both to fulfil the duty of sincerity, and to furnish all into whose hands this writing may fall, with a testimony which every person living owes