Part 34

It is orthodox, at the present day, to affirm that the mysteries of the Godhead and Incarnation of our Lord were explicitly taught by himself throughout his ministry, as well as by his apostles afterwards; and Mr. Jones (Lecture, p. 237) assures us that he “received _divine homage_, whilst on earth, from inspired men and angelic spirits.” This shows how much more clear-sighted is modern orthodoxy than was ancient: for the Fathers thought that a great part of the “mystery” of these doctrines consisted in the _secrecy_ in which they were long wrapped. “In the silence of God,” Ignatius assures us, were the Incarnation and the Lord’s death accomplished; and the ecclesiastical writers of the first six centuries seem not only to have admitted that our Lord concealed his divinity from his disciples, and enjoined on his apostles great caution in this matter, but to have discerned in this suppression a profound wisdom, of which they frequently express their admiration. They urge that the Jews could never have been brought round to the faith, if these doctrines had not been kept back for a while,—a strange thing, by the way, if the whole ritual and Scriptures of this people were created to prefigure these mysteries. But Ignatius threw out a suggestion, which, from the eagerness wherewith it was caught up by succeeding writers, was evidently thought a happy discovery: it was necessary _to conceal these mysteries from the Devil, or he would have been on his guard, and defeated everything_. The hint of the venerable saint is brief: “The Virginity of Mary, and the Birth and Death of the Lord were hidden from the Prince of this world.” But the idea is variously enlarged upon by the later Fathers; for, as Cotelier observes, “Res ipsa quam Ignatius exprimit, passim apud sanctos Patres invenitur.” Jerome adds, that the vigilance of the Devil, who expected the Messiah to be born in some Jewish _family_, was thus eluded; and the Author of an anonymous fragment of the same age, cited by Isaac Vos, suggests that, if Satan had known, he would never have put it into men’s hearts to crucify Jesus. And Jobius, a monk of the sixth century, quoted by Photius in his Bibliotheca, and complimented by the learned Patriarch as τῶν ἱερῶν γραφῶν μελέτης οὐκ ἄπειρος, says, “It was necessary to keep in the shade the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word, both for the sake of conciliating the hearers, and in order to escape the notice of the Prince of Darkness.”—See S. Ignat. Ep. ad Magnes. ch. xix.; Patr. Apost. Le Clerc’s Ed. Notes; and Priestley’s Early Opinions, b. iii, ch. 3, 4.

Footnote 175:

Lambertus Danaus, cited by Drusius, in his Diss. de nom. Elohim. Crit. Sacr. Tractatt. t. 1. See also Drus. de quæsitis per Epist. 66.

Footnote 176:

Comment. in Gen. i. 1. Calvin adds, “Imagining that they have here a proof against the Arians, they involve themselves in the Sabellian error: because Moses afterwards subjoins that _Elohim spake_, and that _the Spirit of Elohim brooded over the waters_. If we are to understand that the three Persons are indicated, there will be no distinction among them: for it will follow that the Son was self-generated, and that the Spirit is not of the Father, but of himself.” For further notice of this point see Note B.

Footnote 177:

Grammar of the Hebrew Language, art. 228, 6. Note.

Footnote 178:

See Scripture Proofs and Scriptural Illustrations of Unitarianism, by John Wilson, second edition, 1837, p. 33, where will be found a curious table, exhibiting the usage of the word _God_, in every book of the New Testament. Mr. Wilson has collected his materials with great industry, and arranged them with skill.

Footnote 179:

Matt. i. 23.

Footnote 180:

Isaiah vii. 14. The whole passage is as follows:

“Behold the virgin conceiveth, and beareth a son; And she shall call his name Emmanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, When he shall know to refuse what is evil, and to choose what is good: For before this child shall know To refuse the evil, and to choose the good; The land shall become desolate, By whose two kings thou art distressed.”

Footnote 181:

Quoted from Wilson’s Illustrations, p. 117.

Footnote 182:

Letters on the Trinity, by Moses Stuart, Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theological Seminary, Andover, U.S. Belf. ed. p. 161.

Footnote 183:

Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, 2nd edit. vol. i. p. 382.

Footnote 184:

Amos v. 2.

Footnote 185:

Jeremiah xiv. 17.

Footnote 186:

Micah iv. 8, 9. See the whole context.

Footnote 187:

See Note C.

Footnote 188:

Isaiah ix. 5, 6.

Footnote 189:

Isaiah viii. 23-ix. 4. Compare 2 Kings xv. 29; 1 Chronicles v. 26.

Footnote 190:

Martin Luther’s Version, _in loc._

Footnote 191:

See Note D.

Footnote 192:

Λόγος ἐνδιάθετος.

Footnote 193:

Λόγος προφορικός.

Footnote 194:

Phil. Jud. Op. Schrey et H. J. Meyer. Francof. 1691. De Mundi opific. p. 5. C. p. 6. C. Leg. Alleg. p. 93. B, C, D. De somniis, pp. 574. E. 575. C. E. 576. E. De confus. Ling. p. 341. B. C. Quis rer. div. hæres. p. 509. B. C. Euseb. Prep. Evang. VII. 13.

Footnote 195:

See Note E.

Footnote 196:

1 Tim. iii. 16.

Footnote 197:

Εἷς θεός ἐστιν, ὁ φανερώσας ἑαυτὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.—S. Ignatii Epist. ad Magnes. c. viii.

Footnote 198:

Δι’ οὗ, not ὑφ’ οὗ.

Footnote 199:

Psalm xlv.

Footnote 200:

v. 1-9.

Footnote 201:

v. 10-17.

Footnote 202:

New Translation of the Psalms, by Dr. M. Young, Bishop of Clonfert; _in loc._ Comp. Preface.—When resident in Dublin, I enjoyed the advantage of consulting this posthumous work, suppressed before its publication, for reasons sufficiently obvious to those who know the work, and have noticed the reception which orthodoxy gives to honest and impartial biblical criticism and exegesis. See Mr. Wellbeloved’s Bible _in loc._ where Bishop Young’s translation is cited. May I venture to refer our learned opponents to the last-mentioned work, whenever they think proper to examine what kind of Old Testament theology a Unitarian may hold? It would be curious to know, probably perplexing even to “ordained clergymen” to determine, on which horn of the dilemma the Rev. Hebraists in Christ Church must fix Mr. Wellbeloved;—“_defective scholarship?_”—or “_uncandid and dishonest criticism?_”

Footnote 203:

See Acts iii. 19-21; xiii. 33-37; xxvi. 6-8. Hebrews ii. 5. Titus ii. 12, 13. 1 Tim. iv. 1. James v. 3, 7, 8. 1 Cor. x. 11. Phil. iv. 5. 2 Thess. ii. 2.

Footnote 204:

2 Pet. iii. 13.

Footnote 205:

1 Pet. iii. 20.

Footnote 206:

Acts xvii. 31.

Footnote 207:

Rom. i. 4.

Footnote 208:

Acts xiii. 30-34. comp. Heb. i. 5.

Footnote 209:

Heb. i. 3.

Footnote 210:

2 Pet. iii. 9.

Footnote 211:

Heb. i. 3.

Footnote 212:

Paraphrase on the Epistles; Rom. xiii. 11, 12. Note.

Footnote 213:

From the word GOD, supposed to be addressed to Christ, in the clause “Thy throne, O God, &c.,” the Deity of our Lord, as _a second person in the Trinity_, is inferred. Yet this word, in the original, is ELOHIM, whose plural form, we are told, is intended to prevent our thinking of only One Person, and which cannot mean less than _the whole Trinity_.

Footnote 214:

1 John v. 20.

Footnote 215:

Notes _in loc._

Footnote 216:

Newcome.

Footnote 217:

2 John 7.

Footnote 218:

Phil. ii. 5-8.

Footnote 219:

2 Cor. viii. 9.

Footnote 220:

See Note F.

Footnote 221:

These texts naturally arrange themselves thus:

Condescension. Philippians ii. 5-8. 2 Corinthians viii. 9.

Exaltation. Phil. ii. 9-11. Eph. i. 20-23. Col. i. 15-19. Heb. i.

Footnote 222:

Col. i. 15-19. Comp. Eph. iii. 19; where the apostle desires that _the Ephesians_ may “_be filled with all the fulness of God_.”

Footnote 223:

Note _in loc._

Footnote 224:

Acts xiv. 15.

Footnote 225:

Eph. ii. 10.

Footnote 226:

2 Cor. v. 17.

Footnote 227:

1 Cor. xv. 24.

Footnote 228:

1 Thess. iv. 14.

Footnote 229:

1 Cor. xv. 51. 1 Thess. iv. 17; v. 10.

Footnote 230:

Eph. i. 10.

Footnote 231:

2 Thess. i. 9.

Footnote 232:

Heb. i. 6; Phil. ii. 10.

Footnote 233:

Heb. xii. 28.

Footnote 234:

2 Tim. ii. 12.

Footnote 235:

1 Thess. iv. 14.

Footnote 236:

Rom. viii. 19, 23, 6.

Footnote 237:

1 Pet. i. 5.

Footnote 238:

Eph. ii. 21, 22.

Footnote 239:

Eph. ii. 23.

Footnote 240:

1 Cor. viii. 6.

Footnote 241:

John xvii. 3.

Footnote 242:

John iv. 23, 24.

Footnote 243:

Eph. iv. 6.

Footnote 244:

This is the source to which our opponents in the present controversy have explicitly referred the divine wisdom of Christ. Mr. Jones says, “Unaided by the fulness of _the Godhead which dwelt within him bodily_,” (did _the Father_, according to the Creeds, dwell in him bodily?) “his human soul was, necessarily, finite in its operations.” And again, “Nor could he, as we have already intimated, know anything beyond the ken of a finite intelligence, except it were _revealed to him by the_ ETERNAL WORD, with which he was mysteriously united.” Christ says, “as MY FATHER _hath taught me_, I speak these things.” Was his “_Father_” “the _eternal Word_?”—See _Lect. on the Proper Humanity, &c._ pp. 221, 243.

Footnote 245:

John v. 19, 30.

Footnote 246:

Ib. xiv. 10.

Footnote 247:

Ib. vi. 57.

Footnote 248:

Ib. v. 36.

Footnote 249:

Ib. x. 29.

Footnote 250:

Mark xiii. 32.

Footnote 251:

With respect to the meaning of the name, “THE SON,” our opponents appear to vary their statements in a way which serves the ends of controversy more than those of truth. Mr. Jones says that in the passages which I have adduced, the Trinitarian hypothesis “finds no hindrance whatever,” because the word SON denotes in them our Lord’s _human and Mediatorial_ character. Mr. Bates denies that the word can have any such meaning. In defending the supreme Divinity of Christ, as well as of the Holy Spirit, from what is incorrectly called the Baptismal _Form_, (“baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,”) he begs us to observe that it is _not into the name of Christ the Mediator_ that converts are to be baptized. “Our Saviour’s words,” he affirms, “not only fail to sanction, but _expressly exclude_, such a construction; for he does not say, ‘the name of the Father and of _myself_,’ but ‘of THE SON,’ that is, of THE ETERNAL WORD.” Mr. Bates’s Lecture is not published; but he is aware that this statement is correct. Since this name “_the Son_” “expressly excludes” the Mediatorial character, and _must_ mean the Eternal Word, may we ask Mr. Bates, how it is the Eternal Word did not know the day and the hour, and could do nothing of himself?—_Mr. Jones’s Lect._ p. 242.

Footnote 252:

John vi. 62.

Footnote 253:

Ib. iii. 13.

Footnote 254:

John xvii. 5.

Footnote 255:

Acts ii. 32.

Footnote 256:

Gal. i. 1.

Footnote 257:

John x. 18.

Footnote 258:

Wardlaw’s Discourses, iv. p. 117.

Footnote 259:

Acts xvii. 31.

Footnote 260:

John v. 30.

Footnote 261:

John v. 29. It is very difficult to determine whether this class of passages is rightly interpreted as referring to a final and collective judgment of mankind. The discussion of this point does not properly belong to our present subject; and the assumption, for the sake of brevity of argument, of the usual interpretation, does not imply assent to it.

Footnote 262:

Tillotson’s Sermons, xlvi. Lond. 1704. pp. 549, 550.

I am aware that the name of this admirable writer is not likely to have much weight with our opponents; for in speaking of Socinian writers he has indulged in a spirit of justice, which the modern Orthodoxy of his Church appears to consider altogether old-fashioned. The Archbishop gives the following character of the school which took its name from the Socini; “And yet to do right to the writers on that side, I must own, that generally they are a pattern of the fair way of disputing, and of debating matters of religion without heat and unseemly reflections upon their adversaries, in the number of whom I did not expect that the Primitive Fathers of the Christian Church would have been reckoned by them. They generally argue matters with that temper and gravity, and with that freedom from passion and transport, which becomes a serious and weighty argument; and for the most part they reason closely and clearly, with extraordinary guard and caution, with great dexterity and decency, and yet with smartness and subtilty enough; with a very gentle heat, and few hard words;—virtues to be praised wherever they are found, yea even in an enemy, and very worthy our imitation.” Yet the Archbishop, as if aware that his candour might, by a very natural process, excite suspicion of his Orthodoxy, raises himself above imputation by adding, “In a word, they are the strongest managers of a weak cause, and which is ill-founded at the bottom, that perhaps ever yet meddled with controversy; insomuch that some of the Protestants and the generality of the Popish writers, and even of the Jesuits themselves, who pretend to all the reason and subtilty in the world, are in comparison of them but mere scolds and bunglers; upon the whole matter, they have but this one great defect, that they want a good cause and truth on their side; which if they had, they have reason and wit and temper enough to defend it.”—_Sermon_ xliv. p. 521.

Footnote 263:

Mr. Stewart recommends to our imitation the conduct of a Jewish child who became anxious to pray, like his companions, to Jesus Christ, not, apparently, from any impulse of the affections, or any convictions of duty; but from a prudent desire to run no risk of offending any possible power. “When I go to heaven and see Jesus Christ, if he is God,” calculates the boy, “I shall be ashamed to look him in the face.” Is it possible that this principle of making sure of one’s self-interest without regard to sincerity and truth, can be published without a blush, from a Christian pulpit? And is Christ so little known as yet, that such hollow worship is thought to be a passport to his favour, instead of winning from him a rebuke that, in truth, must make ashamed? Is the Infinite hearer of prayer,—whatever be his name or names,—one who will turn away from a contrite and trustful supplication of the soul, unless his titles are all set right upon the lips? What then would become of the millions of entreaties and of cries that daily rise from the grieving earth to the blessed God? Impossible! ’twould make Heaven a vast Dead-letter Office, for returning petitions on account of a wrong address.

Footnote 264:

Jer. xxxi. 4.

Footnote 265:

Jer. xxxi. 13.

Footnote 266:

Lam. i. 15.

Footnote 267:

Is. xxiii. 12.

Footnote 268:

2 Kings xix. 21.

Footnote 269:

Is. viii. 8.

Footnote 270:

Is. viii. 18.

Footnote 271:

Matt. ii. 23.

Footnote 272:

Elements of Rhetoric, part iii. ch. ii. § 3.

Footnote 273:

Il. xiii. 298.

Footnote 274:

Ode to Fear.

Footnote 275:

Sonnet xii.

Footnote 276:

Olymp. viii. 73.

Footnote 277:

Juvenile Poems, p. 59.

Footnote 278:

De vict. p. 838. D.

Footnote 279:

Quod Deus sit immut. p. 309. A. De charit. p. 609. A. De Temul. p. 244. D. Leg. Alleg. p. 93. B.

Footnote 280:

Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 5, 12.

Footnote 281:

Prov. viii. 22, 30.

Footnote 282:

Κᾂν μηδέπω μέντοι τυγχάνῃ τὶς ἀξιόχρεως ὢν υἱὸς θεοῦ προσαγορεύεσθαι, σπούδαζε κοσμεῖσθαι κατὰ τὸν πρωτόγονον αὐτοῦ λόγον, τὸν ἄγγελον πρεσβύτατον, ὡς ἀρχάγγελον πολυώνυμον ὑπάρχοντα.... Καὶ γὰρ εἰ μήπω ἱκανοὶ θεοῦ παῖδες νομίζεσθαι γεγόναμεν, ἀλλά τοι τῆς ἀϊδίου εἰκόνος αὐτοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἱερωτάτου· θεοῦ γὰρ εἰκὼν, λόγος ὁ πρεσβύτατος. De conf. ling. p. 341. B. C.

Footnote 283:

I have an impression of having seen advertised an English translation of this work; but I have no means of ascertaining the fact.

Footnote 284:

For the sake of brevity I have given rather an abstract than a translation. Commentar. üb. das Evang. des Johan. von Dr. Friedrich Lücke. Band. i. p. 232-p. 238. Bonn. 1833. It is possible that Professor Lücke’s Orthodoxy, which, in conformity with the prevailing estimate of his countrymen, I have ventured to assume, may be called in question. It is always difficult to take the “regula fidei,” recognized in one Country, and apply it, with any exactitude, to the sentiments of another, especially when the one is remarkable for the hard and literal character of its theological conceptions; and the other, for the excessive refinements by which it has discriminated the shades of religious belief. If tried by the only German standard which has any near correspondence with English Evangelicism, I mean the severe school of Guerike, Tholuck, Hahn, Olshausen, Lücke would, no doubt, be pronounced deficient in the faith. But he belongs to the class which approaches most nearly to them, both in the interpretation of Scripture, and in the estimate of its authority. He does not, with them, refuse to compare the doctrines of Scripture with the conclusions of Reason, and insist that the authority of the former supersedes all recourse to the latter; but having ascertained first the _fact_ and the _meaning_ of Revelation, he then permits the comparison with philosophy, and declares their entire consistency. He thus belongs to the Scriptural section of what is called the Philosophical School of German Theology. He is decidedly Trinitarian and Anti-rationalist; and his orthodoxy has never been suspected, as has that of Schleiermacher, the father of his school. He was Professor of Theology in Göttingen before the recent political divisions in Hanover.

Footnote 285:

Pp. 263, 266, 267.

Footnote 286:

P. 265.

Footnote 287:

1 John iii. 4.

Footnote 288:

1 John v. 6.

Footnote 289:

2 Cor. iii. 17.

Footnote 290:

1 Cor. xi. 3.

Footnote 291:

1 Kings xviii. 21. There would be no difficulty in increasing the number of instances exemplifying this solecism.

Footnote 292:

P. 157.

Footnote 293:

Historia Antitrinitariorum, maximè Socinianismi et Socinianorum; Fred. Sam. Bock, Tom. I. P. i. pp. 167, 168.

THE

SCHEME OF VICARIOUS REDEMPTION

INCONSISTENT WITH ITSELF,

AND WITH

_THE CHRISTIAN IDEA OF SALVATION_.

PREFACE.

It will be apparent, from the unusual length of the following discourse, that its limits have been much extended since its delivery. The additional portions furnish, in detail, the interpretation which appears to me to reach the true meaning of the New Testament language, respecting the death of Christ. Few passages, I believe, relating to this subject, will be found unnoticed: and it is probable that, in the desire to avoid omission, I have been guilty of some prolixity and repetition.

The friendly diversity of opinion, which prevails among Unitarian Christians, is perhaps more considerable in reference to the subject of this Lecture, than to any other of the leading topics of theological belief. The reader will do justice to all parties, by bearing this in mind, while attending to the following pages; and by regarding every statement which he disapproves, as the mere expression of individual opinion.

It is impossible for me to leave unnoticed the charge of uncharitable violence and “vulgar personality,” which Mr. M‘Neile has preferred against me, on the ground of certain strong expressions, contained in my first Lecture, respecting the late Archbishop Magee. I readily acknowledge that the instances are rare, which can justify the language which I employed; and I would never employ such, did I not feel that it was not simply justified, but demanded. He must be an unworthy controversialist, who has no generous delight in admiring and respecting a doctrinal adversary; no concern and shame at the moral obliquities which prove an opponent wrong, without proving himself to be right. If Mr. M‘Neile could enable me to look with his eyes of confidence and regard on “the illustrious Prelate,” I should esteem it a privilege to recal every word which I have put on record respecting him. But a careful study of his Treatise on the Atonement, with the habit of _testing his citations_, has revealed to me a system of controversy which, before, I should have esteemed incredible; and which no terms of censure can too severely describe. Polemical discipline, it has been observed with too much truth, is, of all influences, the most dangerous to the moral sense.

It seems to have been thought wrong in me, by my respected opponents, to state my _general impression_ of Archbishop Magee’s controversial character, without justifying it by specific arguments. And so it would have been, if this work had really been “unanswered:” but every quality which I ascribed to it, has been shown to belong to it, by Dr. Carpenter; _his_ work has received no reply; and surely a bystander may express a judgment on the merits of a controversy, and the polemical characters of its conductors, without the slightest obligation to lay open the contents of the discussion in self-justification. This appears to be Mr. Buddicom’s opinion, if we may judge from the pungent sentence in which he has characterized, without proof, one of Mr. Harris’s Discourses.[294] In the present publication, however, I have supplied the deficiency which is the subject of complaint; and have shown, not only that the late Archbishop of Dublin dealt in terms of insult, which, if spoken instead of written, no cultivated and Christian society would endure; but that, with a shocking eagerness to blast the character of his opponents, he corrupted the text of their writings, and drew his arguments from garbled quotations. If any one can convince me of mistake in what I have advanced, I shall most unfeignedly rejoice and retract. But till then I cannot qualify any expressions, however strong, which I have employed; for they are not the utterance of passion, but the measured language of conviction. Most unwillingly would I ever incur the risk of wounding “the feelings of the living,” by animadversions on the character of the dead. But, surely, personal attachments to the man must not be allowed to silence all public estimate of the author; and against the attempt, on this ground, to hold me up as the assailant of private affections, and the insincere professor of charity, I protest, as cruel and unjust. It is not true that I attacked “the name and memory” rather than “the book,” of the late Archbishop: the words which I used described nothing but his work: and that they were words of moral reprehension, arose necessarily from the nature of the complaint which we have to prefer against its contents. I do not understand the diplomatic arts by which a man may be analyzed into a plurality of characters, and permitted to do wrong in one capacity, while his reputation takes a quiet shelter among the rest: nor have I the ingenuity to rebuke falsehood in a book, yet save the veracity of the author. If the “outrage” consisted in publishing an impression, unsustained by evidence, I only fear, that the addition of the proof will be found to bring no mitigation of the pain.

Let me add, that I entirely acquit our Rev. opponents of any approbation of the controversial arts employed by the Prelate whom they defend. Their admiration of his book arises, I am aware, from ignorance of its real character; to understand which requires a much greater acquaintance with Unitarian literature than they appear, in any instance, to possess.