acquainted with, may remind us of his person, and may for that reason be cherished with regard; but we should never think of conversing with, or addressing it, or expecting it to speak or act in any way. Nor would the heathen idolaters have said to a graven image, "Deliver me, for thou art my God," if they had not erroneously imagined some spiritual power to reside in it; that the God it represented had (in the Scriptural expression)" caused his name to dwell there." Now Jesus Himself describes Himself (as do his Apostles,) as not only conveying to us a notion of the Father's character, but as possessing the Father's power, offices, and attributes, and claiming the honour due to the Father: "all power” (said He) “is given unto me, in Heaven and in earth." "The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father." Surely, therefore, Paul, in speaking of this "image of the invisible God," must have been understood as of an image in which that God was to be adored.

And this will be the more evident if you

consider what sort of notion such expressions would naturally convey to those particular persons whom the Apostle is addressing. They were surrounded by, and familiar with, idolaters; men who were accustomed to worship images, in which resided (as they imagined) some present deity, some celestial power, which could listen to their prayers. Would not, therefore, one of Paul's converts conclude, from his language, that Christ was the one authorized Image of the true God, appointed to receive that worship which the heathen superstitiously paid to images made with their own hands? Such an interpretation they could not have failed to put on his words; and what is more, he must have been sure that they would so understand him, unless he took care to put in an express caution against it, and to warn them that Christ was not to be an object of worship. Did he, then, give any such caution? So far from it, that he takes various occasions to say the direct contrary. For instance, he says (as plainly as he could say it, according to that use of the word "name,' which has been already explained) that the manifestation of God in Jesus Christ is not only

superior to any other ever made before, but is such as to demand divine worship: "God," says he, “hath given Him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth."

It is chiefly from this passage, I conceive, that the custom arose of making an outward gesture of reverence when the name of Jesus is pronounced. When this external homage to the sound of the word, serves to remind us of the inward and real veneration due to the divine manifestation in our Lord, the custom is useful. But it is absurd and hurtful, when (as I fear is often the case) the outward reverence for the Name is made the substitute for an inward reverence for the Person of Jesus;-when we imagine that we obey the direction of the Apostle by literally bending the body, when the literal name of Jesus is uttered. By his name, is meant (as has been already fully explained to you,) much more than the mere sound of the word; and by the bending of the knee, is meant (as the Apostle's hearers must have well understood), the religious veneration of the heart,

towards Him who is "one with the Father," and "in whom God was, reconciling the world unto Himself."

The hearers of the Apostles, then, were, by them (it is plain), not merely left, but led, to be, in this sense, worshippers of an image ;-the one divinely-appointed and authorized Image. Nor did the Apostles merely teach them thus to worship God in Christ, but set them the example.

There are, indeed, very few christian prayers expressly recorded in Scripture; but from those few, it should seem that our Lord's disciples understood his injunction to them, to pray to the Father in his name, as meaning, that they were to address their prayers directly to Christ, and pray to God in Him. This, indeed, if you consider what has been said on the use of the word name, is what we might naturally have supposed would be their interpretation of the command to ask of God in Christ's Name; i. e. of God as manifested in Christ for the redemption of the world. And the few instances that are recorded, go to confirm this. Keeping in mind that the title of "Lord," or "The Lord," is that which the Christians constantly applied to

Jesus Christ, look at the prayer recorded in the beginning of Acts, where they apply to Him who had in person chosen each of the Apostles, to fill up for Himself the number left deficient by the apostasy of Judas. They do not say, "Our Father, we pray thee for the sake of Jesus Christ to fill up the number of his Apostles," but they apply themselves to Him direct; saying, Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men (xapdtoyvwoa), show whether of these two thou hast chosen."

66

Again, look to the dying prayers of the blessed martyr, Stephen, whose birth-day to immortal life we celebrate to-morrow. His prayers are an evident imitation of those of his crucified Master. Yet he does not use the same invocation, of Father, but addresses himself direct to Christ. Our Lord had said, when his enemies were nailing Him to the cross, " Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do;" and again, when about to expire, "Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit." Stephen, in manifest imitation of Him, says, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge:" and again, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."