The Apostle Peter a Unitarian, from The Unitarian Advocate, Volume 4, 1829
In a former number of this work, it was attempted to be shown that Peter must have been a Unitarian at the time of our Saviour's ascension. The sources of proof to which recourse was had for establishing this position, were, first, his known declarations and conduct while a pupil of Christ; and secondly, the recorded instructions which he, in common with the other disciples, received during that period. If it be possible, in any case, to form an opinion, approaching at all to accuracy, of what a man's religious views at a given time of his life must be, from a knowledge of his previous education, behaviour, and conversation; then it will be conceded, we trust, that there are satisfactory grounds for the conclusion to which our reasoning has led us, that the Apostle Peter is to be regarded as a Unitarian Christian at the period of his history at which we have now arrived.
But new revelations are to be made to him, it may be said. Our Saviour, just before his death, promised to the disciples further illumination, by which they would be led “into all truth.” Who knows, it may be asked, but Peter, unitarian as he doubtless was at that time, may yet see cause to change his opinions and become a teacher of Trinitarianism? In reply to this, we will not stop to show the intrinsic improbability of such an event; but, taking up the subject where we left it, in our former essay, proceed to ascertain how the matter stands in point of fact. The question is to be settled by recurring to the records we have of his preaching, controversies, private teaching, devotions, and writings. That we may not be accused of taking a partial view of the evidence in the case, we shall adduce all of it that relates to the subject.
1. We begin with the apostle's preaching. His first sermon occurs in the second chapter of the Acts. He delivered it, we are told, immediately after the special illumination of the Holy Spirit. Does it contain any thing like Trinitarianism? Not a syllable. It is thoroughly unitarian from beginning to end. The points of doctrine it presents are these. 1. The divine mission of Jesus Christ. - Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you;” or, as it should be rendered,“proved unto you to be a man from God.” 2. The evidence of the divinity of his mission. “By miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves know.” 3. His death, and how the event stood connected with divine Providence and human agency. “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” 4. His resurrection, together with the Author and proofs of it. “Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death; ...... this Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are all witnesses.” 5. His exaltation, and to whom he was indebted for it. “By the right hand of God exalted.” 6. His possession of the promise of the holy spirit, dispensed through him to the first Christians, and how he came by it. “Having received of the FATHER the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.” 7. His offices, not underived, but conferred by the Most High. "Let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus both Lord and Christ.”
Of this character are the doctrinal parts of Peter's first sermon. It contains, not a word, as to the point in question, different from what we have quoted. Who does not see that it is unitarian in every particular? Could one be delivered more directly opposed to trinitarian views? And yet, free as the apostle's preaching was from what are so much vaunted, in our day, as the “doctrines of grace," it was not without the most salutary effects. When the people heard it, "they were pricked in their heart," and said, "what shall we do?" And now we have a specimen of Peter's practical directions. Do they savor of modern orthodoxy? Does he tell them to worship the trinity, to mourn over native and entire depravity, to confess they can do nothing themselves, to hope for a transfer of the penalty of their guilt to a substituted victim, or to calculate on having their moral deficiencies supplied by the imputed righteousness of Christ? As far from it as possible. He says to them, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.” “Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” So taught the most able and zealous of our Lord's ministers. We have too much respect for the understandings of our readers to add a single word by way of comment.
But it will be asked, perhaps, whether Peter always preached so much in the manner of a Unitarian? We will see. Another opportunity offers itself for listening to him. We find him in Solomon's porch, surrounded by a multitude, that had been drawn together by the miraculous cure he had just wrought of a lame man. [Acts 3] He prepares to address the people. Will he, who but a little time before preached Unitarianism with such success, now adopt an entirely new course, and unfold the dark system of an opposite faith? Let the recorded facts decide. The very first statement he makes involves the doctrine of God's supremacy and the inferiority of Christ. “The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his son Jesus.” Is this Trinitarianism? Is the Son of God the very God whose son he is? Is he who is glorified the same with him who confers the glory? Peter proceeds. “Ye denied the holy one and the just, and killed the prince of life; whom God raised from the dead.” Is it Jehovah that the apostle accuses the Jews of denying and killing? Is it Jehovah that he says God raised from the dead? The inspired preacher goes on. “Moses truly said unto the fathers, a prophet shall the LORD your God raise up unto you, of your brethren, like unto me.” This Peter applies to Christ. Look at its import. “A prophet like unto Moses,”--"of their brethren,"-"raised up by God!” Is this Trinitarianism? The apostle concludes his discourse in these words. "Unto you first, God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” Here, again, Trinitarianism is not only not recognised, but opposed. Jesus is represented simply as the son, the sent of God, while the supremacy of the Father is maintained, as it is uniformly in the teachings of this distinguished minister of the gospel.
Such as we have seen was the character of Peter's preaching. We do not believe he ever uttered a word in his public instructions, inconsistent with what we have now given. Not a single expression occurs in any of his sermons that have been reported, which can by any just rules of interpretation, be made to yield support to the doctrine of the trinity. And what was the efficacy of the sort of preaching we have been considering? Was it impotent, as some are so fond of representing Unitarianism to be? Three thousand souls were converted to the christian faith by Peter's first sermon, and five thousand by the second!
2. Let us now regard Peter in another character than that of a preacher. He was called to perform the part of a controvertist. Who were his first antagonists? His countrymen the Jews. Now consider, first, that they were exceedingly tenacious and sensitive as to their favorite doctrine respecting the Divine Unity; and, secondly, that it was alike their wish and their practice to seize on every plausible ground of objection to the advocates of Christianity. From these facts, what was to have been expected, on the supposition that Peter was a Trinitarian and did not conceal his opinions? Why, certainly, that he would have been opposed on this ground, by the Jews; that he would have been drawn into a controversy as to the question whether God were three persons or one; and that some traces of such a controversy would have been left on record, after the manner of his other disputes with his countrymen. But how stands the case in reality? The New Testament does not afford us the slightest hint that any such question was agitated. We therefore say that he could not have been openly a Trinitarian. So much in the way of negative proof that Peter continued to be a believer in Unitarianism.
Something more than this, however, we are able to derive from the Apostle's known conduct as a controvertist. In his discussions with the Jews on other subjects he let fall divers incidental remarks, which yield us positive evidence that he was as far as possible from being a Trinitarian. The first example we have of his controversial manner, occurs in the fourth chapter of the Acts. The chiefs of the nation “being grieved," as the historian expresses it, that the Apostles “taught the people”-what? Trinitarianism? nothing like it; but "through Jesus Christ the resurrection from the dead." So, as we are told,they “set them in the midst, and asked by what power or by what name they had done this? Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, ......... be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him" &c. Remark this language. “Jesus of Nazareth whom ye crucified.” Would a Trinitarian have said this, and no more? If Peter believed Christ to be Jehovah, why did he not embrace an opportunity like this for declaring bis conviction? “Whom God raised from the dead.” How could the Apostle have used these words, without any others by way of qualification or explanation, if he had not meant to leave on the minds of his auditors the impression of Christ's inferiority to, and dependence on, the Father Almighty.
Are we asked for another instance of Peter's controversial manner? One offers itself in the fifth chapter. He had been brought before the council and reprimanded by the chief priests for having“ filled Jerusalem with his doctrines,” contrary to their express injunctions. What was his reply? “We ought to obey God rather than nien. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be a Prince and a Saviour.” How does this accord with Trinitarianism? Could God die? But Jesus was slain and hanged on a tree. He rose from the dead; but was it by his own inherent and independent power? No. It was by that of the one God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Could the Most High be exalted? and by whom? But Jesus was exalted by the right hand of God. Christ is a Prince and a Saviour; how did he come by such a distinction? Peter says that God bestowed it upon him.
Now what has the Trinitarian to say to these things? Does he ask for other instances of the Apostle's controversies with the Jews? There are no others on record. Does he inquire, if we have not omitted some expressions in those we have cited, which favor the doctrine of the Trinity? We answer,—not a word. It was always on unitarian ground that Peter defended Christianity against the Jews; and we may add, it is the only ground on which it can ever be defended, with success, against the attacks of their descendants. Does he take up the old objection of Athanasius, and say that Peter refrained from declaring his Trinitarianism openly to his countrymen, on account of their prejudices respecting the Divine Unity? We need not dwell on the inberent improbability of this; for we happen to be informed of the Apostle's mode of presenting the truths of Christianity to the Gentiles, whose prejudices, it is well known, were so far from being favorable to Unitarianism, that they were all on the side of Polytheism. We refer to his conference with Cornelius and his friends. It may be well to quote the language he used on this occasion, at length; not, however, so much to meet the objection just stated,—for it is too weak to require a formal refutation,-as to fulfil our purpose of giving a complete view of the Apostle's system of doctrine.
3. We have, then, as a third source of proof that Peter continued a Unitarian, an account, in the tenth chapter of the Acts, of his private teachings. We are told in the first place that Cornelius, a devout heathen, had received an extraordinary direction from God to repair to Peter, in order to be instructed in the christian religion. We have then a statement of some special revelations made to the Apostle, for the purpose of qualifying him for this new duty. Is the doctrine of the Trinity a part of these revelations? We have not the least hint to this effect. We at length find Cornelius and his friends prepared for their interview with Peter, who immediately proceeds to instruct them in all things (these are his words,) that had been commanded him of God.” His whole discourse follows. “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ-(he is Lord of all)-[i. e. he is master of the Gentiles equally as of the Jews]—that word I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee, after the baptisin which John preached; how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. And we are all witnesses of all things which he did, both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew, and hanged on a tree; him God raised up the third day and showed him openly, not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it was he which was ordained of God to be the judge of quick and dead. To bim gave all the prophets witness that through his name, whoever believeth in him, (whether Gentile or Jew] shall receive remission of sins."
Such is the message which Peter had received from God to deliver to Cornelius. Its whole complexion is unitarian. Had the arguments that have since been urged in support of Trinitarianism, then been prevalent, they could not, it seems to us, have easily had a more complete refutation. Let our readers weigh these expressions. “The word which God sent by Jesus Christ; how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; for God was with him; whom they slew, him God raised up; it is he which was ordained of God to be the judge of quick and dead;---let these expressions be impartially weighed, and then let any one say, if he can, that Peter was commissioned to teach, or, that he did teach, Trinitarianism.
4. We have followed Peter as a public preacher of the Gospel, as a religious controvertist among the Jews, and as a private instructer of Christianity to Cornelius and his Pagan friends. Let us now listen for a moment, in the next place, to his devotions. Do we hear him addressing his prayers to the Trinity? Never. Does he pay religious homage to Jesus Christ? The instance is not recorded by the sacred historian. All his devotions, of which we have any account, were unitarian. Take an example, which alone establishes the position that he was not a trinitarian worshipper. It is given in the fourth chapter of the Acts. Peter and John had just been released from prison, and had related the circumstances of their confinement to their brethren. It was natural that, at such a season, they should unite, in devout acknowledgments to their accustomed object of adoration. To whom were their devotions on this occasion, offered, and in what terms? “They lifted up their voice to God, with one accord, and said, LORD, thou art God, which hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is; who by the mouth of thy servant David, hast said, why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the LORD and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy council determined to be done. And now, LORD, behold their threatenings, and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word, by stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.” We examine this prayer in vain for any recognition of trinitarian views. It is Jehovah, in one person, the Creator of the world, that is addressed. “LORD, thou art God, who hast made heaven and earth,” &c. Jesus Christ is represented as distinct from and subordinate to God. “Against the Lord and against his Christ.” Our Saviour is spoken of as indebted to the Father for his appointment to the office he sustained. “Thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed.” The favorite notion of a “compact between the Sacred Three,” so often referred to by trinitarian writers, is excluded, and all is ascribed to the sole purpose and execution of the one Divine Being. “To do whatsoever thy hand and thy council determined to be done.” Aid is supplicated; but of whom? The one God. “And now, LORD, grant unto thy servants,” &c. Jesus Christ is mentioned in the petition for miraculous powers; but how? As the author of them? No. The request is made to God; and Jesus is spoken of only as instrumental and subordinate. "Grant ....... that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus." Further remark is unnecessary. If Peter could unite in a prayer of this character without being a Unitarian, no one's language, it seems to us, can be relied on as an adequate medium for the communication of thought.
5. It only remains to examine the writings of Peter. These are comprised in one or two epistles or letters, composed by him many years after the date of what we have learned respecting him from the Acts of the Apostles. As their purpose is chiefly practical, it cannot be expected that they will be found to contain much which bears directly on the point of the present discussion. So far, however, as they afford any testimony as to the Divine nature, it is decidedly in favor of our position, that Peter's views of it were unitarian. Is it objected that he says of Christ, “to him be glory both now and forever?” (2 Peter 3:18.) Be it remembered that this is the only instance of ascription of glory, or praise to Jesus, in Peter's writings. And to what does it amount? It is not said to have been the highest glory, such as we are required to ascribe to the Father of all; and what Unitarian would refuse to give that praise to Christ which belongs to him in his subordinate capacity of a divinely constituted Mediator and Saviour? Is stress laid on the circumstance that Peter sometimes applies the term, Lord, to Christ? It is enough to remark, in reply, that he quotes Sarah as calling Abraham, Lord, 1 Peter 3:6; and that nothing is more common in the scriptures, than to designate other beings than the Deity by the same title of respect. Is it asked if the epistles of Peter do not contain some other support of Trinitarianism than what we have now referred to? We answer confidently, not the least. On the contrary, we find scattered on their pages such expressions as the following, which go to disprove that doctrine. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” 1 Peter 1:3. “If ye call on the FATHER," &c. 5:17, not on Jesus Christ; which agrees with the words of our Saviour himself: “In that day ye shall ask me nothing,” &c. “Who by him (Christ] do believe in God, that raised him from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.” 5:21. [Christ] “a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God.” 2:4. “Spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” 5:5. “For Christ hath suffered ...... that he might bring us to God." 3:18. “Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God." 5:22. “That God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ; to whom [God] be praise and dominion forever and ever." 4:11. “The God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Jesus Christ, make you perfect. To HIM (God] be glory and dominion forever and ever. 5:10. “He (Christ) received from GOD THE FATHER honor and glory, when there came such a voice from the excellent glory, this is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." 2 Pet. 1:17.
These are all the words and phrases, we believe, that can be found in the epistles of Peter, from which anything can be inferred as to his opinions concerning the great question at issue between us and Trinitarians. Few, however, as they are, they afford abundant evidence to convince us that he was a unitarian writer. It is remarkable how he uniformly distinguishes between Christ and God. The language he uses, when speaking of Jehovah, is strikingly different from that which he employs in reference to our Saviour. The former he calls "Lord God," "Faithful Creator," and the like; but never the latter. He says, “God the Father,” but in no instance, God the Son. He speaks of the "will of God," as supreme; of “a good conscience towards God,” &c.; but refrains from such expressions respecting Christ. In a word, he seems, almost without exception, when making mention of our Saviour, to use language with that sort of caution, which we might imagine an intelligent and thorough Unitarian would employ, who was apprehensive that his writings were sometime to be searched for trinitarian proof-texts. We conclude with a single remark. Let it be supposed that the apostle Peter had said, even in a single instance, (what he has never done either expressly or impliedly,) that our Saviour was a partaker of a DIVINE NATURE, which he actually has affirmed of Christians in his second epistle, (1 Peter 1:4,) with what triumph would it not be now seized on by Trinitarians as an argument for the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ, incomparably stronger than what can be found for the support of that doctrine in all the productions that remain to us of this, or of any other writer of the New Testament.
See also Unitarianism & Universalism - 100 Books on DVDrom and Over 200 PDF Books on the Christology & Deity of Christ on DVDrom
No comments:
Post a Comment