his brother, saying, know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest." It cannot be imagined, that the superiority of the christian covenant was to consist in this, that all mutual instruction was to be suspended; but the words, apparently implying such a suspension, have manifestly been employed only to express more forcibly, how generally the knowledge of the Lord should be diffused. The same idiomatic phraseology has also been employed by our Lord himself, on an occasion different from that at present under consideration. In his conversation with the woman of Samaria, John, ch. 4. v. 21, he said unto her, "woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father." The obvious meaning of these words, notwithstanding their literal signification, is merely that the Father should not be, as was then customary, worshiped exclusively in either of these places, a new doctrine being promulgated, which enjoined a spiritual worship, not to be restrained by local limitations.

If then these negative expressions must be interpreted only as forms of language, strongly enforcing the declarations, to which they are contrasted, not as themselves containing direct and specific declarations, why should that expression, in which our Saviour told his disciples, that they should not ask any thing of him,

be otherwise understood? If he should not be understood as intending to prohibit the worship of the Father on mount Gerizim, or at Jerusalem, why should he be supposed to have intended to prohibit his followers from addressing their supplications to himself? There is indeed, even in the same discourse, another expression, which forbids such an interpretation. "I say not," says our Saviour, "that I will pray the Father for you, for the Father himself loveth you-" It will not be urged, that our Saviour intended to impress his followers with a belief, that his intercession should not be exercised in their behalf, for this would have been to abdicate his character of Mediator: and we must conclude, that his intention, in using these words, was merely to impress them deeply with a persuasion of the love entertained for them by his Father, which is indeed assigned by himself in the succeeding verse. This expression however is not directly negative, as the others. He does not say, I will not pray the Father for you, but, "I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you." Possibly he may have apprehended, that the former mode of expression might be too literally understood to the denial of his intercession, and therefore, while he still adhered to the negative idiom of those whom he addressed, he qualified the phrase to preclude the danger of misconception. Unless therefore

we must conclude that, under the christian covenant, it had become wholly unnecessary, that one man should instruct another in his duty; that the worship even of the Father had become absolutely unlawful in two particular portions of the surface of the earth; and that the intercession of Jesus Christ with his Father had been, by the love of the Father, rendered superfluous to our spiritual welfare; neither should we conclude, with doctor Bruce, that, while we are encouraged to address the Father in the name of Christ, we are prohibited from offering our supplications also to our Redeemer.

This difficulty having been thus removed out of the way, we may proceed to consider, what direct authority we have for addressing our prayers to Christ, even though he has himself so encouraged us to offer them to the Father in his name. In regard to this enquiry however it should be observed, that it cannot be expected, that such authority should be found in the gospels, which are narratives of the occurrences of our Saviour's ministry, while he appeared on earth in a human character.. In his period of humiliation he would not claim to be so addressed, as not befitting the condition, to which he had descended. This was properly reserved for the time, when he had ascended to the glory of his Father; and accordingly the authorities for such a practice must be sought in the conduct and the exhortations of the apostles,

subsequent to his ascension. Here we see a remarkable exemplification of the mischief of the rule, which, for every thing except ecclesiastical regulation, would refer us exclusively to the evangelists. The determination of a question so important, as that on the propriety of addressing prayers to Jesus Christ, must naturally be sought in the other portion of the New Testament.

Supplication addressed to Jesus was indeed the first act of the apostles, assembled after his ascension, for we* are informed, that, in selecting some individual to fill the place of the traitor Judas, they addressed a prayer directly to him, entreating that he would guide the lot which should be drawn. This, as it was the primary act of the apostolic church of christians, might of itself be considered as a sufficient authority for regulating the practice of succeeding ages. It has however been reinforced by other instances, which can leave no doubt in regard to the propriety of such addresses. The original martyr Stephent died in the act of supplicating Jesus to be merciful to his persecutors: Paul ‡has declared, that he had thrice besought the Lord, that he might be freed from that cause of humiliation, which he has described as "a thorn in the flesh :" by the same apostle

Acts, ch. 1, v. 24. † Acts, ch. 7, v. 60. 2 Cor. ch. 12.

v. 8. || 1 Tim. ch. 2. v.8.

Christ Jesus is characterised as the "one mediator between God and man ;" and we cannot conceive a mediator, without also conceiving a communication by prayer, through which our wants should be made known unto him: the apostle John✶ expressly describes true believers as offering their petitions to the Son of God, and receiving the things which they had desired of him: and the apocalypset is concluded with an invocation directly addressed to him; "even so, come, Lord Jesus."

The intercession of Christ has been admitted by doctor Bruce, and in this important part of the doctrines of our religion his observations appear not to be liable to any objection. On the grand subject of the atonement, made by the death of Christ, he has however published two discourses, which, though chiefly directed against opinions not held by the established church, cannot be dismissed without some unfavourable animadversion. One of these is employed in removing difficulties, the other in stating and maintaining the opinions of the writer.

The first and great difficulty presents itself in the testimonies, which the scriptures have borne to the importance of the death of Christ, which doctor Bruce appears to be desirous of exte nuating as much as possible. An enquiry is

* 1 John, ch. 5, v. 14, 15. † Revel. ch. 21, v. 20.