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.
Whenever we encounter the doctrine of the Trinity, as it is received at
the present day, and attempt to arrest it by the strength of Reason and
the strength of Scripture, the flood is too strong for us, the faith of
the world flows upon the current, and we are swept aside as things that
had vainly interposed to intercept the rushings of some mighty tide. We
must travel up to the first droppings if we would demonstrate the
derived nature of this now full stream of faith. If the ascent
terminates before it reaches Christ and the Apostles, then its origin is
not Scriptural but Ecclesiastical; its fountain is not in the depths of
the nature of God, but in the airy speculations of the vain philosophy
of man.
My subject is entitled “The unscriptural Origin and Ecclesiastical
History of the Doctrine of the Trinity.” I shall invert the order of
these topics. I shall show first _where it has its origin_, that we may
be saved the unnecessary toil of straining and distorting our vision, in
searching for it where it is not to be found. If I can exhibit its birth
in Ecclesiastical history, this will so far be a proof that it had no
previous birth in Evangelical History. If I can cut it off from the
living fountain of Revelation, and show it proceeding from other
springs, this will so far be a proof that it is human and not divine.
The positive assertion contained in my title, if established, will
establish also the negative portion of it:—for the Ecclesiastical rise
and progress of the Trinity are the negation of its Scriptural origin.
Christianity was originally delivered to Jews; and the question
naturally arises, how could their pure theism ever assume the
Trinitarian modification of Unity; how, to use the early language of
this Controversy, could the MONARCHY ever be diluted into the ECONOMY,
if it had not been constrained to adopt this form by the overpowering
distinctness of a Revelation? Now we are able to prove that the Jewish
Christians never did accept the doctrine of the deity of Christ; that on
this account they are classed with Heretics by the Greek and Latin
Fathers, under the names of Nazarenes and Ebionites; and that not until
after the Gospel passed out of the keeping of the Apostles, and, cut off
from its Jewish spring, was cast into the midst of the Gentile world, to
modify and to be modified, did it come into contact with Heathen
Philosophy, and slowly take the impress of its spirit.
There were two very marked divisions of the Jewish people, under widely
different influences of Religion and Philosophy, and not acquainted,
perhaps, with the same language,—the Jews of Palestine, and the Jews of
Egypt. The Jews of Palestine, sheltered from commerce with the world,
more by their unsocial Faith, than by the deep and quiet vallies of
their sequestered land, partook little of the spirit of the Times, and
imparted to it nothing; and though after the Babylonish Captivity,
Gentile Philosophy had tinctured and in some sense expanded their
religious views, yet when they returned again to their homes that
influence was cut off, the living connection was no longer maintained,
and its effects were rather traditionary mixtures, than seeds of
progress.