Cyril of Alexandria fays, that " John "was the first who taught more fublime things." Marius Mercator fays, that the three former evangelifts, having spoken of Christ as a man, John fhewed him to be God +."

tempore, fed primus in capite facramenti, quippe qui folus e quatuor fluminibus ex ipfo fummo divini capitis fonte decurrens, de nube fublimi tonat: in principio erat verbum, et verbum erat apud deum, et deus erat verbum : tranfcendit Moyfen, qui ufque ad caput mundi et vifibilium creaturarum exordia fcientiæ terminos, et faciem mentis extendit. Ifte et evangeliftis cæteris, vel ab humano falvatoris ortu, vel a typico legis facrificio, vel a prophetico præcurforis baptiftæ præconio, refurrectionis evangelium exorfis, altius volans penetravit et coelos. Neque in angelis ftetit, fed archangelos quoque et omnes defuper creaturas, virtutes, principatus, dominationes, thronos, fupergreffus, in ipfum fe creatorem ardua mente direxit, et ab illa ineffabili generatione ordiens, et coeternum et confubftantialem, et co-omnipotentem, et co-opificem patri filium nunciavit. Ad Amandum, p. 213.

Joannes theologus, tonitrui filius, cui divina dignatione conceffum, ut fupra dominicum pectus recubuerit, indeque nobis fublimiora ac divina hauferit dogmata: cum excellentem erga nos dei benignitatem commendare vellet, primumque quæ diviniora funt dixiffet, utpote ifta, in principio erat verbum. Hom. Opera, vol. 2. p. 75.

+ Poft quam præfationem fubdefcendens, ut oftenderet quem illi tres evangeliftae hominem fcripferant, effe etiam deum. Opera, p. 165.

VOL, III.

L

Cofmas

Cofmas Indicopleuftes, defcribing John as theologus, and the chief of the evange lifts, fays, that "he wrote to fupply the "defects of the former evangelifts, and "efpecially in preaching clearly the divi"nity of Christ, making that the founda"tion of his work, all which had been "omitted by the others. Wherefore, beginning at his divinity, he immediately paffed to his humanity *."

66

"that doctrine, left the logos of God "should have been thought to be a mere "man, without any divinity*.”

16

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 +." “As "John," he says, "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-existence and divinity of Christ, may

Επει γαρ οι άλλοι εκ εμνήσθησαν περί της που αιώνων υπάρξεως το θεο λόγο, αυτό εθεολόγησε περί ταύτης, ινα μη νομισθείη ο τε θες που θα ψιλος ανθρωπος είναι. In Matt. Pref. vol. 1. p. 1, 2. Α ́Δεος μεν ην μη τινες χαμαιπείεις και μηδεν υψηλον νοήσαι δυναμένοι, νομίσωσι τον χρισον τότε προΐον εις υπαρξιν ελθείν ότι απο Μαμιας εγενήθης και εχει προ αιώνων εκ το παρος γεννηθήναι, ο πανίων #indiano Ezucsaltug. In John, cap. 1. vol. 1. p. 553.

c

1 Επει γαρ παρε πάντας της ευαγγελίσας υψηλότερα περί το κύριο φθεγεται, καὶ θεολογεί μεγάλα τια, δια τετο α) εν τοις σωματικοῖς πολύ ταπεινότερα φθεγεται, όθεν και εν τω πείθει πολύ το ανθρωπινον έχειν φησιν, από τότε SEXTURY

L 2

apostles, and not the timid caution and management which these 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 case as in the other? And what remarkably strong evidence was necessary to convince them that the obligation of their law did not extend to the Gentiles ?

Would they, then, have received what Chrysostom conlidered as the more offensive doctrine of the two, without any pretence to a particular revelation on the subject ? It may

be said, that all the caution of which we have been speaking was necessary with respect to the unbelieving Jerus only, into whose hands these gospels, and the other writings of the New Testament, might fall. But how impossible must it have been to conceal from the unbelieving Jews the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, if it had been a favourite article with the believing Jews. If this had been the case, 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 supposed caution of the evangelists, &c. would have come too late, and would have answered no purpose whatever.

This

L 4