I wish I knew how to give you, without foreign words, a just notion of the futility of those criticisms, on which much of this controversy turns. The plainest example, that occurs to me at present, is the famous passage in Acts, [vii. 59.] which describes St. Stephen addressing Jesus Christ. The text, as we read it in the English testament, is thus: and they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit. This reading affords us a full proof of Christ's divinity, for the martyr prays to Jesus, and calls him God, and the most eager opposers of the divinity of Jesus allow, that the reading, were it genuine, would prove the point. But, say they, St. Luke wrote in Greek, not in English, and the original ought to be examined. You observe, my brethren, that the word God in the text is printed in the pale italic letter. The translators hit on this plain way of informing a reader, who did not understand the language, in which any part of scripture was written, what original words had corresponding words in English, and what words had not. All words printed in the black roman character correspond to the original words, and all in the pale italic letter are added by the translators to make up, what they supposed the We allow the critic's reason for examining the original to be just. He examines, and renders the text thus: they stoned Stephen, who was calling on (invoking) and saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit. This is a criticism! The word God is got rid of, and the text, it seems, must be read,

sense.

* So Mr. Purver reads it, in Mr. Lindsey's Apology, p. 129.

Stephen was calling on and saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit. Far be it from me, my dear plain brethren, to make your ears tingle with the sounds of verbs active, verbs passive, verbs transitive, verbs neuter, and so on; but permit me to ask you, do you not feel the want of a word in the new translation? Stephen was calling on.... calling on whom? say you. Well! here is another reading, Stephen was invoking and saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit. Now, what will you do with this word invoking? If you look into a small English dictionary, (God grant you may never be driven to dictionaries to understand your bibles!) you will find, to invoke, is to call upon; and if you go to a large dictionary, you will learn that there is a theological invocation, and a poetical invocation, and, in short, that to invoke always signifies to call upon. You still ask, whom did Stephen invoke; on whom did he call? The old translators knew you would ask these questions; and having read that they were workers of iniquity, who called not upon GOD;* that God had said to every pious Jew, consequently to Stephen, call upon ME in the day of trouble, and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify ME;† and that whosoever should call on the name of THE LORD should be saved; the translators, I say, for these just and weighty reasons, put in the word God: Stephen was calling upon God, &c.

Moreover, the old translators knew, that the

christians of St. Stephen's time invoked, or called on Jesus as God. One example of their invocation shall suffice at present. The Lord EVEN JESUS, who appeared unto Paul in the way, SENT Ananias to comfort Paul. To the Lord, who sent Ananias to comfort Paul, Ananias said, all here, that is to say, all the christians at Damascus, CALL ON (invoke) THY_name.* Ananias exhorted Paul to be baptized, and wash away his sins, CALLING ON (invoking) the name of the Lord. Paul obeyed, and afterwards expressed this invocation in these words; I WORSHIP THE GOD OF MY FATHERS, after the way which the Jews call heresy. The old translators therefore had the highest reason for inserting the word God; and the present criticism is futile and of no value. It happens to a verbal critic in turning over Greek dictionaries, as it happened to you in turning to English vocabularies; there is only one article in which you differ; yours is a modest ignorance, his is a proud one; yours lies naked, his is concealed under high sounding words. A sound critic is not an exchanger of words: but he is an investigator of things.

When the reverend Mr. Lindsey lays aside his too modest deference to favourite names, and allows himself to make use of his own good sense, he investigates things, and, although it involve his argument in contradiction, yet he grants the godhead of Jesus Christ. I will take the liberty to

*Acts ix. 17. 14. † xxii. 16. ↑ xxiv. 14.

place two passages in the Apology in contrast,

and remark the conclusion.

1. Melancthon thought, and justly as it should seem, that prayer is the highest act of worship, the proper honour of GOD, and peculiar to HIM

ALONE.*

2. The principal argument for Christ's divinity is to be fetched from religious worship and prayer being addressed to him.

1. Unquestionably Stephen made this re

quest, addressed this prayer to the LORD JESUS.†

2. Unquestionably Stephen made this re

quest, addressed this prayer to the Lord Jesus.§

Mr. Lindsey adds, "if there be no authority for praying to Christ, as we have shewn there is not, the divinity of Christ falleth of course." Of which conclusion we beg leave to offer the following. emendation, as a sense, which the scope absolutely requires. If there be St. Stephen's authority for praying to Christ, as Mr. Lindsey has shewn there is, the divinity of Christ is established of course.

Time would fail, were we to attempt to enumerate the sources of the mistakes of good men, and I close this article with one more, which, I fear, is too common. Disputants will not do justice to the terms used by their opponents. We are blamed for praying to Jesus Christ. The terms Jesus Christ are sometimes put for only the man, who was born of the virgin Mary, consisting of soul and

Apol. p. 136. † 129. 156. § 129.

body. Sometimes they are put for only God, who united his nature to that of the son of Mary; and sometimes they are put for that complex being consisting of both a divine and human nature, who is styled Emanuel God with us. The last is the usual meaning of the terms. To him we pray, not to his soul, not to his body, nor to both united; prayer to either would be idolatry; but we pray to God, who hath united himself to the man, and in whom he dwelleth with all the fulness of the Godhead. If we will not distinguish these objects, we may dispute without end. An error maybe attacked, which nobody believes; a practice may be condemned, which nobody performs.

You ask, next, Is the doctrine of our Lord's divinity free from all difficulty, and liable to no objection? Give me leave to answer this by laying down three undeniable propositions.

I. There never has been a system of religion proposed to mankind free from all difficulty, and liable to no objection.

2. Christianity is a system of religion, that hath the least difficulties, and is liable to the fewest objections.

3. Atheism is clogged with more difficulties, and liable to more objections than any religion in the world.

The part of a rational creature therefore, is to embrace the christian religion. We apply this reasoning to the present controversy. A doubt ariseth about the nature of Jesus Christ. Two opposite

G