Obrazy na stronie

evidently meant to represent them as differing from the orthodox with respect to the doctrine concerning Christ; and is to be understood as if he had said, "they be"lieve him to have been nothing more "than a righteous man, and a divine "teacher" (for claiming to be such, he could not otherwise have been a righteous man) "but they do not believe in his "pre-existence, or divinity." Orthodox persons, who believe these doctrines, are never described by any of the ancients as Theodoret has described the Nazarenes.

In the passage quoted from Epiphanius, in which he gives an account of the motives for John's writing his gospel, it is evident, both that he considered the Nazarenes as existing at that time, and also that they stood in as much need of being taught the preexistence and divinity of Christ as the Ebionites. In another place this writer compares the Nazarenes to persons who, seeing a fire at a distance, and not understanding the cause, or the use of it, run towards it, and burn themselves; "So these Jews," he says, "on hearing the name of Jesus only, *' and the miracles performed by the apos"ties, believe on him j and knowing that his "mother was with child of him at Nazareth, "that he was brought up in the house of '* Joseph, and that, on that account, he was "called a Nazarene (the apostles stiling him '* a man of Nazareth, approved by miracles, "and mighty deeds) imposed that name "upon themselves*." This can never agree with this writer supposing that the Nazarenes believed in the divinity of Christ, or indeed in the miraculous conception; much less with their having an origin subsequent to the times of the apostles. And he never mentions, or hints at, any change of opinion in the Nazarenes.

That Austin did not consider the Nazarenes in any favourable light, is evident

* Axxcravlif »/af jaovoy owput m Irrn, >y StxrofMm ra Stwnftfiae ra 3ia xt'fuv TBV aworitow ywfitva, «} avlot et; auiav uncwso-i. ywdti 3s aulov ac Nafapt7 E> yarpi cyxunovy&tfla, K) ev otxu lump avalfatpevla, *f Jia rSa ev ra euayseMa Iwrxv Nafujaicv *a.\ejcSai, a; jcj 01 aitWhat <party Itiaw roy I^af wpaioy avcfa, aTroieltnypevov ev re tm/Miot; xj refcuri «J ra thtf > n/fo ro ovo/Mt tnft&eaai* avloif, ro MoUurSat Na{aj>a«f. Hær. 29. sect- 5- Opera, vol. i. p. 120.

from, from his calling them, in his answer to Jerom, heretics, " As to the opinion of those *' heretics, who, while they would be both "Jews and christians, can neither be Jews "nor christians, &c*" It is in these very words that Jerom had characterized those whom he had called Nazarenes. What more could Austin have said of the Ebiojiites? Can it be supposed that he would have spoken of the Nazarenes in this manner, if he had fhought them orthodox with respect to the doctrine of the trinity; especially considering that it was in an age in which the greatest account was made of that doctrine; so that perfect soundness in that article might be supposed to have atoned for defects in other things. That Jerom did not consider the Nazarenes as orthodox, even if he did make them to be different from the Ebionites, is evident from his calling them not chrijlians.

If we consider the general character of the Jewish christians in the time of the

* Quid putaverint hæretici, qui qum volunt et Judæi psse et christiani, ncc Judæi cffe nec christiani else potueruntj &c. Opera, vol ?. p. 7$.

apostles, apostles, and particularly how apt they were to be alarmed at the introduction of any thing that was new to them, and had the least appearance of contrariety to the law of Moses, it will both supply a strong argument in favour of the truth of Christianity, and against their receiving the doctrine of the divinity or pre-existence of Christ either then or afterwards. Their rooted prejudices against the apostle Paul (whose conversion to Christianity must have given them great satisfaction) merely on account of his activity in preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised Gentiles (though with the approbation of the rest of the apostles) shows that they would not receive any novelty without the strongest evidence. > Their dislike of 'the apostle Paul, we know from ecclesiastical history, continued to the latest period of their existence as a church, and they would never make use of his writings. But to the very last, their objections to him amounted to nothing more than his being no friend to the law of Moses.

The resemblance between the character of $he Ebioiutcs, as given by the early chrisT tian Fathers, and that of the Jewish christians at the time of Paul's last journey to Jerusalem, is very striking. After he had given an account of his conduct to the more intelligent of them, they were satisfied with itbut they thought there would be great difficulty in satisfying others. '* Thou "seest brother," say they to him, Acts xxi. 20. "how many thousands of Jews "there are who believe, and they are all *' zealous of the law. And they are in*' formed of thee, that thou teachest all the M Jews who are among the Gentiles, to for"fake Moses j saying that they ought not "to circumcise their children, neither to t* walk after the customs. What is it f therefore? The multitudes must needs "come together, for they will hear that f* thou art come. Do therefore this that "we fay unto thee : We have four men who f' have a vow on them j them take, and puff rify thyself with them, and be at charges •f with them, that they may (have their f heads, and all may know that those things t* whereof they were informed concerning f* thee are nothing, but fhat fhou thyself 3 "also

« PoprzedniaDalej »