Chapter XVII: Preface (4)

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_.

---------------------