Part 43

In the Authorized Version, 1 Cor. xv. 47, stands thus; “The first man _is_ of the earth, earthy: the second man _is_ the Lord from heaven;” the substantive verb in both parts of the verse having nothing, as the Italics indicate, to correspond with it in the original; but being inserted at the discretion of the translators to complete the sense. From the second clause Trinitarians usually derive an argument for the pre-existence of Christ, conceiving that it teaches the _origin of our Lord from heaven_. Some of their best commentators, however, understand the clause as referring not to Christ’s _past_ entrance into this world, but to his _future_ coming to judgment. Thus Archbishop Newcome renders, “The second man _will be_ [the Lord] from heaven.” And Dr. Whitby paraphrases, ”The second man is the Lord [_descending_] from heaven [_to raise our bodies, and advance them to that place_];” and he defends this interpretation in a note.[420] Mr. Belsham adopts this rendering, both in the “Improved Version” and in his “Calm Enquiry,” giving, with the sanction of the authorities I have cited, a _past_ verb to the first clause, a _future_ verb to the second. The admirable Newcome and Whitby, then, must share the Archbishop’s rebuke, for “the total inadmissibility of this _arbitrary_ rendering of the Unitarians, and the _grossness_ of their _endeavour to pervert the sense of Scripture_.” “Here,” he observes, “we have a change of tense, which not only has no foundation in either the Greek or Latin text, but is _in direct opposition to both_; since in both the perfect sameness of the corresponding clauses obviously determines the sameness of the tense.”[421] Of the “unscholarlike exaggeration” of this criticism I say nothing, merely wishing it to be observed in passing, that Mr. Belsham’s version is not of Unitarian origin, and proves no doctrinal bias, much less any “dishonesty.”

But a question arises respecting the text, as well as the translation, of this verse; the phrase “the Lord,” in the second clause, being marked by Griesbach as probably to be omitted; and the word “heavenly” to be appended at the close. The original of the common translation stands thus: Ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος, ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός· ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος, ὁ κύριος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. With the probable emendations the latter clause would read thus: ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ὁ οὐράνιος: and Archbishop Newcome’s translation, conformed to this text, becomes that of Mr. Belsham; “The first man _was_ from the ground, earthy: the second man _will be_ from heaven, heavenly.”

There are then two points to be determined respecting this passage—the _reading_, and the _rendering_, which, in this case, is equivalent to the _interpretation_ also. Mr. Belsham, in his Calm Inquiry, treats of _both_; and is accused by the Archbishop, in the following passage, of discussing the “unimportant matter” of the _text_ with great pomp; while adducing, _in favour of his translation and the future tense_, no authority _except the Vulgate_: “primus homo de terra, terrenus: secundus homo de cœlo, cælestis.” The indictment and argument run thus:—“The grand point to be established for the Unitarians is, as we have seen, the use of the _future_ in the second clause of the text:—‘the second man WILL BE from heaven:’—for, if we read ‘WAS from heaven,’ _actum est_! it is all over with the Unitarians; inasmuch as, in this passage, the origin of the BEING, without any possible pretence as to the _doctrines_, is unequivocally the subject. How does _Mr. Belsham_ proceed? Having made a good deal of flourish, as the Improved Version had also done before him, about the words κύριος and οὐράνιος; having also lumped together some irrelevant matter about the Polish Socinians and _Dr. Price_; and having observed somewhat upon the interpretation of _Newcome_, _Whitby_, and _Alexander;_ having, in short, appeared to say a good deal, whilst he took care to preserve a profound silence throughout (as the Improved Version also has done,) respecting any arguments in favour of the _future tense_ in the second clause—the single point on which the entire question rests,—he all of a sudden, very calmly and composedly asserts, ‘The Vulgate renders the text, “The first man was of the earth, earthy. The second man will be from heaven, heavenly.”’ (Calm Inq. p. 121.[422]) He then triumphantly concludes, and all is settled. In this manner, one text after another, of those that proclaim our Lord’s pre-existence, is extinguished by the _Calm Inquirer_ and his coadjutors. And so the cause of Socinian expurgation goes forward.

“Perhaps, in the annals of dishonest controversy, another instance like this is not to be found. A discussion of unimportant matter is _busily_ kept up: the main point of difference, and in truth the only one deserving of attention, the _change of tense_, is passed over, as if it were a thing not at all in dispute: the Vulgate is then quoted, _in direct opposition to the truth_, as reading the words ‘WAS’ and ‘WILL BE’ in the two corresponding clauses: and thus, indirectly, the false rendering of the text by the Unitarians is sustained by a false quotation from the Vulgate; and by a quotation which the author, if his memory had lasted from one page to the other, must have known to be false; since, in the preceding page, he had himself cited the very words of the Vulgate:—‘Primus homo de terra, terrenus; secundus homo de cœlo, cælestis:’—in which, words there is not only no justification of the change from WAS to WILL BE; but there is, on the contrary, as in the original Greek, a declaration, as strong as the analogies of language will admit, that the tense employed in the first clause must pass unchanged into the second. In a word, there is given by the Vulgate itself a direct contradiction to the report which is made of it by the _Calm Inquirer_. The man of ‘sound understanding,’ however, whom he addressed in _English_ on the one page, being possibly not exactly acquainted with what was contained in the _Latin_ on the other, and being consequently unaware that his author was imposing on him a false translation, would of course be fully satisfied on the authority of the Vulgate (more especially as so much had been said to leave the general impression of uncertainty as to the true reading of the _Greek_ text, and the consequent opinion, that the Vulgate was the only ancient authority to be relied on,) that in this passage could be found no proof of our Lord’s pre-existence! What are we to think of the cause that needs such support; and what of the interests that can attract such supporters?”[423]

We are to understand, then, that Mr. Belsham’s _only authority for the tenses of his version_ is a wilful mistranslation of the Vulgate; and that he cunningly conceals from the mere English reader the circumstance that the Vulgate, having no verb, has no tenses. Now, as to the last point, he _distinctly informs_ his reader that _there is no verb_ in the Latin; and as to the former, _he never appeals to the_ RENDERING _of the Vulgate at all but to the_ READING _only_. “How can this be?” I shall be asked; “for the Archbishop cites his words, ‘The Vulgate RENDERS the text,’ &c.” True, _but the Archbishop quotes him falsely_; and the real words are, “The Vulgate READS the text,” &c. Let the original and the citation appear side by side.

_Mr. Belsham’s words._ _Archbishop Magee’s quotation._

“The Vulgate READS the text, ‘The “The Vulgate RENDERS the text, ‘The first man _was_ of the earth, first man was of the earth, earthy. earthly. The second man _will be_ The second man will be from heaven, from heaven, heavenly.’ heavenly,’”[424]

“This is not improbably the TRUE READING.”

The verbs, in both clauses, Mr. Belsham has printed in italics, to indicate (in conformity with the usual practice in his work, and the Improved Version, as well as in our common translation) the absence of any corresponding words in the Latin text. This circumstance, which destroys the whole accusation, his accuser has suppressed.

And as to the “preserving a profound silence throughout respecting any arguments in favour of the future tense in the second clause,” it so happens that the “somewhat” which is observed “upon the interpretation of Newcome, Whitby, and Alexander,” is simply an appeal to these authorities on this very matter of the future tense,—“the single point on which the entire question rests.”

On the whole, can our upright and learned opponents tell, whether “in the annals of dishonest controversy, another instance like” the foregoing “is to be found?” I can assure them, that from the same work, I could produce many more.

In our present controversy, our Rev. opponents have been misled by their reliance on this unscrupulous adversary of the Unitarians: and by not referring to his pages, have taken his heavy responsibilities on themselves. In the first Lecture of the series, Mr. Ould has represented Dr. Priestley as saying, that the sacred writers produced “lame accounts, improper quotations, and inconclusive reasonings.”[425] Dr. Magee has exhibited this sentence as a citation from Priestley’s 12th Letter to Mr. Burn;[426] the fact being, that he wrote only six letters to Mr. Burn; and that _neither in these, nor anywhere else, is such a sentence to be found_. The first phrase, indeed (“lame account”) was once applied by Dr. Priestley to the early chapters in Genesis; but deliberately retracted with an expression of regret that it had been used. Let the learned prelate pass sentence on himself: he says, “It is surely _a gross falsification of his author_, to give, _as one continued quotation_ from him (as the established meaning of the form here employed, unequivocally implies), that which is an arbitrary selection of words drawn violently together from a lengthened context.”[427] I can assure our respected opponents, that their Lectures contain other citations, drawn from the same source, which, after the most careful search, I believe to be no less false. And is not an ungenerous use made of obnoxious writings, when we find enumerated and quoted among Unitarian authors, _Evanson_, whose scepticism received its most effectual replies from Priestley and his friends; and _Gagneius_, who was an orthodox professor of the Sorbonne, and preacher to Francis the First?

For other instances of Archbishop Magee’s flagrant injustice and misrepresentation, I must refer to the “Examination of his charges against Unitarians and Unitarianism,” by my learned and venerated friend Dr. Carpenter, who has found it only too easy to fill a volume with the exposure of a mere portion of them. I have purposely taken fresh examples, not hitherto noticed, so far as I know, and it may be supposed that the earlier gleaning by Dr. Carpenter would naturally yield the most remarkable results; so that the cases now adduced cannot be thought to be _peculiarly_ unfavourable specimens.

If our reverend opponents, _having read this Prelate’s work_, really think my charge against him, of “abuse the most coarse,” an “unwarrantable attack on the reputation of the dead,” I cannot hope to justify myself in their estimation: there must be an irremediable variance between their notion of “coarse abuse” and mine. I regret that we cannot agree in a matter of taste which, to say the least, borders so closely on morals as to be scarcely distinguishable from them, and to be connected with the same strong feelings of approbation or disgust. With what levity must a writer sport with moral terms, what indistinct impressions must he have of moral qualities, who having pronounced an opponent (I quote the language of the Archbishop of Mr. Belsham) “_incapable of duplicity_,”[428] can yet proceed to charge him with “artifice and dishonesty,”[429] with “_huddling up_ a matter,”[430] with “_filching away_ a portion of evidence,”[431] with “_direct violations of known truth_,”[432] and with “_bad faith_, unchecked by learning and unabashed by shame!”[433] I cannot wonder at the spirit pervading Mr. Byrth’s letter to my friend and colleague Mr. Thom, when I find that he sees nothing coarse or abusive, but only the expression of “departed greatness,” in accusing an opponent of “miserable stupidity,”[434] of “downright and irremediable nonsense,”[435] of “proposing” a suggestion “(_as he_ AVERS) with great diffidence,”[436] of furnishing “twenty-eight pages of the most extraordinary quagmire;”[437] in begging him to “rest assured, that to know the Greek language it must be learned;”[438] in proclaiming that he “stands in a pillory”[439] erected for him by a Bishop; that he belongs to “the family of Botherims in Morals and Metaphysics,” and is “connected with that of Malaprops in Mathematics;”[440] in ridiculing the idea of publishing his portrait;[441] in asking him whether he has “lost his senses;”[442] and hinting that, whereas he knows not “how to choose _between two bundles_” of evidence, he is AN ASS.[443] Are we to consider it a condescension in this distinguished Prelate, that he bends from his Episcopal dignity to console the Dissenting ministers in their “contemplation of the advantages of the national clergy,” and assures them that they have “not only more of positive profit,” but, “in addition to this,” “the indulgence of vanity, and the gratification of spleen,—qualities which, time out of mind, have belonged to the family of _Dissent_;” nay, further, that in preparation for their ministry, they have a much lighter “outfit” “in point of expenditure,” since among Nonconformists, in some cases at least, “the individual is his own University; confers his own degrees and orders; and has little more difficulty in the way of his vocation, than to find a new hat, a stout pony, and a pair of saddle-bags.”[444] This is very smart, no doubt; but does the Church exclude us from the Universities, that her Bishops may enjoy the entertainment of making us their laughing-stock, and inditing lampoons against us? Does she injure us first, that we may be insulted afterwards?

Mr. M‘Neile speaks of the late Archbishop’s work as “a barrier in the way of Unitarianism.”[445] It is so; and if its influence were only that of fair argument, we should wish the barrier to stand in all its strength. But the book has become a standard authority for every kind of false and malignant impression respecting Unitarians, and prevents, instead of advancing, the knowledge of what we are. To be held up as entertaining “the _cool and deliberate purpose_ of falsifying the word of God;”[446] as guilty of “machinations” to “subvert through _fraud_ what had been found impregnable by force;”[447] as “staking” our “very salvation on the adoption of a reading which is against evidence;”[448] as distinguished for “steady and immovable effrontery,”[449] and “shameful disingenuousness;”[450] as discerning in our Lord “_that one_ HATED _form on which we are terrified to look_;”[451] as so “determined to resist and subvert _one great truth_,” that we “set but little value on every other,” and make a “_prevailing practice_” of “DIRECT AND DELIBERATE FALSEHOOD:”[452] to be thus slandered by one, for whom his station and accomplishments have procured, from the party spirit of the age, a credit denied to any possible learning or excellence of ours; this, being a grievous wrong to the character of Christianity as much as to our own, we confess to be a trial hard to bear: and we may well feel like the good man under successful calumny, which wounds himself a little, but truth and virtue more. Meanwhile, injury may have its compensations; and since, to prove his accusations, even this distinguished Prelate had occasion to tamper with the evidence, we have a fresh presumption that our cause is one, against which learning and acuteness, under the restraints of justice, find themselves of no avail.

Footnotes for Lecture VI.

Footnote 294:

Lecture, p. 450. Note.

Footnote 295:

See Note A

Footnote 296:

See Rev. H. M‘Neile’s Lecture; The Proper Deity of our Lord the only Ground of Consistency in the Work of Redemption, pp. 339, 340.

Footnote 297:

Gen. ii. 17.

Footnote 298:

“Either he” (“the Deity of the Unitarians”) “must show no mercy, in order to continue true; or he must show no truth, in order to exercise mercy. If he overlook man’s guilt, _admit him to the enjoyment of his favour, and proceed_ by corrective discipline to restore his character, he unsettles the foundations of all equitable government, obliterates the everlasting distinctions between right and wrong, spreads consternation in Heaven, and proclaims impunity in Hell. Such a God would not be worth serving. _Such_ tenderness, instead of inspiring filial affection, would lead only to reckless contempt.”—_Mr. M‘Neile’s Lecture_, p. 313.

Surely this is a description, not of the Unitarian, but of the Lecturer’s own creed. It certainly is no part of his opponents’ belief, that God first admits the guilty to his favour, and _then “proceeds”_ “to restore his character.” This arrangement, by which pardon _precedes_ moral restoration, is that feature in the orthodox theory of the Divine dealings against which Unitarians protest, and which Mr. M‘Neile himself insists upon as essential throughout his Lecture. “We think,” he says, “that _before_ man can be introduced to the only true process of improvement, he must _first_ have forgiveness of his guilt.” What is this “first” step of pardon, but an “overlooking of man’s guilt;” and what is the second, of “sanctification,” but a “restoring of character;” whether we say by “corrective discipline,” or the “influence of the Holy Spirit,” matters not. Is it said that the guilt is not overlooked, if Christ endured its penalty? I ask again, whether justice regards only the _infliction_ of suffering, or its _quantity_, without caring about its _direction_? Was it impossible for the stern righteousness of God freely to forgive the penitent? And how was the injustice of liberating the guilty mended by the torments of the innocent? Here is the verdict against sin,—“The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” And how is this verdict executed? The soul that had sinned does _not_ die; and one “that knew no sin” dies instead. And this is called a divine union of _truth_ and _mercy_; being the most precise negation of both, of which any conception can be formed. First, to hang the destinies of all mankind upon a solitary volition of their first parents, and then let loose a diabolic power on that volition to break it down; to vitiate the human constitution in punishment for the fall, and yet continue to demand obedience to the original and perfect moral law; to assert the absolute inflexibility of that holy law, yet all the while have in view for the offenders a method of escape, which violates every one of its provisions, and makes it all a solemn pretence; to forgive that which is in itself unpardonable, on condition of the suicide of a God, is to shock and confound all notions of rectitude, without affording even the sublimity of a savage grandeur. This will be called “blasphemy;” and it is so; but the blasphemy is not in the _words_, but in the _thing_.

Unitarians are falsely accused of representing God as “overlooking man’s guilt.” They hold, that _no guilt is overlooked till it is eradicated from the soul_; and that pardon proceeds, _pari passu_, with sanctification.

Footnote 299:

See Note B.

Footnote 300:

Numb. xiv. 19, 20.

Footnote 301:

Jon. iii. 5-10.

Footnote 302:

Jon. iv. 10, 11.

Footnote 303:

Ps. li. 16, 17.

Footnote 304:

Is. i. 16-18.

Footnote 305:

Ezek. xxxiii. 14-16.

Footnote 306:

Matt. xix. 16-21.

Footnote 307:

Acts x. 34-44.

Footnote 308:

Acts ii. 24.

Footnote 309:

iii. 15.

Footnote 310:

iv. 10; v. 30.

Footnote 311:

iv. 2.

Footnote 312:

xxiv. 21.

Footnote 313:

Acts xiii. 30.

Footnote 314:

xvii. 18, 31.

Footnote 315:

Rom. viii. 34.

Footnote 316:

iv. 25.

Footnote 317:

iv. 24.

Footnote 318:

x. 9.

Footnote 319:

iii. 25.

Footnote 320:

Mr. Buddicom has the following note, intimating his approbation of this rendering: “Some of the best commentators have connected ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι, not with διὰ τῆς πίστεως, but with ἱλαστήριον and, accordingly, Bishop Bull renders the passage, ‘Quem proposuit Deus placamentum in sanguine suo per fidem.’”—_Lecture on Atonement_, p. 496.

Footnote 321:

Luke vii. 47.

Footnote 322:

John xii. 23, 24, 32.

Footnote 323:

John x. 16, 17.

Footnote 324:

Matt. xv. 24.

Footnote 325:

2 Cor. v. 15-18.

Footnote 326:

See Rom. vii. 1-4.

Footnote 327:

Gal. ii. 15.

Footnote 328:

Rom. v. 6.

Footnote 329:

Col. ii. 13; iii. 3.

Footnote 330:

Gal. iv. 4-7.

Footnote 331:

Eph. i. 7.

Footnote 332:

Rom. ix. 4.

Footnote 333:

Eph. i. 3-5.

Footnote 334:

Rom. v. 10.

Footnote 335:

Eph. i. 10.

Footnote 336:

Rom. v. 11.

Footnote 337:

Col. i. 19.

Footnote 338:

Eph. ii. 11-18.

Footnote 339:

1 Tim. ii. 1-8.

Footnote 340:

Matt. xx. 28; Mark x. 45.

Footnote 341:

Matt. xxvi. 28.

Footnote 342:

Rev. v. 9, 10.

Footnote 343:

John i. 29. For an example of the use of the word “_world_” to denote the Gentiles, see Rom. xi. 12-15; where St. Paul, speaking of the rejection of the Messiah by the Jews, declares that it is only temporary; and as it has given occasion for the adoption of the Gentiles, so will this lead, by ultimate reaction, to the re-admission of Israel; a consummation in which the Gentiles should rejoice without boasting or highmindedness. “If,” he says, “the fall of them (the Israelites) be the riches of _the world_ (the Gentiles), and the diminishing of them, the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness! For I speak to you, Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify my office; if, by any means, I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh (the Jews,) and save some of them; for if the casting away of them be the _reconciling of the world_, what shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead?”

Footnote 344:

Acts xx. 28. It is hardly necessary to say, that the reading of our common version “_church of God_” wants the support of the best authorities; and that with the general consent of the most competent critics, Griesbach reads “_church of the Lord_.” See Note C.

Footnote 345:

1 Pet. i. 18, 19.

Footnote 346:

1 Pet. ii. 23-25.

Footnote 347:

1 Pet. iii. 17; iv. 3.

Footnote 348:

2 Cor. v. 21.

Footnote 349:

1 Cor. v. 7.

Footnote 350:

Rom. iii. 22-26.

Footnote 351:

1 John iv. 2.

Footnote 352:

1 John i. 7.

Footnote 353:

1 John i. 8.

Footnote 354:

1 John ii. 1, 2.

Footnote 355:

1 John iv. 9, 10.

Footnote 356:

1 John v. 21.

Footnote 357:

1 John iii. 16.

Footnote 358:

Rom. ii. 25.

Footnote 359:

2 Thess. i. 7-10.

Footnote 360:

Gal. iii. 13: even here the apostle cannot refrain from adverting to his _Gentile_ interpretation of the cross; for he adds,—“that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles, through Jesus Christ.”

Footnote 361:

Rom. ix. 22, 23.

Footnote 362:

2 Pet. ii. 5.

Footnote 363:

2 Pet. iii. 9.

Footnote 364:

1 Pet. iii. 20-22.

Footnote 365:

1 Cor. vii. 29.

Footnote 366:

Eph. v. 16; Col. iv. 5.

Footnote 367:

1 John ii. 18.

Footnote 368:

Phil. iv. 5; James v. 8; 1 Pet. iv. 7.

Footnote 369:

Heb. ii. 17.

Footnote 370:

Num. xix. 11-20; Lev. xx. 25, 26; Num. vi. 9-12.

Footnote 371:

Lev. v. 14-19.

Footnote 372:

Lev. xii. 1-8.

Footnote 373:

Lev. xiv.

Footnote 374:

Lev. xvi.; xxiii. 26-32; Ex. xxx. 10; Num. xxix. 7-11.

Footnote 375: