the supposition that the doctrine of the simple humanity of Christ was that which had been handed down to them by tradition from the apostles. It was not the doctrine of Arius that Athanasius is here complaining of, but that of Paulus Samosatensis, who was a proper unitarian, believing that Christ had no existence before he was born of his mother Mary. The great popularity of Photinus, at and after this time, shows with what difficulty the common people were brought off from this doctrine; and also the confession of Austin, that he was of that opinion till he became acquainted with the writings of Plato.

It is not from Athanasius alone that we are informed

66

of this cautious proceeding of the apostles in divulging the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. Chrysostom ascribes the same caution both to Christ himself and the apostles." One reason,” he says, why Christ said so little of his own divinity, was on account of the weakness of his auditors. Whenever he spake of himself as any thing more than man, they were tumultuous and offended; but when he spake with humility, and as a man, they ran to him and received his words *." Of this he gives many examples. "Our Saviour," he says, "never taught his own divinity in express words, but only by actions, leaving the fuller explication of it to his disciples. If," says he, "they (meaning the Jews) were so much offended at the addition of another law to their former, much more must they have been with the doctrine of his divinity †."

* Ει ποτε τι της ανθρωπινης φύσεως είπε πλεον, εθορυβουντο, και εσκανδαλίζοντο· ει δε τί ποτε ταπεινον, και ανθρωπινον, προσέτρεχον HAI TOV XOYOV εSEXOVTO. Chrysost. Homil. 32. vol. i. p. 409.

† Δια δε τουτό ουδε περι της θεοτητος της ἑαυτου πανταχου φαί

Chrysostom ascribes the same caution to the apostles on this subject. He says that they concealed the doctrine of the miraculous conception on account of the incredulity of the Jews with respect to it; and that when they began to preach the gospel, they insisted chiefly on the resurrection of Christ *. With respect to the former, (and the same may no doubt be applied to the latter,) he says he did not give "his own opinion only, but that which came by tradition from the fathers and eminent men. He therefore would not have his hearers to be alarmed, or think his account of it extraordinary t."

Thus, he says, that "it was not to give offence to the Jews that Peter, in his first speech to them, did not say that Christ did the wonderful works of which he spake, but that God did them by him; that by speaking more modestly he might conciliate them to himself." The same caution he attributes to him, in "not saying that Christ but that God spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, that by these means he might bring them gradually to the faith §."

I cannot help observing how extremely improbable is this account of the conduct of the apostles given by

νεται σαφως παιδεύων. Ει γαρ ἡ του νόμου προσθηκη τοσουτον αυτούς εθορύβει, πολλῳ μαλλον το θεὸν ἑαυτον αποφαίνειν. In caput Matt. v. Hom. 16. vol. vii. p. 154.

*Matt. cap. i. Hom. 3. vol. vii. p. 20.

Η Αλλα μη θορυβείσθε προς το παράδοξον του λεγομένου. ου δε γαρ εμος ὁ λόγος, αλλα πατέρων ημετερων θαυμαστων και επί σημων ανδρων. In cap. Matt. i. Hom. 3. vol. vii. p. 20.

† Ουκέτι λέγει ότι αυτος, αλλ' ότι δι' αυτου ὁ Θεὸς, ἵνα μαλλον των μετριάζειν εφελκυσηται. In Acta Apostolorum cap. ii.

Hom. 6. vol. viii. p. 491.

§ Ου λεγει ὧν ειπεν ὁ Χριστός, αλλ ̓ ὧν ελάλησεν ὁ Θεός, ετι τῷ συσκιαζειν μαλλον αυτούς επαγόμενος εις πίστιν ηρεμα. In Acta Apostolorum, Hom. 9. vol. viii. p. 511.

Athanasius, Chrysostom, and other orthodox fathers of the church, considering what we know of the character and the instructions of the apostles. They were plain men, and little qualified to act the cautious part here ascribed to them. And their instructions certainly were to teach all that they knew, even what their master communicated to them in the greatest privacy. Whereas, upon this scheme, they must have suffered numbers to die in the ignorance of the most important truth in the gospel, lest, by divulging it too soon, the conversion of others should have been prevented. The case evidently was, that these fathers did not know how to account for the great prevalence of the unitarian doctrine among the Gentiles as well as the Jews in the early ages of christianity, but upon such a hypothesis as this. Let their successors do better if they

can.

This observation on the character and instructions of the apostles must make all such accounts of their conduct absolutely incredible with respect to every doctrine of consequence, on which they could not but lay proportionable stress. But it may perhaps enable us to account for the ignorance of the Jews, and other early christians, with respect to matters of little or no consequence, on which the apostles did not lay any stress, and for which reason they might say little or nothing about them, as for instance with respect to the miraculous conception.

In our Saviour's lifetime he certainly passed for the son of Joseph with the Jews in general. The first disciples would naturally adopt the same opinion; and it does not appear that the apostles thought it a matter of consequence enough to set them right with respect

to it. For there is no reference whatever to the miraculous conception either in the book of Acts, or in any of the Epistles. Indeed that doctrine has never been thought to be of any importance in itself; Christ being as properly a man on one supposition as on the other. It is therefore only of importance with respect to the credit of Matthew and Luke, as historians, and that not with respect to what they write from their own knowledge, but only as to what they collected from others. Whereas, if Christ was not a mere man, but either truly God, or the maker of the world under God, it could not but have appeared to be a matter of the greatest consequence in the scheme of christianity itself; and the apostles would certainly have taken some opportunity of inculcating it with an energy suited to its importance. We may therefore easily account for the general prevalence of the opinion of Christ being the son of Joseph, though it was false; but it is absolutely impossible to account for the general prevalence of the doctrine of the mere humanity of Christ, on the supposition of his being either God, or the maker of the world under God, and consequently of his being known to be so by the apostles. I may perhaps take some future opportunity of making some further observations on the subject of the miraculous conception; and in the mean time the Monthly Reviewer may be indulging his conjectures, and preparing his exclamations; for which our readers will likewise be pretty well prepared. I am, &c.

LETTER V.

An Argument for the late Origin of the Doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, from the Difficulty of tracing the Time in which it was first divulged.

I

DEAR SIR,

CANNOT dismiss this subject of the strong prejudices of the Jews in general in favour of their Messiah being merely a man, (thus explicitly acknowledged by Athanasius, Chrysostom, and others, who say, that on this account the apostles did not preach the doctrine of the divinity of Christ at first, but only after the people were satisfied with respect to his Messiahship,) without requesting your opinion with respect to the time when this great secret of Christ not being merely a man, but the eternal God himself, or the maker of heaven and earth under God, was communicated, first to the apostles themselves, and then by them to the body of christians.

You cannot say that John the Baptist preached any such doctrine; and when the apostles first attached themselves to Jesus, it is evident they only considered him as being such a Messiah as the rest of the Jews expected, viz. a man, and a king. When Nathaniel was introduced to him it was evidently in that light, John i. 45. Philip findeth Nathaniel, and saith unto him, We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. He had then, we may suppose, no knowledge even of the miraculous conception.

Now, as you say, p. 24, that " Christ was so much