when in the agonies of martyrdom, a death incurred in consequence of his belief that his Lord was not the deity. Our translation may lead some astray by attaching to the phrase "calling upon " the name "God" in which it departs from the original, which has not the sacred appellation in that connexion. Stephen might invoke Christ and yet not address him as his God. Especially may we urge this since he has himself in a distinct manner separated between the two objects. Not only is this done in the preceding context. It is no less plain in that which fol. lows, if a proper prayer be there supposed. After the invocation of Jesus, the martyr kneeled. This would seem to show a distinct purpose and an address to another being. If we consider the kneeling to have been a deliberate devotional thing, and not the result of circumstances, we see not how this inference can be avoided. Why kneel after his first invocation, and not before, if each time he addressed the same being? The chief cause of ambiguity, on the supposition that Stephen's words imply a prayer, lies not however so much in what Stephen said or did, as in his using the appellation "Lord" both when he invoked Jesus and in the second exclamation. But it needs nothing more than a comparison of other passages with this, to shew that the writer of the Acts does not apply the title to Jesus, in its highest acceptation. The word denotes by itself the relation of a master, proprietor, sovereign. It is given in scripture to other superiors besides God and Christ. It might take the place of "master" in many cases where the sentence is so constructed, or the subject of it is of such a kind as to preclude all ideas connected with an act of religious adoration. It is true that in prayers recorded in this book and elsewhere, God is addressed by the simple name "Lord," as he is supposed to be here. It is equally true that Christ is thus addressed before his ascension, in a mere interrogation. And when applied in other ways to him, we see at once the word has not all its force, as when applied to the divine being. "The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand until I make thy foes thy footstool." "God hath made that same Jesus whom ye have crucified both Lord and Christ." -"The kings of the earth stood up against the Lord and against his Christ." In the last text the distinction between God, the Lord, and his Christ is clear. No less so is it in the preceding. No writer could have supposed him to be the Lord, who was made Lord, that is, derived his superiority and title to dominion in his church, from another, and if another, a higher being. Some who suppose the invocation of Christ by Stephen might possibly alone indicate no religious adoration, are yet inclined to think it must here, because it is so immediately connected with what seems a proper prayer to God. But we ask, is it not said respecting the Hebrews that they worshiped the Lord and the King, at the same moment? And does not even Aaron, his brother, pray to Moses thus-"Alas! my Lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned."-Num. xii. 11. It is often urged against us, that Christ is associated by the sacred writers in a manner so peculiar that it "would shock us to hear" other names thus associated. But in truth, other names and far inferior names too, are thus associated in a manner not less remarkable. To in stance again in Moses. He thus speaks to Israel. "If ye shall hearken diligently unto my commandments which I command you this day, to love the Lord your God ;— I will give you the rain of your land, and I will give you the grass in your fields."-Deut. xi. 13, 14. It was told him at the first, "thou shalt be instead of God" to Aaron. He gives the law to the people afterward in his own name, saying, "I command you." He sometimes utters the sanctions of that law in his own name, saying, I have set before thee this day, life and good, death and evil; in that I command you to love the Lord;-But if thine heart turn away I denounce unto you this day that ye shall surely perish." The prophet's style, from the very nature of his work, must frequently present such peculiarities; and we think it very natural that he should lose himself in his subject, and when speaking for God, speak as God. Much more is this to be expected in him who is above all the other messengers of Heaven; who sustains the nearer and more ennobling relation of a beloved Son, the sinless representative of his Father among men. Our blessed Lord has associated with himself and with God, those whom he appointed to be his apostles, in a manner which cannot be accounted for, if such an association is only proper where equality is supposed."He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." "As thou has sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world." And St Paul says to the Galatians, "ye received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus." To the Corinthians also he expresses himself thus: "I verily, as present in spirit, have judged already as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed; in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one to Satan." How could the Apostle justify this blending of his own name and acts with the name and power of Jesus, if Jesus was his Creator and God? But the argument which justifies Paul, would explain all the language which seems to connect Jesus with God so as to imply equality between them. And if Moses could properly say "I will give you rain," to the people, thus assuming a divine prerogative and a divine work, as his own, because of his relation to God and the Hebrews as a mediator; then may the one Mediator between God and man be spoken of as exercising the same divine power and authority, and yet not be declared thereby, an omnipotent, omnipresent, self-existent being. [For the Unitarian Advocate.] "YE SHALL SEEK ME IN THE MORNING; BUT I SHALL NOT BE."-Job. WHEN a few days their glimmering light hath shed, A few more nights their sable mantle spread, I shall dissolve, and vanish in the tomb. -As the swift shuttle to its guidance true, As the wild winds that mock the gazer's view, From whence no voice doth sigh, no step return ;— H. LETTERS OF AN ENGLISH TRAVELLER RELIGION IN AMERICA. ON REVIVALS OF THERE are many things we should probably estimate more fairly, if we could know how they strike a stranger. This remark may apply particularly to those singular phenomena, which have been always a part in the descriptions of what are termed "revivals ;" these have no chance for a just exposition in the hands of persons who describe rather what they participated than what they observed. Nor do they fare better with others who have indeed no personal concern in them, but yet must have prejudged them as partizans, because they are of sects who have not permitted or sought "awakenings," or belong to that greater class who are hostile to these excitements, from constitutional coldness, or aversion to earnest piety in every form. The Letters from our Englishman seem to us to come as near to a calm, dispassionate, intelligent, and serious judgment, as is to be expected. Their object is rather to describe than explain. But there is often a very fine remark upon occurrences related, by which light is thrown on the general subjects affected by them. In truth we have here an account of revivals to which one who seeks information as to what they are, and what are their results and tendencies, may be safely directed. We feel confident, from comparing his statements with what we have ourselves known respecting these "awakenings," that this author has rightly characterized them. He gives us many very interesting facts which shew a close and an honest observation. He is as careful to tell what is favorable, as what wears a different aspect. |