Charles Morgridge and Prayers Addressed to Christ
The subject of prayer to Christ deserves particular attention. During the whole period of his ministry on earth, prayers were constantly addressed to him both by friends and foes. The thought that they were praying to the invisible God, does not appear, however, to have entered their minds. As they that worshiped him did not worship him as God; so they that prayed to him did not pray to him as God. Blind Bartimeus prayed to him as the Son of David. “O Lord, thou Son of David, have mercy on me.” The mother of Zebedee's children prayed to him, not as God, but as the king of Israel, whom God had set upon his holy hill of Zion. If she had prayed to him as God, the answer, she obtained would have corrected her mistake. She prayed that her two sons might sit the one on his right hand, and the other on his left, in his kingdom. Jesus answered them thus: “To sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my FATHER.” A man with an unclean spirit prayed that Jesus would let him alone. But he did not pray to him as God; for he said to him, “I know thee who thou art, the Holy one of God.” The inhabitants of a whole city, at a certain time, prayed to him (not as the omnipresent God) to depart out of their coasts.
If prayer to Christ while on earth, did not prove him to be God, prayer addressed him in heaven can furnish no such evidence. For it is certain that if he was not God before his ascension, he is not since. His disciples knew that he ascended to sit at the right hand of God—not as the Hearer of prayer, but as their intercessor, to pray with them and for them. “Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” Hence he left with them this promise—“Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”— Matt. xviii. 20. Here is no intimation that Christ will be present with them to hear their prayers, for in the preceding verse he refers them to the Father, as him who would grant their petitions. But he will be present with them by his spirit and grace; that is, by the power of his gospel; to animate and encourage them, as though he were personally present; that they might feel the same confidence in God which his actual presence would inspire.
There are but two instances, I believe, recorded in the New Testament, in which a petition of any kind was addressed to Christ after his ascension. And both of these are attended with circumstances so very extraordinary and peculiar, that they afford no authority or example for praying to Christ on ordinary occasions.
Acts, vii. 59—“And they stoned Stephen, calling upon, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
At this closing period of his life, the dying martyr had a vision of his Saviour. (See verse 56.) He invoked Jesus, not as God, but as “the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” Believing on him as the resurrection and the life, and seeing him miraculously present, as if to encourage him at this awful moment, by revealing to him the glory of God, it was very natural, and no doubt proper, for the expiring saint to request Jesus to receive his spirit. His peculiar situation and circumstances seem to have authorized and prompted his supplication. A case so singular can furnish no example to those who are not in a similar situation, and to whom no such appearance is presented. We are not commanded to imitate Stephen, but Jesus; who, when he was dying, commended his spirit into the hands of the Father.
Verse 60—"And he kneeled down and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.”
There is no evidence that this prayer was addressed to Jesus. We may suppose he kneeled down to pray to the invisible God, whose glory he had just seen. No reason appears why he should kneel to pray to Jesus in the one instance more than in the other. The petition addressed to Jesus was not prayer in the highest and proper sense of the term, the object being visible; and it affords no more authority or example to believers now, than any petitions addressed to Jesus before his crucifixion.
2 Cor. xii. 8, St. Paul, speaking of the thorn in his flesh, says, “For this cause I besought the Lord (Jesus, I think) thrice, that it might depart from me.” This case also was peculiar. St. Paul had frequent miraculous interviews with Christ. He appeared to him in person at the time of his conversion. Again, as we learn from Acts, xxii. 17, he saw him, conversed with him, and received instruction from him. It was while speaking of revelations and visions of the Lord, that he says, he besought him for the removal of the thorn in his flesh. It is not improbable that it was at a time when Christ was miraculously visible, and personally present with him. A petition addressed to Christ on such an occasion, furnishes no example or authority for praying to him as an invisible being, and under ordinary circumstances.
There are two or three other passages that have been thought to favor the doctrine of prayer to Christ.
"John, xiii. 14—"If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.” That is, If ye shall ask any thing of the FATHER, in my name, I will do it.
1 Thess. iii. 11, 12—"Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you. And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you.”
2 Thess. ii. 16, 17—"And now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God even our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts, and establish you, in every good word and work.”
There is no invocation in these passages. They are addressed neither to God, nor to Christ, but to the Thessalonians. In the first, St. Paul merely expresses a devout wish that he might be directed to the Thessalonians, by the co-operation of God, and Christ, his anointed servant. In the second, he expresses a wish that, through the same co-operation, the Thessalonians might be comforted, and established in every good word and work. The manner in which the Apostle expresses himself is sufficiently guarded to prevent any one from inferring any thing like equality between God and Christ, in opposition to the hundreds of passages which teach the subordination of Christ to his Father in all his operations: for he gives to God, and not to Christ, the title which belongs only to the Supreme Being—viz. GOD THE FATHER.
There is a class of passages in which Christians are represented as calling on the name of Christ; and it has been maintained that to call on his name means to pray to him. In passages of this class there appears to be some ambiguity. Expositors are not agreed as to their true import. Dr. Hammond says, “The original words rendered ‘call upon the name of Christ,' imply, to be called by the name of Jesus Christ; which denotes the special relation we bear to him; as the spouse to that husband, whose name is called upon her.”—Isa. iv. 1. He adds, “In this sense will it be most proper to interpret the like phrases, Acts ii. 21 and ix. 14, 21; Rom. x. 10, 12, 13, 14, and generally in the New Testament.”* Dr. Hammond was so learned and so orthodox, that Trinitarians are not apt to dissent from him.** In the following passage the phrase occurs in a manner quite free from all ambiguity. “Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by which ye are called ”—James ii. 6, 7. All who professed the religion of Christ, were called by the name of Christ; and this became a well known designation of the early Christians.
* See his Annotations on 1 Cor. i.
**See Robbins on the Trinity, p. 19.
Another able critic, after a careful examination of the subject, says, “The meaning of the terms rendered ‘calling on the name of Christ,’ would, I believe, be properly and fully expressed in English by the words, ‘looking to Christ for deliverance,' that is, through the power of the gospel.”*** On examination, therefore, no evidence appears in the New Testament that the first Christians addressed prayer to Christ after his ascension. [Norton's Statement of Reasons, p. 164.]
Indeed, how could they?
[There is historical evidence of the same fact. The following are two quotations, one from Pliny, the other from Origen; as cited by Mr. Norton, and accompanied with his remarks. “It has been urged that Pliny, in his celebrated letter to Trajan, states (on the authority of some who said that they had been Christians, but who had deserted the religion) that Christians in their assemblies, were ‘accustomed to sing together a hymn in alternate parts to Christ as to a god’— ‘carmen Christo, quasi deo, dicere secum invicem.”
“These words have been alleged to prove, both that Christians prayed to Christ, and that they believed him to be God. But the only fact which appears, is, that Christians sung hymns in celebration of Christ. The rest is the interpretation of a heathen, who compared in his own mind these hymns to those which the heathens sung in honor of their gods; who like Christ had dwelt on the earth; and, like him, having died, were supposed to be still living in a higher state of being. With his heathen notions, he conceived of the Christians as making a sort of apotheosis of their master. But there is evidence on the subject before us much more direct and more important than that of Pliny.
“It is the evidence of Origen, who wrote a treatise ‘On Prayer' in the former half of the third century. Of prayer, properly speaking, Origen says:
“If we understand what prayer is, it will appear that it is never to be offered to any originated being, not to Christ himself, but only to the God and Father of all; to whom our Saviour himself prayed and taught us to pray. For when his disciples asked him, Teach us to pray, he did not teach them to pray to himself, but to the Father.’.....'Conformably to what he said, Why callest thou me good? there is none good except one, God, the Father, how could he say otherwise, than ‘Why dost thou pray to me? Prayer, as ye learn from the Holy Scriptures, is to be offered to the Father only, to whom I myself pray.’.....'Ye have read the words which I spoke by David to the Father concerning you; I will declare thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the assembly will I sing hymns to thee. It is not consistent with reason for those to pray to a brother, who are esteemed worthy of one Father with him. You, with me and through me, are to address your prayers to the Father alone.’.....Let us then, attending to what was said by Jesus, and all having the same mind, pray to God through him, without any division respecting the mode of prayer. But are we not divided, if some pray to the Father and some to the Son? Those who pray to the Son, whether they do or do not pray to the Father also, fall into a gross error in their great simplicity, through want of judgment and examination.”
“In learning and talents, Origen, during his life time, had no-rival among Christians. There was none who possessed the same weight of character. The opinions which he expressed in the passages just quoted, were undoubtedly the common opinions of the Christians of his time.
“De Oratione. Opp. 1. pp. 222-224. I quote the last passage principally because it is erroneously rendered by Dr. Priestly (Hist. of Opinions, Il. 161) in a manner directly adverse to his own argument.”]
In the very same verse in which they were directed to pray to the Father, they were forbidden to pray to Christ. “And in that day ye shall ask Me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the FATHER in my name, he will give it you.”—John xvi. 23. Before they could have addressed their prayers to Christ, three things must have been done. 1. All the precepts, restricting prayer to the Father, must have been revoked. 2. This particular precept, forbidding prayer to Christ, must have been revoked also. 3. A precept, enjoining prayer to Christ, must have been given. But neither of these things was done. I know of no pretence that the New Testament contains a single precept enjoining prayer to Christ. It is quite clear, then, that the first Christians did not pray to Christ after his ascension.
The doctrine of two objects of prayer, had it been taught, would have presented a greater difficulty, especially to those who were converted to Christianity from Judaism, than any of the peculiarities of the new religion; and, consequently, would have required peculiar instructions, cautions, and explanations. Many questions and controversies arose which were examined, explained, and settled, in the Epistles. But there is not the least allusion in the New Testament to any difficulty, or controversy, or question, in relation to the object of prayer. The Epistles are essentially different from what they must have been, had the doctrine of two objects of prayer existed in the Christian church in the Apostolic age.
The time has been when it was thought to be as orthodox and as necessary to pray to the Virgin Mary, who was styled the “Mother of God,” as it now is to pray to the Son of God. “Those who questioned the propriety of praying to Mary were, at that time, as much suspected of heretical pravity, by the generality of Christians, as those who question the propriety of praying to Christ are, by the reputed orthodox of the present day.”
See Ware's Discourses on the Offices and Character of Jesus Christ; Discourse X. Vindication, &c. by Yates; Part III. Chap. viii. Norton's Statement of Reasons: “Of Prayer to Christ.”
[On this subject Mr. Norton makes the following remarks:—“It has been maintained that Christ is God, for the supposed reason, that prayers were addressed to him by the first Christians. But the fact, if admitted, would afford no support for this conclusion. To pray is to ask a favor. In a religious sense, it is to ask a favor of an invisible and superior being. There is nothing in the nature of prayer, which renders it improper to be addressed to a being inferior to God. Whether such address be proper or not, must depend upon other considerations. In itself considered, there would be nothing more inconsistent with the great principles of natural religion in our asking a favor of an invisible being, an angel, or a glorified spirit, than in our asking a favor of a fellow mortal. For any thing we can perceive, God might have committed the immediate government of our world, of this little particle of the universe, or the immediate superintendence of the Christian church, to some inferior minister of his power. Such a being might thus have become an object of prayer. Nay, in consistency with all that we know of the character of God, there might have been an intercourse, very different from what now exists, between the visible and invisible world. The spirits of our departed friends might have become our guardian angels, with power to confer benefits and to answer our petitions. Prayers then might have been addressed to them. If, therefore, it were to appear that God has revealed to us that Christ is an object of prayer, as was believed by Socinus and his followers, this would afford no reason for concluding that Christ is God. What follows respecting prayer to Christ, is, consequently, a mere digression; but a digression on a topic so important that it needs no excuse.”—Statement of Reasons, p. 157–8]
No comments:
Post a Comment