Footnotes for Lecture V.
[164]. Analogy of Religion, part ii. ch. 3.
[165]. Sermon on the Integrity of the Canon, p. 80.
[166]. Dr. Tattershall’s Sermon on the Integrity of the Canon, p. 81.
[167]. Elements of Logic. Appendix, in verb. Person.
[169]. See Mr. Jones’s Lecture on the Proper Humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, pp. 241, 242.
[170]. Genesis, xviii. 1, 2, 22; xix. 1, 10, 15.
[171]. Deut. xxix. 2, 5, 6.
[172]. It is hardly necessary to observe, that I use the word “Athanasian” to denote the doctrine of the Creed so called; not of St. Athanasius himself, who is known to have had no hand in the composition of that formula.
[173]. Jesus Christ, the great God our Saviour, pp. 81, 369.
[174]. 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.
[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.
[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].
[177]. Grammar of the Hebrew Language, art. 228, 6. Note.
[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.
[179]. Matt. i. 23.
[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.”
[181]. Quoted from Wilson’s Illustrations, p. 117.
[182]. Letters on the Trinity, by Moses Stuart, Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theological Seminary, Andover, U.S. Belf. ed. p. 161.
[183]. Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, 2nd edit. vol. i. p. 382.
[184]. Amos v. 2.
[185]. Jeremiah xiv. 17.
[186]. Micah iv. 8, 9. See the whole context.
[188]. Isaiah ix. 5, 6.
[189]. Isaiah viii. 23-ix. 4. Compare 2 Kings xv. 29; 1 Chronicles v. 26.
[190]. Martin Luther’s Version, in loc.
[192]. Λόγος ἐνδιάθετος.
[193]. Λόγος προφορικός.
[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.
[196]. 1 Tim. iii. 16.
[197]. Εἷς θεός ἐστιν, ὁ φανερώσας ἑαυτὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.—S. Ignatii Epist. ad Magnes. c. viii.
[198]. Δι’ οὗ, not ὑφ’ οὗ.
[199]. Psalm xlv.
[200]. v. 1-9.
[201]. v. 10-17.
[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?”
[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.
[204]. 2 Pet. iii. 13.
[205]. 1 Pet. iii. 20.
[206]. Acts xvii. 31.
[207]. Rom. i. 4.
[208]. Acts xiii. 30-34. comp. Heb. i. 5.
[209]. Heb. i. 3.
[210]. 2 Pet. iii. 9.
[211]. Heb. i. 3.
[212]. Paraphrase on the Epistles; Rom. xiii. 11, 12. Note.
[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.
[214]. 1 John v. 20.
[215]. Notes in loc.
[216]. Newcome.
[217]. 2 John 7.
[218]. Phil. ii. 5-8.
[219]. 2 Cor. viii. 9.
[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.
[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.”
[223]. Note in loc.
[224]. Acts xiv. 15.
[225]. Eph. ii. 10.
[226]. 2 Cor. v. 17.
[227]. 1 Cor. xv. 24.
[228]. 1 Thess. iv. 14.
[229]. 1 Cor. xv. 51. 1 Thess. iv. 17; v. 10.
[230]. Eph. i. 10.
[231]. 2 Thess. i. 9.
[232]. Heb. i. 6; Phil. ii. 10.
[233]. Heb. xii. 28.
[234]. 2 Tim. ii. 12.
[235]. 1 Thess. iv. 14.
[236]. Rom. viii. 19, 23, 6.
[237]. 1 Pet. i. 5.
[238]. Eph. ii. 21, 22.
[239]. Eph. ii. 23.
[240]. 1 Cor. viii. 6.
[241]. John xvii. 3.
[242]. John iv. 23, 24.
[243]. Eph. iv. 6.
[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.
[245]. John v. 19, 30.
[246]. Ib. xiv. 10.
[247]. Ib. vi. 57.
[248]. Ib. v. 36.
[249]. Ib. x. 29.
[250]. Mark xiii. 32.
[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.
[252]. John vi. 62.
[253]. Ib. iii. 13.
[254]. John xvii. 5.
[255]. Acts ii. 32.
[256]. Gal. i. 1.
[257]. John x. 18.
[258]. Wardlaw’s Discourses, iv. p. 117.
[259]. Acts xvii. 31.
[260]. John v. 30.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[264]. Jer. xxxi. 4.
[265]. Jer. xxxi. 13.
[266]. Lam. i. 15.
[267]. Is. xxiii. 12.
[268]. 2 Kings xix. 21.
[269]. Is. viii. 8.
[270]. Is. viii. 18.
[271]. Matt. ii. 23.
[272]. Elements of Rhetoric, part iii. ch. ii. § 3.
[273]. Il. xiii. 298.
[274]. Ode to Fear.
[275]. Sonnet xii.
[276]. Olymp. viii. 73.
[277]. Juvenile Poems, p. 59.
[278]. De vict. p. 838. D.
[279]. Quod Deus sit immut. p. 309. A. De charit. p. 609. A. De Temul. p. 244. D. Leg. Alleg. p. 93. B.
[280]. Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 5, 12.
[281]. Prov. viii. 22, 30.
[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.
[283]. I have an impression of having seen advertised an English translation of this work; but I have no means of ascertaining the fact.
[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.
[285]. Pp. 263, 266, 267.
[286]. P. 265.
[287]. 1 John iii. 4.
[288]. 1 John v. 6.
[289]. 2 Cor. iii. 17.
[290]. 1 Cor. xi. 3.
[291]. 1 Kings xviii. 21. There would be no difficulty in increasing the number of instances exemplifying this solecism.
[292]. P. 157.
[293]. Historia Antitrinitariorum, maximè Socinianismi et Socinianorum; Fred. Sam. Bock, Tom. I. P. i. pp. 167, 168.