| Home > Salvation Scheme > Joseph Priestly Faith |
What Joseph Priestly says on Christian Faith
by bro.Muhammad Ata ur-Rahim
Joseph Priestly main contribution to the unitarians in England was a comprehensive argument, both historical and philosophical, in support of the Unity of God. It was drawn from the Scriptures and the writings of the old Christian fathers, interpreted by reason, and rigorously applied to the religious and political problems of his day. "Absurdity supported by power", he wrote, "will never be able to stand its ground against the efforts of reason"1. Of all his religious works, the most influential was his "History of the Corruptions of Christianity ", written in two volumes, in which he sought to show that true Christianity, embodied in the beliefs of the early Church, was Unitarian ; and that all departures from that faith were corruptions. The book infuriated the orthodox and delighted the liberals in both England and America. It was publicly burned in Holland. Here follows Priestly's own summary :
To consider the system of Christianity, one would think its very liable to corruption, or abuse. The great outline of it is that universal parent of mankind commissioned Jesus Christ to invite men to practice virtue, by the assurance of his mercy to the penitent, and of his purpose to raise to immortal life and happiness all the virtuous and good. Here is nothing that any person could imagine would lead to much subtle speculation, at least such as could excite animosity. The doctrine itself is so plain, that one would think the learned and the unlearned were upon a level with respect to it. And a person unacquainted with the state of things, at the time of its promulgation would look in vain for any probable source of the monstrous corruptions and abuses which crept into the system afterwards, Jesus, however, and his apostles, foretold that there would be a great departure from the truth, and that some thing would arise in the church, altogether unlike the doctrine which they taught, and even subversive of it.
In reality, however, the causes of the succeeding corruptions did then exists, and accordingly, without anything more than their natural operation, all the abuses rose to their full height; and what is more wonderful still, by the operation of natural causes also, we see the abuses gradually corrected, and Christianity recovering its primitive beauty and glory.
The causes of the corruptions were almost wholly contained in the established opinions of the heathen world, and especially the philosophical part, of it, so that when those heathens embraced Christianity, they mixed their former tenets and prejudices with it. Also, both Jews and heathens were so much scandalized at the idea of being disciples of a man who had been crucified as a common malefactor, that Christians in general were sufficiently disposed to adopt any opinion that would most effectually wipe away this reproach.
The opinion that the mental faculties of man belonging to a substance distinct from his body or brain, and of this invisible spiritual part, or soul, being capable of subsisting before and after its union with the body, which had taken the deepest root in all schools of philosophy, was wonderfully calculated to answer this purpose. For by this means Christians were enabled to give to the soul of Christ what rank they pleased in the heavenly region before he was born. On this principle went the Gnostics, deriving their doctrine from the received oriental philosophy. Afterwards, the philosophising Christians went upon another principle, personifying the wisdom, or logos of God the Father, equal to God the Father Himself..........
The abuses of the positive institutions of Christianity, monstrous as they were, naturally arose from the opinion of the purifying and sanctifying virtues of rites and ceremonies, which was the very basis of all the worships of the heathens!! And they were also similar to the abuses of the Jewish religion. We likewise see the rudiments of all the monkish austerities in the opinions and practices of the heathens, who thought to purify and exalt the soul by mascerating and mortifying the body.
As to the abuses of the government of the Church, they are as easily accounted for as abuses in civil government; worldly-minded men being always ready to lay hold of every opportunity on increasing their power; and in the dark ages too many circumstances concurred to give the Christian clergy peculiar advantages over the laity in this respect.
Upon the whole, I flatter myself that, to an attentive reader of this work, it will appear, that the Corruption of Christianity, in every article of faith or practice, was the natural consequence of the circumstances in which it was promulgated, and also that its recovery from these corruptions is the natural consequence of different circumstances
To bring the whole (false Christian position) into a short compass.
The General Council gave the Son the same nature with the Father.
Admitted the Holy Spirit into the Trinity.
Consigned to Christ a human soul in conjunction with the Logos.
Settled the hypothetical union of the divine and human nature of Christ, and
Affirmed, that in consequence of this union, the two natures constituted only one person.
It requires a pretty good memory to retain these distinctions, it being a business of words only, and ideas are not concerned in it.2
Priestly also wrote another book called" The History of Jesus Christ", some of which is reprinted here :
When we inquire into the doctrine of any book, or set of books, concerning any subject , and particular passages are alleged in favour of different opinions, we should chiefly consider what is the general tenor of the whole work with respect to it, or what impression the first careful perusal of it would make upon an impartial, reader .. .....
If we consult Moses account of the creation, we shall find that he makes no mention of more than one God, who made the heaven and the earth, who supplied the earth with plants and animals, and who also formed man. The plural number, is made use of when God is represented as saying, Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man" : but that this is mere phraseology is evident from its being said immediately after, in the singular number, Genesis 5:27, "God created man in His own image", so that the creator was still One being. Also, in the account of the building of the Tower of Babel, we read, Genesis 11:7 , that "God said let us go down and there confound their language" : but we find, in the very next verse, that it was one being only who actually effected this.
In all the intercourse of God with Adam, Noah, and other patriarchs, no mention is made of more than one being who addressed them under that character. The name by which he is distinguished is sometimes "Jehova", and at other times, "the God of Abraham", etc., but no doubt can be entertained that this was the same being who is first mentioned under the general title of God, and to whom the making of the heavens and the earth is ascribed.
Frequently mention is made in the scriptures of "angels", who sometimes speak in the name of God, but then they are always represented as the creature and the servants of God.... On no account, however, can these angels be considered as "Gods", rivals of the supreme being, or of the same rank with Him.
The most express declarations concerning the unity of God, and of the importance of the belief of it, are frequent in the Old Testament. The first commandment is Exodus 20:3 ,"Thou shalt have no other gods before me". This is repeated in the most emphatical manner. Deuteronomy 5:4, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord". I have no occasion to repeat what occurs on this subject in the later prophets. It appears , indeed, to have been the great object of the religion of the Jews, and of their being distinguished from other nations by the superior presence and superintendence of God, to preserve among them the knowledge of the divine unity, while the rest of the world were falling into idolatry. And by means of this nation, and the disciples which it underwent, that great doctrine was effectually preserved among men, and continues to be so to this day.
Had there been any distinction of persons in the divine nature, such as the doctrines of the Trinity supposes, it is at least so like an infringement of the fundamental doctrine of the Jewish religion, that it certainly required to be explained, and the obvious inference from it to be guarded against. 'had the eternal Father, had a Son, and also a Spirit , each of them equal in power and glory to Himself, though there should have been a sense in which each of them was truly God, and yet there was , properly speaking, only One God; at least the more obvious inference would have been , that if each of the three persons was properly God, they would all together make three Gods. Since, therefore, nothing of this kind is said in the Old Testament, as the objection is never made, nor answered. It is evident that the idea had not then occurred. No expression, or appearance, had at that time even suggested the difficulty.
If we guide ourselves by the sense in which the Jews understood their own sacred books, we cannot but conclude that they contained no such doctrine as that of the Christian Trinity. For it does not appear that any Jew, of ancient or modern times, ever deduced such a doctrine from them. The Jews always interpreted their scriptures as teaching that God is simply One, without distinction of persons, and that the same being who made the world, did also speak to the patriarchs and the prophets without the intervention of any other beings besides angels.
Christians have imagined that the Messiah was to be the second person in the divine trinity; but the Jews themselves, great as were their expectation from the Messiah, never supposed any such thing. And if we consider the prophesies concerning this great personage, we shall be satisfied that they could not possibly have led them to expect any other than a man in that character. The Messiah is supposed to be announced to our first parents under the title of "the seed of the woman", Genesis 3:15....
God promised to Abraham, Genesis 12:3 , that "in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed". This, if it relate to the Messiah at all, can give us no other idea than that one of his seed or posterity, should be the means of conferring great blessings on mankind. What else, also, could be suggested by the description which Moses is supposed to give of the Messiah, when he said , Deuteronomy 18:18, " I will raise them up a prophet, from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him". Here is nothing like a second person in the trinity, a person equal to the Father, but a mere prophet., delivering in the name of God, whatever he is ordered to do.....
In the New Testament we find the same doctrine concerning God that we do in the Old. To the scribe who inquired which was the first and the greatest commandment, our Saviour answered, Mark, 12:29, "The first of all the commandments is, Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord", etc.., and the scribe answered to him, "Well, Master, thou hast said the truth; for there is one God, and there is none other, but He, ..etc.."
Christ himself always prayed to this God, as his God and Father. He always spoke of himself as receiving his doctrine and his power from Him, and again and again disclaimed having any power of his own, John 5:19, "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily , I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself". Chaldeans 14:10, "The words which I speak unto you, I speak not of myself, but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doth the works". Chaldeans 20 :17, Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and unto my God and your God". It cannot , surely, be God who used such language as this.
The Apostles to the latest period of their writings, speak the same language : representing the Father as the only true God, and Christ as man, the servant of God, who raised him from the dead, and gave him all the the power of which he is possessed, as a reward of his obedience. Acts 2:22 Peter says, "Ye man of Israel, hear these words, Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him, etc.., whom God has raised up". Paul also, says, I Timothy 2:5 , "There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus....."
It will be seen in the course of this history that the common people, for whose use the books of the New Testament were written, saw nothing in them of the doctrines of the pre-existence or divinity of Christ, which many persons of this day are so confident that they see in them....Why was not the doctrine of the trinity taught as explicitly, and in as definite a manner in the New Testament at least, as the doctrine of the divine of the Divine Unity is taught in the both the Old Testament and the New Testament, if it be a truth ? And why is the doctrine of the unity always delivered in so unguarded a manner, and without any exception made in favour of a trinity, to prevent any mistake with respect to it, as is always now done in our orthodox catechisms, creeds, and discourses on the subject ? .. . . . .Divines are content to build the strange and inexplicable doctrine of the trinity upon mere inferences from casual expressions, and cannot pretend to one clear, express and unequivocal textual source.
There are many , very many, passages of scripture, which inculcate the doctrine of the divine unity in the clearest and strongest manner. Let one such passage be produced in favour of the trinity. And why should we believe things so mysterious without the clearest and most express evidence.
There is also another consideration which should be recommended to those who maintain that Christ is either God, or the maker of the world under God. It is this : The manner in which our Lord speaks of himself, and of the power by which he worked miracles, is inconsistent, according to the common construction of language, with the idea of his being possessed of any proper power of his own, more than other men have.
If Christ was the maker of the world....he could not ....have said that of himself he could do nothing, that the words which he spoke were not his own, and that the Father within him did the works. For it any ordinary man, doing what other men usually do, should apply this language to himself, and say that it was not he that spoke or acted, but God who spoke and acted by him, and that otherwise he was not capable of so speaking or acting at all, we should not hesitate to say that his language was either false or blasphemous
It would also be an abuse of language...It Christ could be supposed to say that his Father was greater than he, and yet secretly mean his human nature only, while his divine nature was at the same time fully equal to that of the Father. There is nothing that can be called an account of the divine, or even the super-angelic nature of Christ in the gospels of Mathew, Mark, or Luke; and allowing that there may be some colour for it in the introduction to the gospel of John. It is remarkable that there are many passages in his gospel which are decisively in favour of his simple humanity.
Now these evangelists could not imagine that either the Jews or the Gentiles, for whose use their gospels were written, would not stand in need of information on a subject of so much importance, which was so very remote from the apprehensions of them both, and which would at the same time have so effectively covered the reproach of the cross, which was continually abject to the Christians of that age. If the doctrines of the divinity, or pre-existence of Christ are true, they are no doubt in the highest degree important and interesting. Since, therefore , these evangelists give no certain and distinct account of them, and say nothing at all of their importance, it may be safely inferred that they were unknown to them.
It must also be asked how the apostles could continue to call Christ a man, as they always do, both in the book of Acts, and in their epistles, after they had discovered him to be either God, or super-angelic being, the maker of the world under God. After this, it must have been highly degrading, unnatural, and improper, notwithstanding his appearance in human form.....Let us put ourselves in the place of the apostles and first disciples of Christ. They certainly saw and conversed with him at first on the supposition that he was a man like themselves. Of this there can be no doubt. Their surprise, therefore, upon being informed that he was not a man, but really God, or even the maker of the world under God, would be of the same nature as ours on discovering that a man of our acquaintance was supposed to be in reality God, or the maker of the world. Let us consider then, how we should feel, how we should behave towards such a person, and how we should speak of him afterwards. No one, I am confident, would ever call any person a man, after he was convinced he was either God, or an angel. He would always speak of him in a manner suitable to his proper rank.
Suppose that any two men of our acquaintance, should appear, on examination to be the angels Michael and Gabriel, would we call them men after that? Certainly not. We would naturally say to our friends, "those two persons whom we took to be men, are not men, but angels in disguise" This language would be natural. Had Christ, therefore, been anything more than man before he came into the world, and especially had he been either God, or the maker of the world, he never could have been considered as being a man, while he was in it ; for he could not divest himself of his superior and proper nature. However disguised, he would always in fact have been whatever he had been before, and would have been so styled by all who truly knew him.
Least of all would Christ have been considered as a man in reasoning, and argumentation, though his external appearance should have so far put men off their guard, as to have led them to give him that appellation...
It must strike every person who gives the least attention to the phraseology of the New Testament, that the terms "Christ" and "God", are perpetually used in contradistinction to each other, as much as "God" and "man"; and if we consider the natural use of words, we become satisfied that this would not have been the case, if the former could have been predicted of the latter, that is, if Christ had been God.
We say "the prince and the king", because the prince is not a king. If he had been , we should have had recourse to some other distinction, as that of "greater and less", "senior and junior", "father and son", etc. When therefore the apostle Paul said, that the Church at Corinth was Christ's, and that Christ was God's , and that manner of distinguishing them is recurrent in the New Testament, it is evident that he could have no idea of Christ being God, in any meaningful sense of the word.
In like manner, Clemens Romanus, calling Christ the "sceptre of the Majesty of God", sufficiently proves that in his idea the sceptre was one thing, and the God whose sceptre it was, another. This, I say, must have been the case when this language was first adopted.
Having shown that the general tenor of the scriptures, and several considerations that obviously may be deduced from them are highly unfavourable to the doctrine of the trinity, or to those the divinity or pre-existence of Christ, there arises another consideration, which has been little attended to, but which seems very strongly to go against either of these doctrines having been known in the time of the apostles, and therefore against their being the doctrine of the scriptures. That Jesus was even the Messiah, was divulged with the greatest caution, both to the apostles and to the body of the Jews. For a long time our Lord said nothing explicit on this subject, but left his disciples, as well as the Jews at large, to judge him from what they saw. In this manner only he replied to the messengers that John the Baptist sent to him.
If the high-priest expressed his horror, by rending his clothes, on Jesus avowing himself to be the Messiah, what would he have done if he had heard or suspected, that he had made any higher pretensions ? And if he had made them, they must have transpired. When the people in general saw his miraculous works, they only wondered that God should have given such power to a man. Mathew 9:8, " When the multitude saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, who had given such power unto men". At the time that Herod heard of him, it was conjectured by some that he was Elias, by others, a prophet, and by some that he was John risen from the dead; but none of them imagined that he was either the most high God himself, or the maker of the world under God. It was not so much as suggested by any person that Jesus performed his mighty works by any power of his own. If the doctrine of the divinity of Christ had been actually preached by the apostles, and the Jewish converts in general had adopted it, it could not but have well known to the unbelieving Jews. And would they , who were at that time, and have been ever since, so exceedingly zealous with respect to the doctrine of the divine unity, not have taken the alarm, and have urged this objection of Christianity, as teaching the belief of more Gods than one in the apostolic age? And yet no trace of anything of this nature can be perceived in the whole history of the books of Acts, or anywhere else in the New Testament. To answer the charge of holding two or three Gods, is a very considerable article in the writings of several of the ancient Christian Fathers. Why then do we find nothing of this kind in the age of the apostles ? The only answer is, that then there was no occasion for it, the doctrine of the divinity of Christ not then having been put forward.
What was the accusation against Stephen (Acts 6:13) but his speaking blasphemous things against the temple and the law? If we accompany the apostle Paul in all his travels, and attend to his discourses with the Jews in their synagogues, and their perpetual and inveterate persecution of him, we shall find no trace of their so much as suspecting that he preached a new divinity, as the godhead of Christ must have appeared, and always has appeared to them.
Is it possible to give due attention to these considerations, and not be aware that the apostles had never been instructed in any such doctrines as those of the divinity or pre-existence of Christ? It they had, as the doctrines were quite new, and must have appeared extraordinary, we should certainly have been able to trace the time when they were communicated to them. They would naturally have expressed some surprise, if they had intimated no doubt about the truth of the information. If they received them with unshaken faith themselves, they would have taught them to others, who would not have received them so readily. They would have had the doubts of some to encounter, and the objections of others to answer. And yet, in all their history, and copious writings, we perceive no trace of their own surprise, or doubts of the surprise, doubts or objections of others.
It must be acknowledged that the proper object of prayer is God the Father, who is called the first person in the trinity. Indeed, we cannot find in the scriptures either any precept that will authorise us to address ourselves to any other person, or any proper example of it. The sort of thing that can be alleged to this purpose, like Stephen's short address to Christ after he had seen him in his vision, is very inconsiderable. Jesus himself always prayed to his Father, and with as much humility and resignation as the most dependent being in the universe could possibly do; always addressing him as his Father, or the author of his being, the One, he says, we ought to serve.
Accordingly, the practise of praying to the Father only was long universal in the Christian Church. The short addresses to Christ, as those in the Litany, "Lord have mercy upon us, Christ have mercy upon us" being comparatively of late date. In the Clementine liturgy, the oldest that is extant, contained in the Apostolical Constitution, which were probably composed about the fourth century, there is no trace of any such thing. Orgeon , in a large treatise on the subject of prayer, urges very forcibly the propriety of praying to the Father only, and not to Christ; and as he gives no hint that the public forms of prayer had anything reprehensible in them in that respect, we are naturally led to conclude that, in his time, such petitions to Christ were unknown in the public assemblies of Christians.
Let us now attend to some particulars in a history of the apostles. When Herod had put to death James, the brother-of John, and imprisoned Peter, we read, Acts 12:5, that "prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God", not to Christ, "for him". When Paul and Silas were in prison at Philippi, we read, Acts 16:25, that they "sung praises to God". not to Christ. And when Paul was warned of what would befall him if he went to Jerusalem, Acts 21:14, he said" the will of the Lord be done". This , it must be supposed, was meant of God the Father, because Christ himself used the same language in this sense, when praying to the Father, he said "Not my will, but thine be done......."
If has been shown that there is no such doctrine as that of the trinity in the scriptures. The doctrine itself, as has been clearly demonstrated, has proved impossible for reasonable men to accept or even hold in their minds, as its implies contradictions which render it meaningless.
The Athanasian doctrine of the trinity asserts in effect that nothing is wanting in either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, to let any one of them truly and properly, be God, each of them being equal in eternity, and all divine perfections; and yet these three are not three Gods, but only one God. They are therefore both one and many in same respect- in each being perfect God. This is certainly as much a contradiction, as to say that Peter, James, and John having each of them everything that is requisite to constitute a complete man, are yet all together not three men, but only one man. For the ideas annexed to the words "God", or "man", cannot make any difference in the nature of the two propositions. After the Council of Nice, there are instances of the doctrine of the trinity being explained in this very manner. The Fathers of that age being particularly intent on preserving the full equality of the three persons, entirely lost sight of their proper unity. Thus no matter how this doctrine is explained, one of these always has to be sacrificed to the other. As people are apt to confuse themselves with the use of the words "person" and "being", these should be defined.
The term "being" may be predicted of every thing, and therefore of each of the three persons in the trinity. For to say that Christ, for instance, is God, but that there is no being no substance, to which His attributes may be referred, would be manifestly absurd; and therefore when it is said that each of these persons is by himself God, the meaning must be that the Father, separately considered , has being; the Son, separately considered has a being, and likewise that the Holy Spirit, separately considered, has being . Here then are no less than three beings, as well as three persons, and what can these three beings be but three Gods, without supposing that there are "three co-ordinate persons, or three Fathers, three Sons, or three Holy Ghosts".
If this mysterious power of generation be peculiar to the Father, why does it not still operate ? Is He not an unchangeable being , the same now that He was from the beginning. His perfections the same, and His power of contemplating the the same? Why then are not more sons produced? Has He become incapable of this generation, as the orthodox Fathers used to ask ,or does it depend of generation? If so, is not the Son as such a creature, depending on the will of the Creator, as anything else produced by Him, though in another manner, and this whether he be of the same substance with Him, or not ?
It must also be asked in what manner the third person of the trinity was produced. Was it by the joint exertion of the two first in the contemplation of their respective perfections ? If so, why does not the same operation in them produce a fourth and so on.
Admitting, however, this strange account of the generation of the trinity, that the personal existence of the Son necessarily flows from the intellect of the Father exerted on itself; it certainly implies a virtual priority, or superiority in the Father with respect to the Son, and no being can be properly God, who has any superior. In short, this scheme effectually overturns the doctrine of the proper equality, as well as the unity of the three persons in the trinity.
The great objection to the doctrine of the trinity is that it is an infringement of the doctrine of the unity of God, as the sole objection of worship, which it was the primary design of Divine Revelation to establish. Any modification of this doctrine, therefore, or any other system whatever, ought to be regarded with suspicion, in proportion as it makes a multiplicity of objects of worship, for that is to introduce idolatry3.
Please read Joseph Priestly's History
reference
The Epic of Unitarianism , D.B.Parke, p .48
A History of the Corruptions of Christianity, J. Priestly
The History of Jesus Christ, J. Priestly
from the Book : Jesus - A prophet of Islam
Author : Muhammad Ata ur-Rahim
(ICRA)