Part 44

In three or four instances, it is true, a sin-offering is demanded from the perpetrator of some act of _moral wrong_. But in all these cases a suitable punishment was ordained also; a circumstance inconsistent with the idea, that the expiation procurred remission of guilt. The _sacrifice_ appended to the _penal infliction_, indicates the two-fold character of the act;—at once a _ceremonial defilement_ and a _crime_; and requiring, to remedy the one, an atoning rite,—to chastise the other, a judicial penalty. See an excellent tract by Rev. Edward Higginson, of Hull, entitled, “The Sacrifice of Christ scripturally and rationally interpreted:” particularly pp. 30-34.

Footnote 376:

Heb. viii. 2. 5.

Footnote 377:

ix. 1, 23, 24.

Footnote 378:

vii. 16; viii. 1.

Footnote 379:

viii. 3.

Footnote 380:

Heb. ix. 15.

Footnote 381:

viii. 5.

Footnote 382:

x. 3.

Footnote 383:

ix. 7, 25.

Footnote 384:

Heb. x. 4.

Footnote 385:

vii. 25.

Footnote 386:

ix. 25-27, 12; x. 12, 14.

Footnote 387:

ix. 8.

Footnote 388:

vii. 17, 24-28.

Footnote 389:

vii. 27. Let the reader look carefully again into the verbal and logical structure of this verse; and then ask himself, whether it is not as plain as words can make it, that Christ “once for all” _offered up_ “_a sacrifice first for_ HIS OWN SINS, and _then for the peoples_.” The argument surely is this; “he need not do the _daily_ thing, for he has done it _once for all_; the never-finished work of other pontiffs, a single act of his achieved.” The sentiment loses its meaning, unless that which he did once is _the self-same thing_ which they did always; and what was that?—the offering by the High-priest of a sacrifice first for his own sins, and then for the people’s. With what propriety, then, can Mr. Buddicom ask us this question: “Why is he said to have excelled the Jewish High-priest in _not_ offering a sacrifice for himself?” I submit, that no such thing is said: but that, on the contrary, it is positively affirmed that Christ _did_ offer sacrifice for his own sins. So plain indeed is this, that Trinitarian commentators are forced to slip in a restraining word and an additional sentiment, into the last clause of the verse. Thus Peirce; “Who has no need, like the priests under the law, from time to time to offer up sacrifice first for his own sins, and after that for the people’s. For this _latter_ he did once for all when he offered up himself; _and as to the former, he had no occasion to do it at all_.” And no doubt the writer of the epistle _ought_ to have said just this, if he intended to draw the kind of contrast, which orthodox theology requires, between Jesus and the Hebrew priests. He limits the opposition between them to _one_ particular;—the Son of Aaron made offering _daily_,—the Son of God _once for all_. Divines must add _another_ particular; that the Jewish priest atoned for _two_ classes of sins, his own and the people’s,—Christ for the people’s only. Suppose for a moment that this was the author’s design; that the word “_this_,” instead of having its proper grammatical antecedent, may be restrained, as in the commentary cited above, to the sacrifice for _the people’s_ sins; then the word “daily” may be left out, without disturbance to the other substantive particular of the contrast: the verse will then stand thus; “who needeth not, as those High-priests, to offer up sacrifice for his own sins; _for_ he offered up sacrifice for the people’s sins, when he offered up himself.” Here, all the reasoning is obviously gone, and the sentence becomes a mere inanity: to make sense, we want, instead of the latter clause, the sentiment of Peirce,—_for_ “he had no occasion to do this at all.” This, however, is an invention of the expositor, more jealous for his author’s orthodoxy, than for his composition. I think it necessary to add that, by leaving out the most emphatic word in this verse (the word _once_) Mr. Buddicom has suppressed the author’s antithesis, and favoured the suggestion of his own. I have no doubt that this was unconsciously done; but it shows how system rubs off the angles of Scriptural difficulties.—I subjoin a part of the note of John Crell on the passage: “de pontifice Christo loquitur. Quid vero fecit semel Christus? quid aliud, quam quod Pontifex antiquus stata die quotannis[a] faciebat? Principaliter autem hic non de oblatione pro peccatis populi; sed de oblatione pro ipsius Pontificis peccatis agi, ex superioribus, ipsoque rationum contextu manifestum est.”

The sins which his sacrifice cancelled must have been of the same order in the people, and in himself; certainly therefore not moral in their character, but ceremonial. His death was, for himself no less than for his Hebrew disciples, commutation for the Mosaic ordinances. Had he not died, he must have continued under their power; “were he on earth, he would not be a priest,” or have “obtained that more excellent ministry,” by which he clears away, in the courts above, all possibilities of ritual sin below, and himself emerges from legal to spiritual relations.

Footnote a:

_This is_ obviously the meaning of καθ’ ἡμέραν in this passage; _from time to time, and in the case_ alluded to, _yearly_; not, as in the common version, _daily_.

Footnote 390:

Heb. ix. 13, 14.

Footnote 391:

x. 16, 19, 20, 24.

Footnote 392:

Mr. Buddicom’s Lecture on the Atonement, p. 471.

Footnote 393:

See Mr. M‘Neile’s Lecture, pp. 302, 311, 328, 340, 341.

Footnote 394:

Mr. M‘Neile’s Lecture, p. 338.

Footnote 395:

Phil. iii. 15.

Footnote 396:

Eph. iv. 13.

Footnote 397:

John i. 12.

Footnote 398:

Rev. D. James, in his Lecture entitled “The doctrine of the Trinity, proved as a consequence from the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ,” pp. 366-375.

Footnote 399:

Tillotson’s Works, London, 1717, vol. i. p. 405.

Footnote 400:

Tillotson’s Works, London, 1717, vol. i. p. 579.

Footnote 401:

Socinus thus states the opinion which he attempts to confute: “Receptior hodie sententia est, homini naturaliter ejusque animo insitam esse divinitatis alicujus opinionem, cujus vi cuncta regantur ac gubernentur, quæque humanarum rerum imprimis curam gerat, hominibus consulat atque prospiciat. Hæc sententia, quam nos falsam esse arbitramur,” &c.—_Prælectiones Theol. Fausti Socini Senensis_, c. ii.

Footnote 402:

Mr. James’s illustration of the nature of a _spirit_.

Footnote 403:

Introduction to the Analogy.

Footnote 404:

Lecture, p. 371.

Footnote 405:

Modern Infidelity considered, p. 18.

Footnote 406:

Lecture, p. 451.

Footnote 407:

Remarks on the commonly-received Doctrine of Atonement and Sacrifice, by Rev. W. Turner, jun., A.M. Note A. second edition.

Footnote 408:

Lecture, p. 414.

Footnote 409:

Ibid. p. 410.

Footnote 410:

Ibid. pp. 412, 413.

Footnote 411:

Ibid. p. 411.

Footnote 412:

Lecture, p. 492.

Footnote 413:

Ibid. p. 507.

Footnote 414:

Ibid. pp. 511, 512.

Footnote 415:

Ars Critica, P. I. sect. i. cap. ix. § 11.

Footnote 416:

Magee on the Atonement, vol. iii. p. 335. Note. 5th Edition. This note is a broad caricature of the discussion in the Monthly Repository: and shows that the Author might have been the Cruikshanks of theology, had his _humour_ always been _good-humour_.

Footnote 417:

Magee on the Atonement, vol. iii. pp. 343, 344. Note.

Footnote 418:

Monthly Repository of Theology and General Literature, vol. x. p. 481. 1815. I quote from this work, rather than from Mr. Aspland’s “Plea for Unitarian Dissenters,” in obedience to the Archbishop’s own reference.

Footnote 419:

Preface to Mr. Byrth’s Lecture, part i. p. vii.

Footnote 420:

Newcome and Whitby _in loc._

Footnote 421:

Magee on the Atonement, vol. iii. p. 222.

Footnote 422:

In the 2nd Edition it is p. 78. All my citations are made from this edition of Mr. B’s work, published in 1816; and from the 5th Edition of Archbishop Magee’s, published in 1832.

Footnote 423:

Magee on the Atonement, vol. iii. pp. 223, 224.

Footnote 424:

There is a possibility, which I think it right to suggest, of a difference between the two Editions of Mr. B’s work; as, however, the accusation is still found in the newest Edition of the Archbishop’s book, I conclude that this is not the case. Indeed, even if the Prelate’s quotation had been _verbally_ true, it would _in spirit_ have been no less false: for, at all events, Mr. B. cites the Vulgate, to give evidence as to the _text_, not the _translation_; and had he used the word _renders_, it would only have been because the term naturally occurs when a VERSION is adduced to determine a READING.

Footnote 425:

Page 38.

Footnote 426:

Magee on the Atonement, vol. i. p. 170.

Footnote 427:

Vol. iii. p. 57.

Footnote 428:

Vol. ii. p. 387.

Footnote 429:

Vol. iii. p. 248.

Footnote 430:

p. 203.

Footnote 431:

p. 210.

Footnote 432:

p. 296.

Footnote 433:

p. 249.

Footnote 434:

p. 274.

Footnote 435:

p. 239.

Footnote 436:

p. 82.

Footnote 437:

p. 91.

Footnote 438:

p. 132.

Footnote 439:

p. 64.

Footnote 440:

p. 242.

Footnote 441:

p. 275.

Footnote 442:

p. 66.

Footnote 443:

p. 145.

Footnote 444:

pp. 275, 276.

Footnote 445:

Magee on the Atonement, Preface, p. vi.

Footnote 446:

Vol. iii. p. 108.

Footnote 447:

Vol. i. xii.

Footnote 448:

iii. 204.

Footnote 449:

p. 47.

Footnote 450:

p. 100.

Footnote 451:

p. 67.

Footnote 452:

pp. 57, 58.

PREFACE.

The Rev. D. James commences the Preface to his Lecture with these words: “Modern Unitarianism is a compound of Infidelity and Heresy.” It would be very easy for me to say what modern _Trinitarianism_ is, and to attach to it two epithets which Mr. James would relish no more than I do Infidelity and Heresy. It is evident, however, that this calling of names proves nothing but the unfitness of the mind which so indulges its _temper_ and _feeling_ to be engaged in _intellectual_ and _argumentative_ controversy. Does Mr. James expect to _convince_ or _persuade_ any Unitarians, by calling them Infidels and Heretics? The Christ Church method of Conversion is very well for Infallibles, who have only to denounce, and for “ordained Clergymen,” who, with a simplicity of extravagance approaching the sublime, shrink from no consequences of their first principles, and boldly assert that the Holy Spirit is _their_ Interpreter of Scripture,—but it displays a strange ignorance or contempt of the only avenues by which the minds of their fellow Christians can be approached, and of the moral and argumentative means by which alone conviction can be produced.

In what sense does Mr. James use the word ‘Heresy,’ in the sentence quoted? If in the sense of _error_, then is he of the infallible Church that he decides _authoritatively_ on such points? If in the sense of _schism_ and _division_, who does not know that the Creed-making Church is the Mother of the Sects, the fomentor of our religious strifes? With what grace or justice does that man call another an infidel, who is himself an infidel in respect to the primal and universal Revelation, and applies himself to blot out the divine signatures from the soul of man, and the material works of God? There is no infidelity so bad as this. The Apostle speaks of the law written on the heart, and of the Gentiles who had not the Jewish Law, being yet a Law unto themselves, and the Psalmist speaks of the moral fidelity and constancy of God being shadowed forth by the unfailingness of His material Laws,—but Mr. James, who makes strange work with scripture, maintains in opposition to both Scripture and Philosophy, “the moral character and unity of God not discoverable from the works of Creation.” I have been long prepared for this. Those who must maintain Trinitarianism have no other resource than to blot out the lights of the ORIGINAL REVELATION.[453] NATURE and the SOUL must be discredited if the Trinitarian Theology is to hold its place. This has been long evident to all who have watched the progress of knowledge, and the signs of the times. The works of God, and the oracles of the Soul, must be insulted, that the CHURCH, the CREED, and the PRIEST may remain.

I have referred but slightly to Mr. James’s Lecture in the following pages, because I wished to build up an independent argument of great importance, and would not be led out of my way to answer reasonings and statements which, being answered, would leave the real controversy unaffected, and without a step of advancement. Nor could it be of much moment to discuss the CRITICISM that finds the Trinity in a Hebrew plural—the REASONING that, (in violation of one of the maxims of Philosophy, to attribute _no more_ Causes than are adequate to the effects,) in the Works of an _Omnipotent_ Creator finds in unity of Design no proof of Unity of Being—the SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTATION that lays down the Mosaic Law of Vengeance, “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” _expressly condemned by Christ_, as unworthy even of _men_, as the morality of God himself, “the principle of eternal right, and the law of his own government”[454]—the transcendental METAPHYSICS that sees no difficulty in the infinite and omnipresent Deity becoming incarnate in a human frame, on the ground that “spirits occupy no space, and that thousands of them might be within a thimble, and the thimble on the finger of the seamstress, and her finger touch none of them.”[455]

There are, however, some statements in the Preface to Mr. James’s Lecture, professing to be testimonies from Antiquity to the Trinitarian Doctrine, which demand some notice. To establish his inaccuracy I shall simply oppose to his statements the statements of Professor Burton.

1. “[The word Trinity] is found in the writings of Justin Martyr, who was converted to the Christian faith about the year of our Lord 140.”—p. v. Mr. James mentions in a note that some divines dispute the authenticity of the work in which the word is found: but Mr. James is not one of those divines, for he proceeds to assert, that the passage in Justin Martyr “brings the use of the word within half a century of the apostolic age.”

Now let us hear Dr. Burton.—“‘_Theophili ad Autolycum_, lib. ii. c. 15.’ I quote this passage, not on account of the sentiment which it contains, (for the allusion is sufficiently puerile,) but because it is the earliest passage (A. D. 180) in the works of any of the fathers, where we find the Greek word Τριας, _Trinity_: and we can thus prove that the term was applied to the three persons of the Trinity as early as toward the end of the second century.

“Theophilus had been giving an account of the creation, as described by Moses in the book of Genesis; and following that allegorical method of interpretation, which the fathers borrowed too freely from the schools of Alexandria, he extracts a hidden meaning from the fact of the heavenly bodies being created on the fourth day. ‘In like manner also the three days, which preceded the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and his Word, and his Wisdom.’” Burton adds in a note—“This passage is overlooked by Suicer in his Thesaurus, v. Τριὰς, who very properly observes, that the _Expositio rectæ confessionis_, in which the word occurs, and which has been ascribed to Justin Martyr, _is later than that writer by some centuries_.”—_Theol. Works_, vol. ii. 2nd part, p. 34.

2. “The next who makes use of the word in his writings is Theophilus, a Gentile convert.”—p. vi. Let us hear what Burton says of this Theophilus, and of his use of the word Trinity, _the first_ who used it in such connection.

“Some doubts have been raised concerning the identity and date of Theophilus: but it seems to be generally agreed, that the person whose works have come down to us was the sixth bishop of Antioch, and was appointed to that see about the year 168. He tells us himself that he had been bred up in heathenism, and it is plain _that his language and thoughts retained a lasting impression from the Platonic philosophy_.”—p. 33.

“We perhaps ought not to infer from the words of Theophilus that the term Τριας had come in his day to bear the signification of a trinity in unity. He may have used it merely to express _three things_; and the _three days_, which he compares with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, might have been spoken of by him as τριὰς τῶν ἡμερῶν, _a triad_, or _trinity of days_. In this sense Clement of Alexandria speaks of ‘the holy triad, or trinity, faith, hope, and charity;’ and Origen uses the terms τριὰς and τετρὰς for periods of three and four years respectively. Tertullian also, at the end of the second century, used the term _trinitas_ in the same ordinary sense, for any three things.

“I would not therefore argue from the mere occurrence of the word in the writings of Theophilus, that τριας contained a signification of _unity_, as well as of _trinity_: but this much is at least evident, that Theophilus must have considered some resemblance, if not equality, to have existed between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or he would not have included them in the same type”—p. 38.

3. “Polycarp, a disciple of St. John, when at the stake, addressed a prayer to God, which he concluded in this manner:—‘_For all things I praise thee, I bless thee, I glorify thee, together with the eternal and heavenly Jesus Christ: with whom, unto thee, and the Holy Spirit, be glory, both now and for ever, world without end. Amen._’”—p. vii.

Professor Burton:—“Such are the concluding words of the prayer in the edition of Archbishop Usher: but Eusebius has quoted them differently, ‘I glorify thee, through the eternal High Priest, Jesus Christ, thy beloved Son, through whom be glory to thee, with him in the Holy Ghost, both now and for evermore. Amen.’”

“The early orthodox writers,” as Bishop Bull goes on to remark, “while they glorified the Father _through the Son_, intended to express the subordination of the Son, in his relation of Son, and the pre-eminence of the Father, in his relation of Father: but by adoring the Son _together with the Father_, they intended to express his being of one substance, and his existing in the same divine essence and nature with the Father.”—“Theodoret informs us, that in the middle of the fourth century the clergy and people of Antioch were divided, some using the conjunction _and_, when they glorified the Son, (_i. e._, saying _and to the Son_,) and others applying the preposition _through_ to the Son, and _in_ to the Holy Ghost. This was the period when the dispute concerning the form of doxology became general: and Philistorgius, the Arian historian, is speaking of the same time and place, when he says, ‘Flavianus was the first person who used the words _Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost_, for before his time some had said, _Glory to the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost_, which was the expression in most general use: and others _Glory to the Father in the Son and Holy Ghost_.’”—pp. 7, 8, 9.

“It is true that Eusebius appears to have found a different reading in his copy of Polycarp’s prayer: _and a critical question like this can never be demonstrably settled_.”—p. 13.

4. “[Justin Martyr] says—‘HIM (the Father) and that SON who hath proceeded from him, and the PROPHETICAL SPIRIT, _we worship and adore_.’”—p. vii.

Where did Mr. James find this quotation? I shall supply some words which he has omitted, coming in between two clauses, which he has printed as _continuous_ parts of the sentence. The omitted words supply a good test for _a fundamental principle_ of Trinitarian interpretation, that of _equalizing_ all persons joined together by the conjunctive conjunction. I shall give the _omitted words_ in italics.

“Justin is answering the charge of atheism, which was brought against the Christians, and observes, that they were punished for not worshipping evil demons, which were not really gods. ‘Hence it is that we are called atheists: and we confess that we are atheists with respect to such reputed Gods as these: but not with respect to the true God, the Father of justice, temperance, and every other virtue, with whom is no mixture of evil. But Him, and the Son who came from him, and gave us this instruction, _and the host of the other good angels which attend upon and resemble them_, and the prophetic spirit, we worship and adore, paying them a reasonable and true honour, and not refusing to deliver to any one else, who wishes to be taught, what we ourselves have learnt.’”

After such careless quotations, to say the best of them, I am not surprised to find Mr. James, with singular self-devotion, placing himself beside Mr. Byrth, to share the condemnation that falls upon injurious representations, not only unproved, but disproved. Mr. James speaks of the _Unitarian crime_ of distorted representations, as proved by Mr. Byrth. Mr. James may make common cause with Mr. Byrth, if he is unwise enough to do so; but I can assure him that his own burden is heavy enough to bear, without encumbering himself with any portion of another’s.

To the greatest part of his quotations Mr. James has given no reference, so that it is impossible to verify them. If he is correct, he has been more fortunate in some cases than Professor Burton. I should be glad to have the means of testing his extracts from Origen. He ought to have stated, that both Bishop Bull and Dr. Priestley, when speaking of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, never confounded the Trinity of these Fathers with the Post-Nicene Trinity, or with modern Orthodoxy.

Nothing can be more unphilosophical than the manner in which testimonies to modern opinions have been found in the Fathers. Any words that will _bear_ the sense have been pushed forward as authorities. No distinction has been made between the ideas _suggested_ by the words to _modern readers_, and the ideas of the writers originally suggesting the words. The _suggested_ and the _suggesting_ ideas would be found strangely different. Whoever wishes to have clear ideas on this question, the opinions of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and the origin of the Trinity, should read the portions of Cudworth’s Intellectual System that bear upon the subject.

LECTURE VII.

THE UNSCRIPTURAL ORIGIN AND ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

BY REV. JOHN HAMILTON THOM.

“THE FATHER THAT DWELLETH IN ME, HE DOETH THE WORKS.”—_John_ xiv. 10.

It is a profound observation of Professor Dugald Stewart, that you never destroy an error until you have traced it to its sources, until you have accounted for its origin. A popular doctrine, full of life in the strong faith of those who hold it, cannot be encountered at the height of its power, and struck down at once by an argument; the world is apt to take for granted that whatever is widely believed must have some roots in truth, and you must go up the stream of opinion, if you would gradually remove this idea so supporting to error, of its strength and fulness, stripping away the impressions of magnitude as you ascend, until at last you have left all the strength behind you, and have come to where you can contemplate, undeceived, the weak and miserable beginnings of the turbid flood. Were some Grecian idolater to have followed the gliding steps of his river God, until his majestic movements were shortened into the tricklings of the mountain spring, if the deity did not entirely disappear, it would at least have changed its form, and melted into the minor nymph of the Fountain.