humanity was glorified by his putting off or desisting from all that was corrupt in mere human nature, and by his acting from the dictates of divine love and divine wisdom, which were the father within him. It was this corrupt human nature, with its corporeal body, which died on the cross, and not the divine body of the Lord, which was in it, and which was seen at his transfiguration on the mount-that could not be crucified or die because it was divine. And this corporeal body died, and with it all the corrupt principles of human nature were put off, that the Lord might exist fully and solely in his glorified body, which was afterwards seen and worshiped by his disciples as his divine human form. But, before this corporeal body or corrupt humanity was put off, there was contrariety between it and the Lord's internal principles of love and wisdom, which were the father within him; and while the Lord was still thinking and feeling in this corrupt humanity, his internal principles, or the father, appeared to be separate from him; and under the strength of this appearance he addressed the father as a separate being. But the father was, in fact, no more separate from him than David's soul was from David, or my heart and head from me.

Hence, when the Lord gave his spirit up to the father, it was his human consciousness yielding itself entirely up to his divine consciousness; and by that act it was signified that there was an entire conjunction between the divine and human natures of Christ, because all that was contrary to the divinity being put off, the humanity became entirely one with the father, and was thus an unresisting and unperverting medium of divine love and divine wisdom.

When, then, the mere humanity of the Lord gave up its spirit to the father, it was shown that the father is the being to whom the spirits of men are to be commended: and hence that God only is the being who can receive the spirits of men. Wherefore, when Stephen called upon the Lord Jesus to receive his spirit, it is clear that he considered him as the father; con. sequently, as God. And thus it is manifest that Stephen worshiped the Lord Jesus as his God. And this proves collaterally that Jesus Christ was the God of the apostles.

But it may be objected here, that Stephen saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God: which im. plies that Jesus was separate and distinct from God, and of course could not be God himself. In answer to this, we can only observe, as heretofore, that Stephen saw with his spiritual eyes opened; and hence that which he saw was a representation in the spiritual world, similar to those representations which John saw in vision, and which he has described in the Apocalypse. For Stephen saw "the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God." And John (Apoc. iv. 2) beheld a throne set in heaven, and one sitting on the throne, who was evidently the same whom he had before described as one like unto the Son of Man standing in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks." (i. 13.) Hence it is clear that this representation to the eye of Stephen is to be explained in the same way that those are which were seen by John. And as, from the representation made to John of one sitting on the throne with a Lamb in the midst of the throne, we are not to suppose that He who sat upon the throne and the Lamb are separate and distinct beings; so neither are we, from this representation to Stephen of Jesus standing on the right hand of God, to suppose that Jesus and God are separate and distinct beings.

66

That this was but a mere representation, is clear from its being said that Stephen saw the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God: which, if supposed to be a presentation of a real truth, would imply that he saw God, on the right hand of whom the Son of Man stood. But it is clsewhere said, "No man hath seen God at any time." It was not, then, really God whom Stephen saw. And, of course, it was not really the Son of Man whom he saw standing on the right hand of God. Consequently it was only a representation of God and of the Son of Man. And of the meaning of this representation Stephen doubtless had an intuitive perception. He, without doubt, perceived that the right hand represents power, because man's right hand is the member by which his power is exercised. Hence he perceived that the right hand of God signifies the power of God; and of course that the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God signified that Jesus, who was repre

sented by the Son of Man, had the power of God: which is "all power in heaven and on earth." Thus he perceived, from this representation, that Jesus was God himself. And hence he called upon him and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." In this vision, we should particularly observe, that Stephen, in his prayer, did not address the glory, but the Son of Man which was standing on the right hand of the glory: thus he addressed the Lord Jesus directly, and prayed to him to forgive his persecutors this sin. From which it follows that the Lord Jesus had the same relation to Stephen in his prayer, which the father had to the Lord's humanity in his prayer on the cross. And hence that the Lord Jesus was the father in the view of Ste. phen. But, to say nothing of that, it is clear that Stephen prayed to the Lord Jesus to forgive his persecutors their sin. And hence, as no one can forgive sins but God, it is clear that he worshiped the Lord Jesus as his God. Thus this single example will of itself suffice to show from the Acts of the Apostles that Jesus Christ was the God of the apostles.

We might also prove from ecclesiastical history, that the early Christians in general were in the habit of addressing prayers, and singing hymns, and offering up all their acts of public worship to Jesus Christ as God. For it is well known that some of them suffered persecution and martyrdom on this But this does not come within our present plan. very account. And we shall only further confirm the truth we have now established by adverting in our following discourses to the Epistles of the Apostles; all of which, we doubt not, will show that the apostles regarded Jesus Christ as their God.

We have not time now to indulge in any reflections upon this important subject. And we will only beg you to mark attentively that Stephen called on the Lord Jesus to receive his spirit. There was the glory of God, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of it. Yet Stephen did not address himself to God as the glory, but prayed to Jesus himself. And while you are reflecting upon this most important fact, we will conclude with simply this solemn injunction-"Go, and do thou likewise !"

SERMON XI.

ISAIAH, XLV. 23.

"I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righte ousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear."

IN our last discourse, we showed, from the recorded acts of the apostles, as exemplified in the case of Stephen when about to be stoned to death, that they paid to Jesus divine adoration. For it was to be inferred from this instance of "a man," acknowledged to be "full of faith and the holy ghost," praying directly to Jesus as a divine being, that the apostles also, by whose instructions and instrumentality this man had been brought into the church, must have regarded Jesus in the same light, and thus must have worshiped him as God. It remains for us, in this and the following discourse, to discuss this topic at length. The drift of our argument will be, that the apostles have used language in their Epistles, in reference to the Lord Jesus, which they could not have used unless they had considered him as God.

But it must be admitted that, in arguing this point, we have to encounter difficulties. It cannot be denied that the apostles so speak of Jesus Christ in connection with the father as if they considered them personally separate. It is undoubtedly true, that they make a distinction between Jesus and the father. And though, by pointing out the grounds and nature of that distinction, we should show clearly that it did not conflict with the idea of Jesus and the father being one person, yet still the question might arise in the minds of some, if the apostles had this idea in their minds, why did they not state it plainly?

Admitting, then, that the apostles in some passages of their writings clearly indicate that they considered Jesus Christ as God, an answer must be given to the inquiry, why do they not state this in express language, and why do they in other parts of their writings speak of him as a man to all appearance personally distinct from the Lord God?

In the conduct of this discourse, therefore, it is our intention to make cursory quotations from the Epistles of all the apostles except John-to explain the ground and nature of the apparent distinction which the apostles make between Jesus and the father to suggest the probability that they meant by the terms father, son and holy ghost a distinction of principles in the godhead and finally to answer the question, why they did not speak plainly of the Lord's unity with the father, when they themselves saw it clearly.

The limits of one discourse will not allow us to quote all the passages in the writings of the apostles which go to show that they regarded the Lord Jesus as their God. We shall therefore select some of the most prominent.

In writing to the Romans, Paul has these words, (ch. ix. 5,) "Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God, blessed for ever. Here is a direct assertion that Christ is God. We are not then surprised when Paul ascribes to him the attributes of God, as he does in his Epistle to the Colossians, (i. 16, 17,) where he says, "For by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him, and for him; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist." So in Heb. i. 3, "who upholds all things by the word of his power." Thus Paul ascribes to Jesus Christ the creation and sustentation of all things; which are manifestly the attributes of God. Again, in his Epistle to the Hebrews he says, (xiii. 8,) "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever." Here he ascribes to him unchangeableness, which implies infinity and eternity; and these are the well known attributes of God. Hence Paul swears by him,