Commenting on Heb. v. 7. he was heard, "in that he feared, Ecumenius fays, "this " he said on account of the weakness of his

"hearers *.' And again, fpeaking of God having raifed up Chrift, he fays," the di"vine Paul often fpeaks in a low ftyle; fay

ing, That the Father raised up Chrift +." Theophylact, commenting on Heb. i. fays, "Why did he not say that Chrift fpake "to us? It was both because they were "weak, and not yet able to hear concerning

66

Chrift, and to fhew, that the Old and the “ New Testament have the fame author ‡."

I fhall now proceed to fhew, that, in the opinion of the fame Fathers, the apostles thought it neceffary to obferve the fame caution in teaching the doctrine of the divinity of Christ to the Gentiles, that had been requifite with respect to the Jews.

τέλο

* Και εισακέσθεις. Τοσεῖον, φησιν, εσηκέσθη, οτι και ανέση. δς ειπε δια την ασθένειαν των ακεονίων, επω μεγάλας εχονίων περι χρισε δόξας. Των δε ταπείνων τε των ρημαίων δύο αιτία, ηε (αρζ, και ασθενια Twy anxovlav. In Heb. vol. 2. p. 349.

+ Πολλαχε γαρ ταπεινότερα ο θείος Παύλος φθείρομενος, τον πατέρα φησιν αναςήσαι τον χρισον. Ibid. p. 310.

* Δια τι δε εκ είπεν, ελάλησεν ημιν ο χρισος ; Αμα μεν, δικά το ασθενεις ειναι αυτες καὶ μηπω δυνασθαι ακεσαι περι 78 χρισε. αμα δε και δεικνύων, επι η παλαια και η καινη, ενός ετι και τε αυτς. p. 876.

Vol. 2.

Of the Caution obferved by the Apostles in teaching the Doctrines of the Pre-existence and Divinity of Chrift to the Gentile Con

verts.

THE apoftles found the Jews fully per

fuaded concerning the doctrine of the divine unity, and on that account they are represented by the Fathers as cautious how they taught the doctrine of the divinity of Chrift, left their hearers fhould have been staggered at it, as if they had preached two Gods. The Gentiles were in a quite different fituation, believing in a multiplicity of Gods; on which account it might be thought to require lefs caution to teach this favourite doctrine to them. But then, for the fame reason for which it was thought improper for Mofes and the prophets to teach it to the Jews, in the former periods. of their history, when they were in danger of falling into idolatry, it was equally improper to infift upon it with the Gentiles, left they should have been encouraged to perfevere VOL. III.

I

in

in the same system. Also, after they were brought to the worship of one God, they would have been no lefs averfe to fuch a doctrine as the trinity than the Jews. On this account it was not lefs hazardous, according to Chryfoftom, to teach the doctrine of the divinity of Chrift to the Gentiles than it had been to the Jews.

In the paffage, part of which I have quoted above, after obferving, that if the apostles had not conducted themfelves in this cautious manner with respect to the Jews, their whole doctrine would have appeared incredible to them, he adds, " and at Athens Paul calls "him" (Jesus)" simply a man, and nothing "farther, and for a good reason. For if they often attempted to ftone Chrift him

felf, when he fpake of his equality with "the Father, and called him on that account "a blasphemer, they would hardly have re"ceived this doctrine from fishermen, efpe

66

cially after fpeaking of him as crucified. "And why do I speak of the Jews? when "at that time even the disciples of Christ "himself were often difturbed and scanda"lized at him, when they heard fublime "doctrines

"doctrines; on which account he faid, I “have many things to fay to you, but ye are "not yet able to bear them. And if they " could not bear there things, who had live "ed fo long with him, and had received fe

many myfteries, and feen fo many mira"cles, how could men, who were then firft " taken from their altars, idols, and facri"fices, and cats, and crocodiles (for fuch "was the worship of the heathens) and 'being then first brought off from these " abominations, readily receive fublime doc"trines *?"

66

Theodoret, commenting on i Cor. viii. 6. To us there is one God the Father, and one

ειπων.

* Εν δε Αθήναις και ανθρωπον αύλον απλώς καλει ο Παύλος, «δε πλεον εικοίως . ει γαρ αύλον τον χρισον διαλεγομενον περί της εις τον πατερα ισολή, λίθασαιπολλακις επιχειρησαν, καὶ βλασφημον δια τελο εκπλον, σχολη γαρ παρα των αλιεων τελον τον λογον εδέξαντο, καὶ τελο του ταυρόν προχώρησαντος. Και τι δει λεγειν τε; Ιεδαίες * οπ8 γε και αυτο τότε πολλακις οι μαθηται των υψιλότερων ακυονίες εθορυβονλο και εσκανδα λιζονίο, δια τελο και ελεγε πολλα εχω λέγειν υμιν αλλ' ο δύνασθε βατάζειν αρτι. ει δε εκείνοι εκ εδύναντο οι συγγενομενοι χρονον τοσεῖον, καὶ τοσείων κοινονήσανίες απορρήτων, καὶ τοσαυλα θεασαμενοι θαυμαία, πως ανθρωποι απο βωμών, και ειδώλων, καὶ θυσιῶν, καὶ αἰλέρων, κ) κροκοδείλων, τοιαύλα γαρ ην των ελληνων σέβασμαία; και των άλλων των κακων τότε πρωίου αποσπασθενίες, αθρόον της ύψηλες των δογμαίων εδέξαντο λογος. In Acta, Hom. 1. Opera, vol. 8. p. 447.

I 2

Lord

Lord Jefus Chrift, fays,

"Here he calls the

"one God, and the other Lord, left he "fhould give those who were just freed "from heathenifm, and had learned the truth, a pretence for returning to their heathenifm and idolatry *.

Ecumenius, on the fame place, fays, "The apostle speaks cautiously concerning "the Father and the Son, calling the Father "the one God, left they should think there "were two Gods; and the Son the one "Lord, left they should think there were "two Lords. For if he had faid God and "God, the Greeks, from their ignorance, "would have thought it had been poly"theism; or if he had faid Lord and Lord, they would have thought there were many This is the reason why he now

"Lords.

fays, that the Father was God, and the "Son Lord. For he had premised that with us there was but one God. Had he called "both the Father and the Son God, and

* Επανθα μενοι τον μεν Θεον προσηγόρευσε, τον δε κύριον ένα μα τοις εναίχος της Ελληνικής πλάνης απαλλαγείσι, και την αλήθειαν μελα μαθέσι, παράσχη προφασιν εις την πολυθεον εξαπατην παλινδρομησαι. In Loc. Opera, vol. 3. p. 158.

"Lord