« miraculous works, that Chrift was come, "they might afterwards bring them to the "belief of his divinity, fhewing that his « works were not thofe of a man, but of "God. For example, Peter having faid « that Chrift was a man who had fuffered, 'immediately added, he is the prince of "life. In the gofpel he confeffes, thou * art the Chrift, the Son of the living God; "and in his epiftle, he calls him the bishop " of fouls *.”

* Ουδεν γαρ αύτοις αποτμητον, ότι και αυτοι αποςόλοι τα Αρεις έφρονον. ανθρωπον γαρ αυτον απο Ναζαρέλ, και πας θηλον τον χρισον απαγγέλλεσιν, εκείνων τοινυν τοιαύζα φαν Παζομείων, ας επειδη τους ρημασί τέλοις εχρησανίο, μονοκ άνθρωπον κλεισαν τον χρισον οι απότολοι, και πλέον δεν η μη γένοιτοι εκ εςιν υδε εις νυν ποτέ τετο λαβειν· αλλά και τέτο ως αρχιτεκτονες σωφοι, και οικονομοι μυςηριων θες πες ποιήκασι. και την αιτίαν εχέσιν ευλογον επειδή γαρ οι τοτε Ιόδαροι πλανηθέντες, και πλανήσαντες Ελληνας, ενομάζον τον χρισον ψιλον άνθρωποι, μόνον εκ σπέρματος Δαβίδ αρα χεθαι, και ομοιοτητα των εκ του Δαβιδ αλλων γενομένων Τέκνων· ετε δε θεον αυτόν, εδέ οτι λογος σαρξ εγένετο επιΓευον. Τότε ενεκα, μετά πολλής της συνέσεως οι μακαριο αποςολοι τα ανθρωπινα τη σώτηρας εξηγονιό πρώτον τους Ιδαίοις, ίνα ολως πείσαντες αυτές, εκ των φαινομένων και γενομένων σημείων, εληλυθήναι του χρισον, λοιπον και εις τα περί της Θεότητος αυτό τις εν αυτές αναγάγησε, δεικνύντες οτι τα γενόμενα έργα εκ εσιν άνθρωπο, αλλα θες. αμέλει Πετρος ο λέγων ανδρα παθητον τον χρισον, ευθύς συνήπτεν κτος αρχηγός της ζωής εςιν, &c. &ς. De Sententia Dionyfii, Opera, vol. 1. P. 553, 554

There

There is a paffage in the Sermo Major de fide of this writer, published in Montfaucon's Collectio Patrum, which bears fome refemblance to this. Speaking of Peter preaching Chrift as Jefus of Nazareth, a man approved of God, he fays, "He calls “him a man, and not God, with respect "to the Jews, and others, who, like them, "confidered things according to the flesh, "from that time to the prefent. And the apoftles of our Lord, and our Lord him"felf, answered concerning himself as a Ye feek to kill me, a man who

does of the Jews at the very first promulgation of chriftianity among them, it is moft natural to fuppofe that he meant all the Jews. Paul, long after his converfion to christianity, called himself a Jew. However, it will be fufficiently evident from the whole tenor of the paffage, that he must have meant the believing Jews principally, and in fome refpects, the believing Jews only, exclufive of the unbelieving. ones. And in this conftruction of the paf-fage, I am by no means fingular, but have the fanction of trinitarians themfelves, as that of the Latin tranflator and Beaufobre.

Χρισον

The Latin tranflator of Athanafius, a catholic, and certainly no unitarian, had fo little fufpicion of any other meaning, that he renders xp in this place by Jefum. The learned Beaufobre, a trinitarian, and therefore, an unexceptionable judge in this cafe, quoting this very paffage, does not hefitate to pronounce that they were beleving Jews who were intended by the writer, "Ces Juifs," he fays, ne font pas

les Juifs incredules, mais cieux qui fa"foient profeffion du chriftianifme. But admitting

admitting that the Jews here meant were unbelieving Jews, they were fuch as the apoftles wished to convert to christianity, and many of them foon became christians. But the circumftance which decifively proves that the Jews Athanafius is fpeaking of were chriftian Jews, is their drawing the Gentiles into the belief of the fimple humanity of Chrift. For certainly the gospel was preached to the Gentiles by the believing, and not by the unbelieving Jews. If it be fuppofed that the doctrine Athanafius fpeaks of was not concerning Jefus, but the Meffiah in general, how could it intereft the Gentiles? The doctrine, therefore, must have been that concerning Jefus, and confequently, the preachers must have been christian Jews, and their profelytes chriftian Gentiles. It is ridiculous to fuppofe that the queftion could be interesting to any others.

Suppofing, however, the whole body of the Gentiles (little as they were concerned in the question) to have been previously taught by the Jews, that their Meffiah, whenever he fhould come, would be no

thing more than a man; if this was an opinion that they were as fully perfuaded of as Athanafius reprefents the Jews, their teachers, to have been, the fame caution must have been as neceffary with respect to them, as with respect to the Jews themselves, and for the fame reafon.

It has been faid, that Athanafius fays nothing about the caution of the apostles, but only speaks of their prudence, in teaching what was more eafy and neceffary, before that which was more difficult and lefs neceffary. But the term over, in the connexion in which it ftands, can bear no other fenfe than caution, and great caution, μελα πολλής της συνέσεως, and it appears from the whole tenor of the difcourfe, that Athanafius could have intended nothing else than to defcribe the prudence, or extreme caution of the apostles, and to account for it. He evidently does not reprefent them as deferring the communication of the doctrine of the divinity of Chrift, on account of its being more conveniently taught afterwards, as part of a fyftem of faith; but only left it fhould have given offence to the Jews,

If