66°

"that doctrine, left the logos of God "should have been thought to be a mere "man, without any divinity*.” Again," he fays, "John wrote left men should never "think highly concerning Christ, and ima

gine that he had no being before he was « born of Mary, and that he was not gene"rated from God the Father, which was the "cafe with Paulus Samofatenfis +." σε As

John," he fays, "has more lofty things « of Chrift than any other of the evange"lifts, fo he has recorded fome of a lower "nature; to fhew that, as he was God, fo "he was truly man ‡."

Laftly, an account of John's teaching the pre-exiftence and divinity of Chrift, may

1

* Επει γαρ οι άλλοι εκ εμνήσθησαν περι της που αιώνων υπάρξεως το θεό λόγο, αυτο εθεολόγησε περί ταύτης, ινα μη νομισθείη ο τε θες λογα ψιλος ανθρωπος είναι. In Matt. Pref. vol. 1. p. 1, 2.

† Δεος μεν ην μη πότε τινες χαμαιπείεις και μηδεν ύψηλου νοήσαι δυναμενοι, νομίσωσι τον χρισον τότε πρωΐόν εις υπαρξιν ελθείν ότι απο Μαγιας εγεννήθη, και εχι προ αιώνων εκ τε πατρος γεννηθήναι, ο πανίων πέπονθε Παυλος ο Σαμοσαλευς. In John, cap. 1. vol. i. p. 553.

1 Επει γαρ παρά πάντας τις ευαγγελίσας υψηλότερα περί το κύριο φθεγεται, καὶ θεολογει μεγάλα τινα, δια τοτο και εν τοις σωματικοις πολυ ταπεινότερα φθεγεται . οθεν και εν τω πείθει πολυ το ανθρωπινον έχειν φησιν, απο τοτε δεικνύων

L 2

be seen in the orations of Nicetas the Pa

phlagonian*."

The late introduction of the doctrine of the divinity of Chrift is obferved by the emperor Julian. He fays, that "none of "Chrift's disciples', except John, faid that " he made the heavens and the earth, and "that not clearly and plainly +."

SECTION II.

Reflections on the fubject.

FTER reading these testimonies, fo copious, and fo full to my purpose, and uncontradicted by any thing in antiquity, it is not poffible to entertain a doubt with respect to the opinion of the christian Fathers on this fubject. They must have δεικνύων της (αρκος την αληθειαν ένα συ μαθης οτι ει δε Feos nv, aña y avdewπos nv. In John ii. vol. 1, p. 726. * Combefis Auctuarium, vol. 1. p. 362.

† Ως δε ύμεις θελετε, τον ερανόν και την γην απεργασα μενω . * γάρ δη ταύτα τετολμηκε τις ειπείν περί αυτό των μαθητών, ει μη μον@ Ιωαννής, εδε αυτός σαφως, εδε τραγως. Cyr. Con. Jul. lib. 6. Juliani, Opera, vòl. 2. p. 213.

thought

thought that the doctrines of the pre-existence and divinity of Chrift had not been preached with any effect before the writing of John's gofpel; and, confequently, that before that time the great body of chriftians must have been unitarians; and they are far from giving the leaft hint of any of them having been excommunicated on that account. On the other hand, the apprehenfion was, left those who preached doctrines fo new and offenfive, as those of the pre-existence and divinity of Christ, should have been rejected with abhorrence.

When we confider how late the three first gospels were written, the last of them not long before that of John, which was near, if not after, the deftruction of Jerufalem, and that, in the opinion of the writers above-mentioned, all this caution and referve had been neceffary, till that late period, on the part of the christian teachers; how is it poffible that, in their idea, the christian church in general should have been well established in the belief of our Lord's divinity? It could only have been great and open zeal on the part of the apostles

L 3

apostles, and not the timid caution and management which thefe writers afcribe to them, that could have effectually taught a doctrine which, according to them, the people were ill prepared to receive. And the hiftory of both Peter and Paul fufficiently prove that the influence of mere apoftolical authority was not fo great at that time as many perfons now take it to have been. Whatever power they had, they were not confidered as lords over the faith of chriftians.

The chriftians of that age required fomething more than the private opinion of an apoftle. They required fome fuper-natural evidence that his doctrine was from God; and we have no account of the apoftles propofing to them this additional article of faith, and alledging any fuch evidence for it. Chryfoftom fays, "if the Jews were "fo much offended at having a new law "fuperadded to their former, how much "more would they have been offended, if "Chrift had taught his own divinity." May it not be fuppofed, therefore, that they. would have required as particular evidence

of

of a divine revelation in the one cafe as in the other? And what remarkably ftrong. evidence was neceffary to convince them. that the obligation of their law did not extend to the Gentiles? Would they, then, have received what Chryfoftom confidered as the more offenfive doctrine of the two, without any pretence to a particular revelation on the fubject?

It may be faid, that all the caution of which we have been speaking was neceffary with respect to the unbelieving Jews only, into whofe hands thefe gofpels, and the other writings of the New Teftament, might fall. But how impoffible must it have been to conceal from the unbelieving Jews the doctrine of the divinity of Chrift, if it had been a favourite article with the believing Jews. If this had been the cafe, it could not but have been known to all the world; and, therefore, all the offence that it could have given would have been unavoidable. So that this fuppofed caution of the evangelifts, &c. would have come too late, and would have answered no purpose whatever.